Blown To Bits

Does the Internet Result in Narrower Thinking?

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008 by Harry Lewis
There buy cialis overnight delivery are links between many socioeconomic factors and a poor diet, buy generic prednisolone including having a low income and living in a rural side effects purchase retin-a cheap area. Scientific evidence indicates that anxiety can lead to muscular buy cheap synthroid online tension, including within the jaw muscles. If a person cannot buy cheap zofran remember, things like school reports or accounts from close family order viagra cheap online or friends may help. Oncologists can specialize in treating cancers side effects purchase dexamethasone cheap that affect specific populations or parts of the body. Certain atrovent drug conditions or situations can cause or increase the amount of order diovan crust someone experiences in the morning. The researchers only included purchase generic cialis side effects and alcohol data from individuals in the U.S., indicating that future research purchase discount arcoxia sale could include data from other countries. However, doctors may recommend purchase zoloft online that people with a medium or high risk of cervical cancer.

For years, people have been observing that the wonderful surfeit of information sources available through the Web can result, paradoxically, in a narrowing of our perspectives. In the political realm, for example, liberals can now get all their news from liberal sites, and conservatives from conservative sites. As Cass Sunstein observes in Infotopia, speaking and listening only to people who think like us has a polarizing force — everyone just gets more extreme.

The Boston Globe has a good review today of a paper published in Science some months ago reporting that groupthink is affecting even scientific research publications — the lists of cited papers are becoming more homogeneous, not more varied, as the information sources diversify. There is even an analogy with popular music — yes, there is a “long tail” of music now available for special tastes, but the small number of big winners dominate music sales now more than ever. And so it is with scientific papers — with most available online, a smaller number are cited more often than in the past.

The paper suggests that Web search is fundamentally different from search through paper records, which puts more context around sources and causes us to be more critical before pursuing a reference. Clicking on links thoughtlessly is just too easy, and we are losing something in the process.

Hardly an open-and-shut case — the article mentions several dissents — but it makes sense to me.

Comments are closed.