In a world that becomes both increasingly complicated yet convenient, it is vital that we as a society take a step back and absorb the bigger picture. Convenience these days is all the rage. In a family that has a single parent who balances work, kids, and everything in between, convenience is the forefront of necessity. What we sometimes fail to see, however, is the risk and compromise of this luxury. All authors take a persuasive approach to explaining the precautions of the amenity that is to come. While Maryanne Wolf, author of “Learning to Think in A Digital World,” does not necessarily seem to appose it, she uses Socrates, modern cognitive neuroscience, and Proust as her aid in ultimately proving that humans can adjust, if they learn the right way first. She feels that we need to develop a “reading brain” prior to making any type of transition into a digital culture. Richard E. Miller, author of “The Coming Apocalypse,” poses that “literature is a refuge for those who cannot contend with the present.” He feels as though the world wide web provides the opportunity to work with the most powerful media of our time. Nicholas Carr uses, “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” to express his fear that the web does not necessarily make us read different, but it makes us think different. As a society, he fears we will eventually lose our ability to think deeper. He so wisely describes, “Once i was a scuba diver in the sea of words, now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski.”

Our Reading Brain

What I find common in the approach of all three authors, is that they all stress an importance in finding the ability to read deeper. The web provides an extreme convenience in that we now have the ability to look up information within seconds of our mind’s request, but if we only skim along the surface, we do not allow our mind to think deeper. It would be as if the world took what a person said for face value, and never questioned it. I can think of a few historical events where something of that nature occurred, at the outcome–catastrophic. I do very much agree with the necessity to read deeper, however, I do not think it is the world wide web that causes a demise in the way we as a society think.

Do not be a follower. You have your own mind!

Do not be a follower. You have your own mind!

I personally feel that based on the accuracy of what I read, I have all the knowledge of the internet if I only willingly seek it. What causes the blurred line in the way we think or read, is not the convenience of the internet, in my opinion. I find that I personally get a better read and deeper thought process when I divulge myself in a topic that I find interesting. Passion. The way an author writes may have the ability to instill a passion into you, but what really gets the drive going is a topic that is personally intriguing the the reader. What one person finds interesting, another may not. They more then likely will not have the same read, or think the same thing. So while I find these author’s points solid, I do not agree nor find them valid. A fear of the unlimited resources within the internet is what causes a rebellion to it. I have basically grown up, and gone through school with the internet available to me. I personally do not think I have a different way of thinking based off of the source in which I gain my knowledge. I do, however, find Maryanne Wolf’s article to be the most insightful. Perhaps it is important to raise our children without the aid of convenience that the internet provides, not in fear of it, but because the internet is the easiest way to get information. They should know how to seek information without total simplicity. This could help them read deeper, but more importantly, it will give them a work integrity. A good work ethic is what will drive a person to think deeper, wish to learn more, and work to gain that sought after information.