"Is Google Making Us Stupid" (an article about the consequences of using the internet)

[INeedToPee]

so for one of my classes we had to read an article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/). the article is not really about how Google/the internet makes us stupider, as the title might suggest. it's pretty long, and i only skimmed through it (ironically, this is sorta what the article talks about), but basically what i got from it was that Google, being a reliable source of almost-instantaneous information, is causing a "rewiring" of our brains to be more impatient in absorbing information. as a result, it is more difficult for us to focus on long texts and such.

as a daily user of google, i think it's very true what the author is saying. i think i have been more affected than most of my peers because im good at using google and i use it for almost everything. and google is a great tool (it is essentially an extension of my brain at this point) but my heavy reliance on it has consequences.

i posted this because i think a lot of you would find this interesting. and also id love to hear your thoughts on this idea, supporting and refuting.

 

[Cognisant]

It seems to be a natural adaptation, the more information we have the less worthy that information is by bit relative to the finite amount of time we have to process it, which is exactly why search engines exist in the first place, ideally one would read the entire internet, but we have neither the time nor memory to undertake such an endeavour, so we use search engines to pick and choose information as we deem it relevant to us.

The brain does the same thing, you don't remember everything that happens to you, instead you remember only the information and events you deem most important to you, which (just as with the internet) can result in the fallacy of confirmation bias if you don't strive for objective validity.

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

Who has time for, or even remembers how to do, long division these days? I tried at work the other day and was amazed by how foreign it all was.

There was a time I went almost 2 years without a computer. I think I read more books than now but not by much. What I noticed more was my outlook was far more localized, probably from having the local news as my only media source, and there was fewer distractions which was good and bad.

 

[snafupants]

and google is a great tool (it is essentially an extension of my brain at this point) but my heavy reliance on it has consequences.

It's all been smooth sailing for me - I just find it stimulating and fruitful.

Also, I use google as a tool or information snorkel rather than a crutch.

Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

Hm, I hear what the article is saying but I can easily switch gears and read for extended periods too.

Maybe the internet turns on the scattered enneagram seven component of enneagram five.

Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet.

Interesting finding. I wonder if the former group has more parietal lobe activity.

Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.

What about dictation?!

 

[Architect]

Loose terms - what does he mean by stupid? Really what is happening is a different kind of intelligence is being developed. Let me give an example ... in the old days I would write software by using intense concentration, 'diving deep' as he says. During this you discover problems you need to solve, and I would spend hours trying to figure them out. I was also reinventing the wheel as somebody else surely had also found a solution, but I had no way of communicating it.

Now we have the internet and Stack Overflow, a site where developers can ask these questions. So now I develop with a browser in one hand, and the IDE in another. I spend up to half my time searching for answers to issues that somebody else has an answer to, or at least some insight.

He calls it being dumber, I call it progress. And yes it makes more more impatient, because I can get so much more done now more quickly. I'm also sure that the first people who got a taste of the horseless carriage became impatient with their Traps too.

Articles like this are inevitable as technological change accelerates, writers gotta eat too. Expect more hand wringing going forward.

 

[INeedToPee]

It seems to be a natural adaptation, the more information we have the less worthy that information is by bit relative to the finite amount of time we have to process it...

yup i've come to the same conclusion. and i think the fact that it's so much easier to access the piece of information you need makes our brains lazier in a sense, since we don't have to scan a document like we would've had to in the past (i make good use of the ctrl-f function, for example. i don't even have to skim to find key words anymore)

There was a time I went almost 2 years without a computer. I think I read more books than now but not by much. What I noticed more was my outlook was far more localized, probably from having the local news as my only media source, and there was fewer distractions which was good and bad.

that sounds like a nightmare. i don't know what i would do without technology

It's all been smooth sailing for me - I just find it stimulating and fruitful.

Also, I use google as a tool or information snorkel rather than a crutch.


Hm, I hear what the article is saying but I can easily switch gears and read for extended periods too.

i can too, but i find it a bit difficult. i "switch gears" but its draining when i go into full gear. it requires caffeine and strong motivation (like studying 3 hours before a test). dont know if that's because of Google/the internet or because im a lazy person though.

Loose terms - what does he mean by stupid? Really what is happening is a different kind of intelligence is being developed...

i thought the same thing, but he doesn't really mean "stupid" in the normal sense of the word (i think its just a way to catch your attention) he's talking about how the reliance on google/technology is affecting the way we absorb information. but i agree with you that technology brings progress (and im not sure the article goes against that). i think its good that someone is recognizing that there's a negative side to technology. but i do think the tradeoffs are worth it, and i would not give up the internet for anything.

warren buffet said "I would gladly pay half my net worth just to have that kind of information available to me. They haven't figured out how to charge me what it's worth. That's one of the problems they've got." it goes to show just how valuable this resource is.

 

[ccmbeast]

I read somewhere, something similar. It talked about how, the developments in technology to "save" information digitally, so that it's easily accessible and we don't need to physically remember exactly what it is ourselves - ultimately taking less effort and thus giving our brain less "practice" so to speak at remembering and taking down the information we learnt. It's not so much making us stupider pre se, as making the brain lazier. I know personally, I find it difficult to remember details of something (such at where I read this article and whom it was written by) and I attribute that partly to my (intp) disinterest in mundane details, and partly to my almost dependant behaviour towards digitally (or even pen and paper-ly) "saving" my thoughts, pages, documents, images etcetera. I've always had this notion that if it's saved there, I can go back to look at it at any time. Which I almost never do, because I'm always out looking fo new information. I found this particuarlly hindering at school, where I was having information forced down my throat, decreasing the level of my interest in. However, since leaving school I've discovered I have strong interests in all sorts of subjects such as many sciences, maths, arts and history, which while attending school, I found dull and disinteresting(well, all apart from art).
Anyway, I've gone off topic, but in conclusion: [opinions]

 

[ccmbeast]

Who has time for, or even remembers how to do, long division these days? I tried at work the other day and was amazed by how foreign it all was.

There was a time I went almost 2 years without a computer. I think I read more books than now but not by much. What I noticed more was my outlook was far more localized, probably from having the local news as my only media source, and there was fewer distractions which was good and bad.

OH, OH, ME! But all that was drilled into my head by my (asian) mother, so go figure.
I'm currently in china, and for the first month, I had no internet access or social networking at all. Nor did I even have any new books I could delve more information out of, and I found I was much, much more localised and observant as well. Although already quite observant when I take the time to be, I found it easier to remember the small things, and listen to people (due to the sudden and significant lack of intake of information available) Actually, I found it easier to socialise and talk to people that would normally annoy me (and now, kind of do :/) So, both sides of the coin have different 'pros and cons' so to speak

that sounds like a nightmare. i don't know what i would do without technology


i thought the same thing, but he doesn't really mean "stupid" in the normal sense of the word (i think its just a way to catch your attention) he's talking about how the reliance on google/technology is affecting the way we absorb information. but i agree with you that technology brings progress (and im not sure the article goes against that). i think its good that someone is recognizing that there's a negative side to technology. but i do think the tradeoffs are worth it, and i would not give up the internet for anything.

warren buffet said "I would gladly pay half my net worth just to have that kind of information available to me. They haven't figured out how to charge me what it's worth. That's one of the problems they've got." it goes to show just how valuable this resource is.

I went out a lot, still not receiving a lot of sunshine, but took some nice photos (Y) Honestly, it was nice to have a break from it all, but with that breath of fresh air, I'm set for a good long while now

 

[pjoa09]

He's just upset that his sets of Encyclopedias are useless now.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

He's just upset that his sets of Encyclopedias are useless now.

Hah, I can imagine it.

 

[scorpiomover]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We all knew this was bound to happen. Look at what happened when we replaced the slide rule with the calculator. When everyone could add up and multiply with a slide rule, everyone was brilliant at arithmetic. Everyone. People rarely made mistakes in computation. A few years after the calculator was introduced, and kids couldn't add up without it, and even so, they still made plenty of mistakes, because they would enter the numbers in wrong. A few years on, and the numbers of people who couldn't add up at all, soared.

We become reliant on the tools that we have, and that makes us weak, even weaker than without those tools, fore we start even making mistakes in the use of our tool.

The internet is what the calculators was, to reading. Given a few more years, and people will say "Why should I study at all, when I can find any answer on the internet?" Then the mistakes due to lack of research and lack of study, will be so huge, that people will wonder how anything could possibly have been achieved without the internet to provide all the answers.

If we then have a global EMP, or a computer virus that cannot be stopped, and destroys the internet, what will happen to humanity then? Guess we're stuck with it now. Global climate change may mean problems for computers. We'll have to keep computers alive, no matter what, and if that means many people will have to starve, then that's the choice that humanity will probably make.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Thank you.

 

[Coolydudey]

Google for me represents the search for knowledge. Ergo, It cannot replace my capacity to think, or even reduce it. It simply provides me with information.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Another question could be raised:
Given how google provides us with faster access to information
Given how some information is valuable and some is junk

How much faster do we really find useful information compared to traditional methods? Libraries, conversation etc.

some side variables that would help answer this question imo:

% Of junk information we find before we find good information
% Of junk information we fail to recognize and treat as good

 

[rjioej23]

Google is a tool. Like a hammer. Or a fishing rod. It is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Tools make our lives easier. We started off with stones and flints. Now we have Google.

 

[Jake]

In my personal experience people who don't rely on Google struggle more than people who do, because we all rely on the internet so much that anyone who refuses to take part is at an automatic disadvantage. My parents ask me the simplest technology-related questions (usually about a problem we're having with our router or something) because they seem to think I'm a fountain of knowledge or something. I've tried to explain that I Google almost everything they ask me, that they could find all of this information instantly by just looking it up, but they haven't stopped bringing all of their problems to me. It's very frustrating. So yes, we may be very dependent on the internet, but it's a strength, not a weakness. It's like the difference between people who refuse to look things up in books and people who read to learn new things.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Spoiler

In my personal experience people who don't rely on Google struggle more than people who do, because we all rely on the internet so much that anyone who refuses to take part is at an automatic disadvantage. My parents ask me the simplest technology-related questions (usually about a problem we're having with our router or something) because they seem to think I'm a fountain of knowledge or something. I've tried to explain that I Google almost everything they ask me, that they could find all of this information instantly by just looking it up, but they haven't stopped bringing all of their problems to me. It's very frustrating. So yes, we may be very dependent on the internet, but it's a strength, not a weakness. It's like the difference between people who refuse to look things up in books and people who read to learn new things.

Consider this:
Previously you had no need of using google. Without internet and world shaped around it people lived their lives and went to libraries or other places to find information they were interested in.

All the simple technology related problems did not exist then.
You had no need of answering and solving problems that arose today.

How does it make internet dependance a strenght?
How does, having yet another set of problems and tools you rely on to solve these, make it a strenght?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Google is a tool. Like a hammer. Or a fishing rod. It is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Tools make our lives easier. We started off with stones and flints. Now we have Google.

That may be right, but sometimes banging in a nail with a fishing rod just won't do it.

 

[Void]

I didnt read most of these responses, so call me out if I point out something meh.

I always thought of this process as simple physics.

x = v * t

distance = velocity * time

If the velocity increases, and the distance stays the same, the time decreases. Which I think is what we're seeing here. We get information faster, but we don't really delve substantially deeper in the information. So the time we spend is shorter. And since we're human beings, we adapt to this change. So we set our concentration time lower. Or maybe the correct way of putting it is that it gets set lower, not that we set it lower.

Makes me think, maybe ADHD and all the other concentration disorders are just high speed concentrations covering the same distance...

The fact that he calls it 'dumber' is just due to a paradigm difference between pre-internet and internet people?

 

[Turniphead]

Consider this:
Previously you had no need of using Libraries. Without books and world shaped around it people lived their lives and went to church or other places to find information they were interested in.

All the simple technology related problems did not exist then.
You had no need of answering and solving problems that arose today.

How does it make library dependance a strenght?
How does, having yet another set of problems and tools you rely on to solve these, make it a strenght?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Not again. We are a result of a symmetry breaking temporary imbalance in an equation that will always evaluate to 0.

This makes anything worth anything to any ammount of matter in any particular instance of time.

Depending on the circumstances and perspective that is selected there are instances of time where this equation has preference to be non 0.

Relativism proves itself to be absurdly reliable tool for us to be dependent on. Strenght in change .

 

[pernoctator]

Consider this:
Previously you had no need of using google. Without internet and world shaped around it people lived their lives and went to libraries or other places to find information they were interested in.

All the simple technology related problems did not exist then.
You had no need of answering and solving problems that arose today.

How does it make internet dependance a strenght?
How does, having yet another set of problems and tools you rely on to solve these, make it a strenght?

Seriously? As little as 15 years ago, we couldn't rely on search engines. Are you saying all modern technology related problems have arisen in that time? You're also not factoring in the multitude of problems that no longer exist because of the technology such that the net change in the number of "problems" is not increasing while the strengths are there nonetheless.

This includes even the problems that were born out of the technology that have disappeared through its improvement in a relatively very short period of time. When search engines first became available, you had to time your searches around the schedules of everyone in the household as they all huddled around a single wired telephone. If you wanted video demonstration, you had to wait all day, which significantly affected your monthly bill. So you check MapQuest for the nearest library to rent a tape. It's not there because it doesn't know your city yet. You get the tape, but some jackass forgot to rewind it. By the time you do that, your bloody walkman's battery is dead again.

The notion that the aid given by our tools is linearly proportional to new problems that have arisen from their existence is ludicrous, now more than ever. Access to information has exploded to an unprecedented degree in a very short period of time. The virus on mum's Dell doesn't cancel that out.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Seriously? As little as 15 years ago, we couldn't rely on search engines. Are you saying all modern technology related problems have arisen in that time? You're also not factoring in the multitude of problems that no longer exist because of the technology such that the net change in the number of "problems" is not increasing while the strengths are there nonetheless.

This includes even the problems that were born out of the technology that have disappeared through its improvement in a relatively very short period of time. When search engines first became available, you had to time your searches around the schedules of everyone in the household as they all huddled around a single wired telephone. If you wanted video demonstration, you had to wait all day, which significantly affected your monthly bill. So you check MapQuest for the nearest library to rent a tape. It's not there because it doesn't know your city yet. You get the tape, but some jackass forgot to rewind it. By the time you do that, your bloody walkman's battery is dead again.

The notion that the aid given by our tools is linearly proportional to new problems that have arisen from their existence is ludicrous, now more than ever. Access to information has exploded to an unprecedented degree in a very short period of time. The virus on mum's Dell doesn't cancel that out.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Seriously? As little as 15 years ago, we couldn't rely on search engines. Are you saying all modern technology related problems have arisen in that time?

No i gave an example on how most if not all new problems arose along technology.
I did not specify time period to 15 years. What could be misleading was my

"Without internet and world shaped around it people lived their lives and went to libraries"

bit.
I am refering to the technology and to the instance of technology which is internet.
I have some difficulty following your construction of sentences.
For clarity I will analyse one at a time.
Please tell me if i get your message right.

Spoiler

You're also not factoring in the multitude of problems that no longer exist because of the technology such that the net change in the number of "problems" is not increasing while the strengths are there nonetheless.

What i understand:
I am not considering many problems that do no longer exist because there is technology[?such that] so that the distance from 0 of problems is not increasing while the strenghts are there.


I do not consider problems that do not longer exist. Bluntly I consider problems that exist now and require technology to be solved. Yes ammount of problems remains stable while human capacity also remains stable.


We have an agreement so far.

This includes even the problems that were born out of the technology that have disappeared through its improvement in a relatively very short period of time.

I do not mention problems solved now, including problems created by technology that were solved by development in technology.

In fact I mention problems that are creating by the technology and require technology to be solved.
"All the simple technology related problems did not exist then.
You had no need of answering and solving problems that arose today."

Spoiler

When search engines first became available, you had to time your searches around the schedules of everyone in the household as they all huddled around a single wired telephone. If you wanted video demonstration, you had to wait all day, which significantly affected your monthly bill.

This is an example of a technology related problem. You had a problem to use the internet. Previously there was no internet and no need to use the internet.

So you check MapQuest for the nearest library to rent a tape. It's not there because it doesn't know your city yet.

You imply that a tool namely MapQuest is required to solve a problem of getting to the nearest library to rent a tape?

How did you find yourself in a situation where you need to find a nearest library to rent a tape?
Tapes are tools as well as libraries.
So what exactly did you need those tools for?

You get the tape, but some jackass forgot to rewind it. By the time you do that, your bloody walkman's battery is dead again.

It can be annoying agreed. Given how both walkman and batteries are tools for solving technology related problems.

Spoiler

The notion that the aid given by our tools is linearly proportional to new problems that have arisen from their existence is ludicrous, now more than ever. Access to information has exploded to an unprecedented degree in a very short period of time. The virus on mum's Dell doesn't cancel that out.

Not linearly, directly. This may include more than linear trend.

I respect your opinion on how access to information is good. But again it seems to me this information is a tool, or does it have some purpose?

You seem to be comparing the same notions.
In a feudal era people usually focused on one skill and required information to practice this discipline.
This could mean that they usually required a few books and years of practice to achieve proficiency.
This meant that they can practice their art and even be highly skilled in relation to the period they were living in.

In modern era man with the same proficiency as the medieval artisan could struggle to achieve his goals. Usually you require more information and technology to adapt to the society that has standards set to this technology.

It relates to the google dumbing us down topic in this sense that we have more and more dependencies and information that we require for existence and yet we solve our problems on a personal level but are forced to operate on the technological level with a chain of requirements and problems that come with this.

In a sense, we do not choose the degree of technology in our enviroment but still retain some freedom of decision as to what we need in our lives.

 

[pernoctator]

I did not specify time period to 15 years.

No, but given that the ability to use search engines has only existed for that long, your implication that the problems associated with the technology are proportionate to the benefits makes that a necessity.

How else are we to interpret this question:

How does it make internet dependance a strenght?
How does, having yet another set of problems and tools you rely on to solve these, make it a strenght?

The obvious answer is that the utility outweighs the "set of problems", so you must believe that they don't, otherwise you would not have asked the question. That is to say, you believe that the problems are equal to or outweigh the utility.

Yes ammount of problems remains stable while human capacity also remains stable.

We have an agreement so far.

Actually no, we don't have agreement. You're saying that all advances are canceled out by their associated problems and there is no progress. I'm saying the pace of advancement vastly exceeds the level of problems because, not only is it (the technology) solving more problems than it is creating, its evolution is also mitigating its own problems.

This is an example of a technology related problem. You had a problem to use the internet. Previously there was no internet and no need to use the internet.

You're missing the point -- I was giving examples of problems that arose from the technology that have already disappeared in so short a time. As the technology improves, the trend is towards less convolutedness, less disruption of our lives, while still providing all the utility it added in the first place. This is completely counter to your projections.

How did you find yourself in a situation where you need to find a nearest library to rent a tape?
Tapes are tools as well as libraries.
So what exactly did you need those tools for?

The need for information is the problem being solved. That's always there.

Each step is a more efficient method of reaching the solution. We go from travelling to a distant subject matter expert, to walking to a central repository of expertise, to having that repository store more and more accessible formats; from walking there, to driving there, to not needing to travel at all.

The fact that the information is in the form of a tape has nothing whatsoever to do with the remaining inefficiencies in the process, so don't try to imply that it created the problem being solved.

In modern era man with the same proficiency as the medieval artisan could struggle to achieve his goals. Usually you require more information and technology to adapt to the society that has standards set to this technology.

It relates to the google dumbing us down topic in this sense that we have more and more dependencies and information that we require for existence and yet we solve our problems on a personal level but are forced to operate on the technological level with a chain of requirements and problems that come with this.

This is untrue for two reasons: User interface, and access to information.

If you consider a piece of technology that has been around for a long while and is depended on by most of society, like a washing machine or a car, and how it has evolved, you'll find the interface has only become simpler; in other words, the amount of information the user is dependent on is decreasing.

At the same time, the necessary information is becoming more and more accessible. If you don't know how to use your washing machine or car properly, you can download the manual through the manufacturer or watch thousands of people show you how to through youtube.

And neither of these tools are a "solution looking for a problem", as you seem to view it. The necessities of washing and travelling have always existed, and as you look further into the past, the proficiency and effort required by the average member of society to meet those necessities increases.

In a sense, we do not choose the degree of technology in our enviroment but still retain some freedom of decision as to what we need in our lives.

There is increasingly more freedom of decision, because as interface and accessibility improves, the more the general public can benefit from the technology without being dependent on specialist knowledge or proficiency.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

No, but given that the ability to use search engines has only existed for that long, your implication that the problems associated with the technology are proportionate to the benefits makes that a necessity.

I decide that further discussing this issue is counter productive for us and will not be of use to anyone.

Regards

 

[Pyropyro]

so for one of my classes we had to read an article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/). the article is not really about how Google/the internet makes us stupider, as the title might suggest. it's pretty long, and i only skimmed through it (ironically, this is sorta what the article talks about), but basically what i got from it was that Google, being a reliable source of almost-instantaneous information, is causing a "rewiring" of our brains to be more impatient in absorbing information. as a result, it is more difficult for us to focus on long texts and such.

as a daily user of google, i think it's very true what the author is saying. i think i have been more affected than most of my peers because im good at using google and i use it for almost everything. and google is a great tool (it is essentially an extension of my brain at this point) but my heavy reliance on it has consequences.

i posted this because i think a lot of you would find this interesting. and also id love to hear your thoughts on this idea, supporting and refuting.

Didn't read the article (too impatient ) but based on your OP, the rewiring is indeed worrying to a degree. Having quick decision making and info gathering skills as aided by Google are beneficial. However taken to extremes it can hamper long term planning and data analysis skills. IMO, the brain, like the eyes, might not be able to take the strain of the info dump produced by the Internet.

The good news is that we're naturally inclined to take breaks and analyze data with our Ti and Si functions. Perhaps if we let nature takes it course, our minds will naturally cause us to log off the net and ruminate at our gathered info instead.

 

[pernoctator]

You also often see mangled writing in texts / Facebook etc. cited as an example of the newer generation being more "stupid". The popularity and accessibility of the medium is encouraging more people to write, many for whom writing would not otherwise have been one of their chosen methods of communication. Obviously those critics are overlooking the fact that these "non-writers" have always existed as a large percentage of the population and the quantity of producers of quality writing has not actually diminished.

This article makes the same error, with literature-based research in place of written communication. A great many of these people who are distractedly jumping between web pages are people who, with search engines taken out of the picture, would rely on word of mouth in their local community for their research. Of course there are still people who read enormous volumes from cover to cover; not as many of them, but there never were as many of them. So where exactly is the decline? The net result is actually that more people are accessing higher quality information.


Then there is this dubious science:

Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand.

Where is this coming from? What about ideograms that were in existence before spoken language developed? Not developed by human beings, apparently.

Perhaps this Wolf should meet our Wolf:

When I speak, and listen, I can see the words and mentally type them or play them over in my head. It is visual, but it is visual Times New Roman.

It's actually this assumption that auditory thinking is "instinctive" that has resulted in poor reading education, which is catering to only about a quarter of the population: http://www.beelddenken.info/documenten/upside-down_brilliance.pdf

In today’s schools, most children are taught to read using a phonetic approach. However, for the visual-spatial learner (VSL), this is counter-intuitive to how they think and learn. Many VSLs have a hard time with phonics because the strategy is to teach reading by breaking down words into their smallest sounds like: ra, ta, ga, and fa. Then, you are to build on those small sounds to form whole words. Visual-spatials understand big picture information first, not the smallest details! Because VSLs think in pictures, they need to read in pictures. What is the picture of “ga”? Or of “the?” Can you create a mental picture of “the”? But when VSLs are taught to read by looking at whole words first, not the smallest sounds, they can easily create mental pictures for those words and learn them permanently. A beginning reader can make mental pictures for numerous sight words and often, the more difficult the words, the better. There is a distinction in the shape of the letters that form “xylophone” or “Disneyland,” that the visual-spatial won’t find when reading the word, “an”.

Some words just naturally make you think of a picture because of the shape the letters make; like the letters “M” and “N” do in the word MouNtaiN.

I agree that we are becoming less patient when forced to rely on more traditional forms of research. But this doesn't apply to recreational reading, which is still alive and well (and no, the anecdotal evidence of the guy who can't read War and Peace anymore is not significant). Like Architect said, this is the nature of progress. If you say this is something to fear, and that we need to protect our ability to "read deeply without distraction" to prevent ourselves from becoming "stupid", where do you draw the line? For almost every goal, we always skip education and practice for what is no longer primarily required to reach it. Should a digital photographer learn to process film? Yes this limits our redundancy, but it is a much more effective and practical use of our time.