After reading a famous book carefully, everyone must have a lot of feelings in their hearts. It's important to record it. Let's write a review together. Don't think that you can handle your feelings casually after reading it. The following is the word 1000, which I feel after shallow reading. Welcome to reading. I hope you will like it.
Shallow reading, 1000 words 1 For people who live in the present, the speed of lifestyle change is beyond the reach of previous humans. All this depends on the information age, which is led by computers and the Internet.
For the above two "great benefactors of mankind", it is obviously not authentic enough to speak ill of them behind their backs. However, the author of this book "plays" such an "ungrateful" person.
In fact, everything has two sides, which is a universal law. On the issue of computers and the Internet, most of us have seen and enjoyed the good side, but the author has put forward the bad side. His point of view is not to smash the computer and disconnect the internet (he admits that he is dependent on the computer), but to put forward his own thinking and warnings, so that the contemporary people have a certain degree of self-control and vigilance, just as we used to spend much more time on learning than our predecessors. Therefore, in order to make up for the resulting health problems, "
The author's basic point of view is actually very simple, just like the title of the book-"shallowness". He believes that the emergence of the Internet makes most people enjoy it, but it loses the mental activities of deep reading and deep thinking that they used to have in reading, which may lead to fragmentation of knowledge, distraction and shallow thinking of most people. In fact, it is reasonable that we are addicted to computers, software, smart devices and the Internet today.
As a person who can't live without the internet and books every day, I may have a certain say in this respect. The popular expression of the image is: "Internet" is "meat" and books are "vegetables and fruits". For human nutrition, the two should complement each other and coexist harmoniously, but most people prefer meat to vegetables and fruits. So what bothers most people today is obesity and its related diseases, but there are few cases (nowadays) in which eating only vegetables rather than meat leads to malnutrition.
Similarly, most of us today are connected to the Internet, but we can't read. That's because the Internet exists more in our comfort zone. We surf the Internet, play games and brush our circle of friends. We feel very comfortable and free. However, let's get rid of the interference, free up all the time and concentrate on reading, which obviously makes people instinctively reject and contradict-even individuals feel that they should read more and surf the Internet less. This is what I am worried about. He is worried that most people are obsessed with the Internet just like eating meat, which leads to the "disease" of thinking, but they leave books like vegetables in the "malnutrition" that leads to thinking.
In short, e-books may replace paper books, and electronic search may replace going to the library for reference. The unique artistic conception of focusing on energy, in-depth exploration and meditation in reading is beyond the reach of reading some news on the internet in a fragmented time. This is not as simple as a calculator instead of an abacus, an automatic gear instead of a manual gear, and a mobile phone instead of a BB machine, because their functions cannot cover each other. I think people with a little knowledge and rationality basically agree. Of course, an agreement is an agreement. Whether they can "eat less meat and eat more vegetables" is another matter.
In addition, the author also puts forward another viewpoint, that is, the storage of knowledge. Today, due to the convenience of electronic search, we have a lot of knowledge at our fingertips. We feel that we have traveled all over the world with a mobile phone. The author believes that whether knowledge exists in other places that you can get at any time or in your own thoughts and memories are two different things.
1, we see many university experts. They are knowledgeable, study in thousands of books, have excellent memories, have huge study rooms, and have reference books thicker than bricks on the shelves. That is to say, their knowledge exists in two places, one is in their own brains to enhance cognition and cultivate wisdom, and the other is stored in the bookshelf for reference, quotation and demonstration. There is no limit to learning, and life is short. Who doesn't want to open a USB socket in the back of the head and input knowledge and data into the brain? I don't know if I can do it in the future, but I'm definitely far behind today. So it is reasonable to pile up knowledge in two places.
2. Today, we like to say "Ask Baidu if you have any questions". This convenience and progress is obvious to all. Personally, if you suddenly meet a topic, person or event you are interested in, if you don't have the search function of your mobile phone, you must have passed unconsciously. Now I can easily put this little knowledge into my "knowledge base" and the cost is very low. It is the Internet, a convenient, efficient and low-cost tool, which has opened a "portable channel" for our "ignorance" and led to the bottom, which was unimaginable before.
However, it is becoming more and more convenient for us to acquire "knowledge on the bookshelf" today. Can you put less "knowledge" in your mind and more on the bookshelf? I'm sorry, no, it's like asking you, would you rather eat a plate of stir-fry when you go to a restaurant, or let all the cookers, raw materials and seasonings play freely? People with higher education in our generation understand this truth best. Tell me, if you don't study at ordinary times, can you turn over the books in the math exam? Can you turn over the books in the English exam? Even the Chinese exam can make you turn over the books? In short, the knowledge in the brain can be integrated and extrapolated to understand the internal relations of things and the ways and means to achieve their goals, which is irreplaceable by the knowledge on the bookshelf. Today, whether studying or studying, we are constantly pouring the knowledge on the bookshelf into our brains and putting it into our brains, the most exquisite instrument in the world, to produce exquisite chemical reactions! Innovation comes from this, wisdom comes from this, and cognition comes from this!
Finally, Luo Fatty, who quoted Luo Ji's thinking, said: "It is not the Internet that makes us more and more shallow, but most people make themselves more and more shallow when facing the new tool of the Internet."
The fact is that we read a lot of content every day, all kinds of information, all kinds of official WeChat account tweets. What we can be sure of is that we are surrounded by information from the Internet, and it is rapidly advancing.
If we want to absorb it, it will take time and energy, and information will come in one by one, and our attention will be shredded. In this process, it seems that the brain will gradually get used to this "disturbed" way, and will not even feel disturbed, but will feel a little lively, and information will automatically come to us, with a lot of free information. So while opening one message after another, time is broken down bit by bit.
Guess the ancients should not have such troubles, at least compared with now, there are not so many ways to divert attention. The internet really seems to have a feeling that people are not easy to get out. There is always something that will attract us, and then our attention seems to be focused during this time on the internet, although it is suppressed by various information in the process. Web pages are all browsed, so it can be seen that the Internet is only an extract of information search, and it is not an easy medium for people to go deep. Phenomenological thinking sees more phenomena than essence.
Switching between different information and media makes you need more time to concentrate. Perhaps in this process, the brain is more inclined to switch, not to go deeper. The acceleration of speed pulls everything forward, and there is no time to stop and digest the content of a certain point. Maybe we will say some nouns and know some, but if we really want to go deeper, I'm afraid we will run out of words.
It takes time to think deeply, and the brain needs time to precipitate. From this perspective, convenience may sometimes be inconvenient. The ancients didn't surf the internet, so it was inconvenient to look up information. They might spend time reading books and internalize them into their own things. It is really convenient to check the information now, and it is absolutely necessary. The process of collecting information is the process of rapid extraction, and we only need to find it by keywords. In principle, this is harmless, as long as you find the information and get to know it in depth. But many times, if we spend all our time collecting and don't stop to take a good look at these materials, maybe it's just what we said before, saving for the sake of saving, just filling up the space on the hard disk, but not filling the hole in the brain.
Perhaps this is a kind of "shallowness". We just spend time on the surface, and it is intermittent and incoherent, so the brain can't produce iterative effects. And we don't know what is pulling us, and we don't even know when we do this. Just like Weibo WeChat forwarding. It must be something we find useful and recognized, and maybe we'll want to see it later. But after forwarding, the thinking on this question seems to have stopped, because we rarely want to read it on our own initiative. It seems to be just for posting, because forwarding is too simple and convenient, just click on it. It always takes time to browse in the process of forwarding, and often when you want to go deeper, you may stop after forwarding. That means that the browsing time just before forwarding has not been well used, but to say the least, it's better to read it than to watch it badly. At least you have an idea.
Fortunately, I realized the existence of "shallowness", at least it is not shallow.
After reading it shallowly, I feel 1000 words. After shallow reading, there is no unexpected joy and excitement. One of the reasons is that I have been exposed to some fragmentary information about attention fragmentation before. Ironically, all this information is from the Internet. The second reason is that I always think this book is "not special enough". Based on McLuhan's Media is Information, this book can be roughly divided into two parts. The first half talks about "media" and its almost decisive influence on human society and people's way of thinking, while the second half talks about "information" and how different ways of receiving information affect human society and people's way of thinking. In the last part, Nicholas Carr put forward the viewpoint that "memory outsourcing, civilization dies". Although we can read the author's concern about the human society submerged in explosive information, personally, I think this statement is a bit complicated.
The reason why I think shallowness is not special enough is that almost all the author's views on the media have been quoted by others, and so does the way information is received on the human brain. Besides, I personally have no interest in the biological brain structure. In a sense, the author is just a porter, and the existing knowledge of the two disciplines is "patched together", so it is not exciting to read new ideas. Of course, it may also be because the author's original intention of writing this book is only to warn modern people not to get lost in the wave of information, rather than to put forward a novel and controversial point of view. Personally, I think the significance of this book lies in: using existing knowledge to demonstrate that blindly relying on the Internet will have a great impact on the current human civilization and mankind itself.
I agree with many points mentioned in the book. For example, the intellectual ethics followed by Google is Taylor doctrine, which has a strong machine worship psychology; For example, the mechanization of human development mentioned in the book, people have shaped tools, and tools are also shaping people, making people more and more dependent on tools, thus numbing some of their own functions; For example, the establishment of personal personality has a lot to do with reading habits; At the same time, I also have some unanswered questions. These questions came from reading this book, but it didn't tell me the answer. For example, why do we often feel smart when browsing the web? Why is it much easier to indulge in the internet than to study? Why do our brains like online feeding more and more, and the more they feed, the more hungry they feel? Maybe it's because we can get a lot of information in a short time to satisfy our thirst for knowledge, maybe the network information is too superficial, or maybe it's other reasons, but this is just my guess. Many questions are also mentioned in the book, but I didn't find the answer in the book.
One of the views that most aroused me in the book is: in the era of printed matter, the standard for judging the quality of books is time; In the Internet age, the right to judge is in the hands of the public and the media. And people like Mob who know a little history and have read books on popular psychology probably won't have much affection for the public. This is an obvious truth: the depth of culture is inversely proportional to the difficulty of its dissemination. The deeper the culture, the more difficult it is to learn and spread; The simpler the culture, the easier it is to spread, which is the so-called "mass culture". Writing here, I suddenly remembered an interesting thing. "Theory of Three Represents" wrote that China's * * * Production Party always represents the spreading direction of advanced culture, and at the same time, a harmonious society requires the Party to build a culture that the masses like. This tandem, echoing from a distance, is a deep and shallow, which just shows that our party represents a simple and vulgar culture-anyone who walks in the vast rural areas of China can appreciate what the masses like.
After vomiting, get down to business. When a spirit becomes universal, it becomes superficial. For example, when the original idealistic "cynicism philosophy" developed to a large number of disciples, it became a "rogue philosophy". During this period, the spirit itself has not changed, but the public has distorted the spirit because they cannot understand it. This is a very bad situation. If the value judgment of a spirit and a culture is given to the public, the situation will be even worse. In the Internet age, such a thing is happening.
Popular works, taking Han Han's works as an example. I haven't read his books, but I often read his blog. His writing is witty and sharp, which is beyond D's tolerance, and he will feel very happy after reading it. However, when you look back at his articles after fun, you will feel that what he wrote is actually superficial and has no depth. What he advocates, or at least gives the impression that he is advocating democracy, freedom and independent personality in a broad sense. But he didn't use reason to make a deeper dialectic. This is his superficiality. I feel that there is no essential difference between what he advocates and what "LS" middle school students call for when they lose their rationality. Because he lacks rationality and dialectics. It is precisely because of this that he will be loved by the public, because the public only likes reading happily, and the public has no patience to listen to complex and profound dialectics. Of course, maybe I was wrong. Han Han and others may have deliberately chosen a form acceptable to the public, just to tell the public not to lose hope and use the power of words to do arduous work such as "inspiring people's wisdom".
The most shocking conclusion in the book is that "memory outsourcing leads to the demise of civilization". My first feeling after reading the book is that the author's worry is not unreasonable, but on second thought, oh, there is another possibility.
The author's pessimism and worries throughout the book are based on the unscientific classification of information on the Internet. Because of the Taylor doctrine pursued by Google, people's thinking is becoming more and more mechanized; Because of the explosive growth of information, people can only read roughly in order not to be left behind by the times; Due to the powerful functions of the network and various communication software, people's attention becomes distracted, which leads to the crisis of deep reading. The author also explains through a series of descriptions of the brain (I didn't understand it very well anyway) that it will affect people's personality and human civilization. Under such a narrative, the only correct way is to rediscover the lost habit of deep reading and find a balance between deep reading and information overload.
However, why doesn't the author consider another possibility-even a huge amount of information can be classified scientifically and standardized, one day in the future. When you open a web page and see a huge amount of information passing in front of you all the time, everyone knows that this is an invaluable asset. What any positive and optimistic person should consider is how to make good use of this information scientifically and reasonably, instead of shrinking in front of the flood of information, he is only willing to stick to the rules and dare not imagine an unimaginable future. Any change in the form of media will bring discomfort for a period of time. In the early days of printing, of course, people would panic about books, but slowly, we formed a linear thinking mode in deep reading. Now, we are in the greatest media revolution in human history. According to historical experience, our discomfort in this period is normal, if history is instructive. The linear thinking mode put forward by the author has been impacted by the network, but it has not gone further. It is more positive to point out that the linear mode of thinking is only a mode of thinking in human history, and the attack on it may be the beginning of the formation of another more scientific and advanced mode of thinking. Of course, the process of changing the mode of thinking is long and chaotic, and it is human nature for people in it to feel panic. There will be some deviations in the process of changing the way of thinking, and people in it need to raise scientific and reasonable concerns and puzzles. Faced with this challenge, the author raised necessary worries and puzzles, but failed to look further and put forward some positive suggestions for the future.
So, after reading this book, I didn't feel happy and excited.
Comment on the word "shallow" 1000. Let's talk about the topic first. We usually see the word "shallow". If another word floats in our mind: "frivolous", but this "shallow" is not the same as "shallow". There is no derogatory meaning here. It only represents a state of mind, a way of thinking opposite to industrial thinking, that is, information thinking. We study philosophy and are familiar with the phrase "look at the essence through phenomena, from the shallow to the deep", and our thinking also follows this way; But today is the information age, everyone is surrounded by a lot of information every day, and we can't even read it deeply, so our thinking seems to be superficial, that is, the information thinking mentioned in this book-looking at the phenomenon through the essence, from deep to shallow.
Look at the subtitle of the book-how the Internet has poisoned our brains, is it sensational? This book is telling us what the internet has changed us, but these changes happened unconsciously, what we have paid for these changes, and what are the benefits of thinking based on the internet. After reading this book, I was shocked by many viewpoints. "Because the Internet has brought us a feast of information, it has also brought us back to a completely distracted natural state."
The contents of the book mainly include: human thinking is in a shallow stage, which is a direct conclusion; Then the author analyzes what causes this shallow thinking, compares the differences and connections between the two kinds of thinking, lists the benefits of thinking based on the Internet, and discusses whether the future world will be human or machine. Finally, the author thinks about "shallowness" in combination with reality. There are a lot of experimental studies and related terms quoted in the book, so I can only get a general idea of what is going on in our brains.
Human thinking has moved from primitive shallowness to profound civilization. Today, it seems to be back to the shallow stage, in which media tools play an important role, especially the revolutionary media-the Internet. Now many people find it difficult to concentrate on reading, especially long books; In particular, many articles on the Internet are read by browsing rather than reading, and are interrupted by various message prompts from time to time in the process of similar reading. That's why people put forward the idea of quitting all kinds of social software today. Why? The internet has provided us with convenience. At the cost of losing concentration, our energy was greatly dispersed. We spent time without knowing what we had done. It turns out that many of our habits have been quietly changed. We are facing an era of information overload, and we can't just choose to give up or taste. The more computers are used, the greater the influence of the Internet on people.
Since the Internet has changed many people's habits, has the human brain been changed? The answer is yes-the human brain is plastic. Give a simple example to illustrate, for example, deaf people, although hearing or vision is impaired, other senses will be enhanced. In short, "God is fair. When he closed a door, he also opened another window. " This book uses a lot of neuroscience to explain this example. Knowing that the brain is plastic, it is possible to treat some brain diseases, such as stroke. Because the brain is adaptable, people can return to normal life through forced recovery. However, plasticity is not all the benefits, because it does not have toughness. When it reaches a state, it changes back to maintain this state, which may not be desirable, such as depression to obsessive-compulsive disorder. In addition, the brain function has the characteristics of "put into use, abandoned and not used", that is, busy people live, so the statement that "the brain rusts if it is not used for a long time" is correct.
Knowing that the brain can change, what makes these changes happen? It is technology, especially intellectual technology, that has been shaping our brains. In the long run, it is technology that ultimately changes our brains; In a short time, it seems that tools are changing our brains. In addition, from the history of human language, we can see the history of brain changes, especially reading and writing, because reading and writing are unnatural behaviors and need to be acquired; However, people who use different languages have different neural pathways.
When it comes to reading and writing, we naturally think of the carrier of reading and writing, so we have been talking about our brains for so long. Writing carrier has experienced early pottery, papyrus, parchment, block printing, printing, and now electronic media. Judging from the evolution of the carrier, it is conceivable that only individuals can own the early characters. In addition, there were no spaces between words in early writing, which reflected that language originated from spoken language. Such writing made reading a laborious task, so no one would read silently at that time. It was not until the collapse of the Roman Empire that written language began to meet the unique needs of readers, and reading began to become a means for individuals to receive education and make progress. Great changes have taken place in writing, and it is these changes that make reading (deep silent reading) possible. Now the reading world displayed on the screen is different from the world of books. Reading a book requires constant attention to a single, static goal and resistance to a strong desire to shift the focus from one sensory signal to another, so it is difficult for the screen to resist those desires.
Reading media, from paper to screen, not only changed our reading style, but also affected our reading concentration and immersion. With the expansion of the use of the Internet, it seems that we spend more and more time on it, and the time for reading printed matter naturally decreases. At the same time, the Internet integrates various types of information on one screen, which further aggravates the fragmentation of content. Therefore, when information can be easily obtained, we usually like short, fragmented and pleasant content, which paper books can't provide. As a newspaper that also provides information, it has been greatly impacted by the strong development of the Internet, so it has to make corresponding changes, such as shortening the length, changing the design style, and even making an electronic newspaper directly. The change seems to have happened quietly. "The Internet has not changed our thinking habits against our wishes, but has changed our thinking habits in line with our wishes." People created the Internet, but the Internet is changing us.
Since our reading has been changed a lot by the Internet, has it lost its advantage as a book? Compared with computers, books still retain some competitive advantages, such as reading books anytime and anywhere, without worrying that books will be broken and dirty, and without tiring your eyes. Although today's e-reader development is more and more satisfying for people's reading experience, it can't replace the enjoyment of paper reading after all. The change of reading media has also changed the way of writing. In this era, everyone can be a writer, and there is no pressure when publishing. In this era, deep reading is still needed, so books will still exist.
Now people spend more and more time online, so our brains are inevitably reshaped and tortured by the Internet. As a result of our distraction, our ability to think deeply and creatively is declining, and our brain has become a simple signal processor, constantly transforming information into consciousness. Here is a good metaphor to illustrate the process of reading and obtaining information on the Internet: information flow is like water flowing from a faucet. When reading, the tap from which information flows has a steady water flow, which we can control through our own reading rhythm. When we focus on books, we can turn most of the information into long-term memory; When using the internet, we are faced with many information faucets, each of which is turned on to the maximum, and water gushes out, but we can't control it. We can only change from one faucet to another in a hurry, so we still can't get most of the water. We receive mixed information from different faucets, and we can't turn it into long-term memory. With the use of the internet, some of our skills have decreased, and of course, some of our skills have also been strengthened, such as the ability to solve problems quickly and deal with messy tasks. However, the ability to deepen and innovate has been damaged, or we can say that we are now exchanging the depth of thinking for the dimension of thinking. Even some habits formed when surfing the Internet have influenced the habits when not surfing the Internet, such as reading books. In the internet age, some people say that human beings have become smarter. In fact, we just changed our minds and are defined as smart under the standards of the Internet. Knowledge is usually divided into "what we know by ourselves" and "where did we know to find information about a certain topic", which naturally determines two different ways to acquire knowledge.
Google is now a big engine search, and I have always been curious about its profit model. I got the answer from this book-almost all of its business income comes from advertising, "Google is a completely distracted business", and it is willing to let people use information for free, because the cost of using information is lower and people are willing to spend more time on computer screens. As a result, Google's profits soared and advertisements bought free information. Google has set up its own online library. Although there have been disputes over the copyright of books before, now we can easily find the electronic versions of the books you are looking for online, and these books are just a pile of data to be mined for Google.
Facing the Internet, it seems that there are fewer and fewer things we can remember. In the words of people today, our memory has been outsourced to the artificial memory of the Internet. There are many physiological explanations about memory in the book. Our brain memory is always updated and will never be filled, but the Internet seems not.
It must be said that the Internet has brought us convenience, but it has also made us lose a lot, such as the numbness effect brought by technology, which part of the human body is "enhanced" by our tools, and which part will eventually be "numb". Similarly, we rely more and more on computers as a medium to understand the world. To a certain extent, our own intelligence is eclipsed and eventually becomes artificial intelligence, but that is not what we want to see. We should not let the glory of technology blind our inner eyes and completely ignore the possibility that a vital part of ourselves will fall into a state of numbness. So for the title "How the Internet has poisoned our brains", we should first realize the influence of the Internet on us, and then I think we should think about how to use the Internet.
Although "shallow" is the main way of thinking today, we should not abandon the "deep" way of thinking. After all, we need not only information but also knowledge.
;