7 ways your gadgets are making you stupider

Don’t worry. This isn’t a list.

I’m incredibly curious about the origin of what seems to be a list addiction. You could argue that everything is catchier or more factual if it’s backed by a number. Or you might think that Buzzfeed has just conditioned all of us to click when we see, “25 ways Nutella makes things better” or “38 things only best friends will understand” because it reminds us of that really great time that we did, in fact, stop what we were doing and look at this tiny hippo. Regardless, titles like these do attract attention. They do get traffic, and they’re not limited to gimmick articles with gifs and catchy captions. They’re all over the Huffington Post, Google News and our very own Chronicle.

Physical newspapers don’t really necessitate this sort of attention grabbing. Headlines are important but, once purchased, the newspaper has no incentive to raise the number of times readers flip to page two. But an online culture where Americans across all age groups spend about 3 hours on social media every day has brought the focus for news and other publications around to generating traffic. Each click promotes ad sales. And each catchy title promotes clicks.

But technology hasn’t just changed the way we read online—it has changed the way we read everything. E-readers are pervasive, differentiating themselves by offering screens that rely on eInk to resemble a physical book. Whereas iPads, smartphones and computer screens have digital pixelated images and can lead to ‘Computer Vision Syndrome,’ here is a device which looks like a book, but has the added functionality of holding hundreds of books in a fraction of the volume. It’s easy to see the source of popularity, and even ignoring all other companies and devices, Amazon’s Kindle sales account for approximately 20 million devices in 2013.

Yet reading on a device, as opposed to a physical book, must have some effect. Often, studies hypothesize that eBooks will limit the degree to which readers are able to engage emotionally in the narrative. However, this proves wrong, with studies frequently showing that e-Readers and paper books have the same capacity to engage (or lack thereof, in some cases). This isn’t that surprising; although paperback and hardcover books offer nostalgia and tactility, there doesn’t seem to be anything intrinsically more engaging about paper than plastic. What has been seen in these comparison studies, however, is a loss of comprehension and retention for e-Readers. Those using Kindles or Nooks often have a significantly harder time placing events they read about in chronological order.

It’s not immediately obvious why this is the case. Maybe we’ve been trained to skim through web articles, glancing at what might be of interest and what is just fluff. Regardless, it’s apparent that the move from paper to screen, from low-tech to high, alters not just superficially how we read (i.e.: what we hold, what we see), but it fundamentally changes our understanding.

Our generation is one that barely possesses a memory of life before modern technology. And unless something drastic happens, all future generations will only know life with smartphones. The value of technology is incredible—an amazing number of social movements, start-ups and philanthropy projects have been able to capitalize on the Internet and technology and succeed in a way they wouldn’t have been able to in a low-tech world. But at the same time, trade-offs must be understood. When does technology enable something to be done in a better and more rigorous way, and when does it just speed something up? More importantly, when can we afford to sacrifice that rigor?

There is no doubt that new technology is making us stupider. We don’t have to memorize facts or figures and often rely on simple Google searches as a substitute for human memory. We don’t have to develop navigational skills because Siri will coach you from point A to point B. I’m happy to sacrifice memorization skills and chalk it up to the new millennium, but I don’t know if I would be just as happy to accept that fewer bookshelves or a lighter backpack is worth the trade-off in understanding. I don’t think that the current status of technology leaves us in any position to accept the status quo. Usage needs to continue to be challenged and redefined, as long as it continues to alter (or replace) human tasks and abilities.