Blogs
“Networked thought” — truth or delusion?
My friend Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 has a thoughtful post up about how he hardly reads books any more, and mostly does his reading on the Web, through blogs and other online media. In the post, he wonders whether this is just for convenience — or whether it’s because the actual way that he thinks has changed into something non-linear, to the point where reading books just isn’t as enjoyable as it used to be.
This is something I’ve thought a fair bit about as well, and I recall talking to Paul Kedrosky about how few books I read any more. Like Scott, I’m a literature major, and have shelves full of books that I have read (and want to read). And I still do read books — but mostly at the beach or the cottage, or other places where there’s no Internet access. Is that something to be ashamed of, or is there more to it than that?
I think the most common criticism of people who do all their reading on the Web is that they are like moths, flitting from flame to flame, never stopping in one place long enough to actually think something through. In this view, the Web is a medium designed for those with short attention spans. The other perspective, however, is the one that Scott is advancing: that the Web enables you to connect thoughts and ideas that you might not otherwise have had, and therefore is actually of more value rather than less.
I think about how reading the newspaper is an inherently unsatisfying experience in a lot of ways now, because when I read something that triggers a thought or idea, or a desire for more information, I can’t just click it and do a Google search. Does that mean I’m not giving the story the attention it deserves? Hardly. I think if anything it makes it easier to use an article as a jumping off point for further thought and discussion. Reading books feels awkward in part because — as Jeff Jarvis described in a Guardian piece he wrote — they’re not connected to anything.
Obviously there’s always time for relaxation and thoughtful reflection, and there’s a time for escapism as well, and books are great for both of those things. But when it comes to consuming information and trying to connect it to other information as a way of generating ideas or coming to conclusions, nothing beats the Web — except maybe a great conversation with friends over dinner and drinks, of course :-)
license
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
subscribe
grazr
TwitterCount
busted tees
Discussion
for ““Networked thought” — truth or delusion?”
"Web enables you to connect thoughts and ideas that you might not otherwise have had, and therefore is actually of more value rather than less."
Scot is correct- book reading is only a means to dilute the mind when there is no net access.
However, mans best friend is h/er books.. books cannot die, even though society changes, books will remain the foundation of learning- schools will still use books .. else it impossible to teach. Or maybe the world will change so much that humanity will forget how to write?
think about it ..a blank book is a blank book , unit the kid scribbles in it.. after that is becomes part of a time vault :)-
"the Web enables you to connect thoughts and ideas that you might not otherwise have had, and therefore is actually of more value rather than less."
Yes, but *you* are not doing the connecting: you are following links that others have predetermined, either directly (by creating links) or indirectly (by writing algorithms which create links or results from your searches).
"when I read something that triggers a thought or idea, or a desire for more information, I can’t just click it and do a Google search."
And in what way is doing a Google search, or following a link which someone has created, thinking for yourself? What Scott is describing isn't thought, which involves actually thinking arguments and ideas through for yourself, but research, which is a much more simple process. Not having the ability to click through and find out what others have already thought forces me to interpret something for myself, to have my own ideas about the meaning and significance of something which may be entirely original. Allowing me to constantly click through into someone else's ideas about what something means stifles my own creativity.
I'm going to have to disagree, Ian. Sitting and thinking in a vacuum
is valuable as well, but when I follow links it isn't just the
specific information that I come across that has an effect -- it's all
the thinking I'm doing about the connections between that information
and other ideas, which leads me to follow other links, etc. You're
right in that it is more like research, and eventually that research
has to be assimilated and thought about -- but it's still very
valuable, I think.
Oh, I'm not denying that it has value: far from it, it's an enormously valuable tool - if it's not used to the exclusion of other valuable tools. But it's worth noting that knowledge has never proceeded solely by one method. Along with the book, there is the discussion, the development of ideas through community dialog, the testing of ideas against the ideas of others. This is all part of study, and research, and the development of ideas.
But Scott's post isn't titled "networked research" or "networked study" - it's about the evolution from linear thought to "networked thought". The thing is, there is no "thought" here until you start thinking about the information you're collating. And when you start doing the thinking, you're doing it in exactly the same way that humans have always done it - linearly, one idea after the other, in an inner narrative.
And, of course, you can see that in what you do next: you construct a blog post about it. A good old linear narrative. Which we discuss linearly, via the medium of a textual discussion - just as we would do face to face. There is no "networked thought" here: just networks of people, doing thinking, and discussing ideas in a way which doesn't have to be followed linearly in order to make sense.
I guess, at the end of the day, I just think that the term "networked thought" is too sloppy: it's the discourse that's networked, not the thinking.
The term may not be that elegant, I agree, Ian -- and you're right
that none of these things happen in isolation. But I still think
Scott has put his finger on something interesting.
Reading books feels awkward in part because— they’re not connected to anything.
Other than your imagination and possibly your soul.....(and of course your neural network too just in case you rolled your eyes at the soul comment)
Time to but your networked ADD aside M and go home and read a book. :)
Hey, I said books were great for escape and quiet moments on the beach
or at the cottage -- anywhere there's no Internet access :-)
I think a lot of people who grew up with books and print news and now spend much of their work day and spare time both share this feeling.
I certainly feel it -- something of a sense of loss, maybe? -- and have had many conversations with colleagues where we talk about growing up sitting over a print newspaper over breakfast and days filled with consuming books.
Personally I've been rejuvenated of late because of my purchase of the Amazon Kindle. It's a revelation to be able to sneak a few pages of a book in here or there while on the go. There are certainly some imperfect aspects to this new product, but overall I'm overjoyed as it has allowed me to bring book reading back into the course of my day-to-day life.
Thanks for that perspective, Eric. I have yet to get my hands on a
Kindle, so it's hard to know how (or if) it would affect my views on
books, etc.