'net savvy' than in those who are 'net naive'. These findings cannot answer the question of whether such changes are good or bad. Conclusions are coloured by the authors' values. Bilton treats the adaption of the 'net savvy' as positive: "the brains were learning, benefiting from practice and experience". Carr comes to the opposite conclusion: "When it comes to the firing of our neurons, it's a mistake to assume that more is better. " Part of the problem is the paucity of scientific studies on the effects of modern technologies on the brain. It is a testament to both authors' skills that they were able to produce entire books on works so sparse. Unfortunately, to fill the pages, they lump information into categories that are too diverse to be useful. For example, both treat the use of all Internet technology-web browsing, web searching, texting, tweeting, video games and so on-as a single activity, despite the fact that such variety is unlikely to have one distinct effect. As with food, the effects of technology will depend on what type of technology is consumed, how much and for how long. History suggests that technology does not change the brain's fundamental abilities. The general principles of brain organization have not changed for thousands of years-probably since the rise of language. Major technological advances do not create de novo brain structures. They do, however, take advantage of the cognitive flexibility of the human mind. With each new technological development, we see a shift in the cognitive abilities and brain functions that society values most. The advent of writing systems, so celebrated by Carr, devalued the role of oral memorization through storytelling as cherished by the Greeks. Great orators such as Socrates would have lamented that Carr has lost the memory skills necessary for passing on knowledge through stories to future generations. Yet he has gained other skills by entraining alternate brain networks for reading and text analysis. Just as it was difficult to say at the time whether the advent of writing was good or bad, a value judgement of the effect of the Internet is impossible. But it is a tribute to neural plasticity that, with each new technological development, our brains adapt-for better or for worse. ■
The Smart Set is known as a popular venue for modernist writers and cultural criticism, but upon Mencken and Nathan's departure it became Hearst's sensational confessional title. This article examines the confessional form for elements of populist empowerment, and in so doing questions periodical studies' methodology of selective reading. In addition, this article argues that the Smart Set was always commercial, playing both sides of the cultural divide despite tendencies for modernist canonization on the part of critics. Ultimately, it is up to the literary historian to convey a realistic portrait of a magazine and up to the reader to decide how to interpret its cultural stance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.