Our Brain on Google

 William Badke’s article titled "How Stupid is Google Making Us?" (2012) discusses that Google is not making us stupid but rather the broadness of the technological age is transforming our brains into some sort of incomprehensible multiliterate processor that possesses the ability to research semi-effectively without using deep contemplation on the subject. Badke supports his evaluation through many discussions including: the challenges to good research, the iBrain study, different definitions for the word stupid, fears behind such a multiliterate generation, and lastly, how we can stimulate different parts of the brain to galvanize deep analysis. The purpose of Badke’s evaluation is to provide his readers with a basic understanding of how, what, and why the information age is similar and different to older generations in order to inform the current generation of how this technological age is aiding in an overall learning transformation. Badke establishes a relationship with the audience by providing interesting scientific research along with fears and suggestions as to how we can change by the way information literature is received, which enables students alike to see all sides of the argument.

Overall, we believe Badke did a great job providing a plethora of information to his readers. The iBrain study is perhaps the most interesting piece of this evaluation because it shows that just because we live in a technologically advanced world, we still possess the ability to utilize deep memory as long as we are taught how to think critically. We believe the biggest issue with information literature is not the fact that technology use has increased, but the fact that we, as students, know how easy it is to find information. Sometimes we will procrastinate on researching which leaves us with little to no time to think critically on the assignment. Sometimes our schedules are so hectic that we don’t mean to procrastinate, but it just happens. Either scenario increases the likelihood that our deep thought process is hindered simply from a lack of time set aside for the assignment, whether it is intentional or not. As stated by Badke, “Students have been doing shallow research at the last minute with minimal thought since long before the electronic age” (226) which shows us that this isn’t something that is newly found. This is a problem existent upon many students who either have too much going on or they are procrastinators.

Badke is not suggesting that Google is making us stupid, but rather stating that search engines provide information so quickly that we do not allow ourselves to think deeply. Could this phenomenon of rapid data absorption create a society capable of deep thought? Or is it absolutely necessary for students to learn and utilize deep thinking skills? Badke answers these questions quite nicely as he states, “As the more traditional educators have been saying for years, skill with information is no substitute for a shallow knowledgebase and lack of emphasis on deep thought” (226). The information is out there, but it remains up to the student to possess the ability of deep thought in order to fully understand what is being researched. Badke states nicely “that this is not an either/or situation” (226), a student must possess critical thinking skills in order to be a fully educated student. There cannot be one or the other; the two go hand in hand.