As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to
think for themselves will surely deteriorate.
Is Google making us stupid? Technology does not infringe the ability of human beings to think of themselves. It improves it and makes us more efficient.
Technology is not making us more stupid but more efficient. Nowadays, we are not constrained by the physical distance to the next library to do research but can access various media through our laptop. Adding to that, search-engines improved our efficiency in finding the desired information by applying algorithms that help us to sort the vast information and distinguish the important form the superfluous data. Google, for example, does not substitute the thinking behind the human input into the search engine. It neither takes over the review of search results. However, it helps us to skim through the accessible knowledge and focus on the source that might matter to me. The following deep-reading and critical analysis of the source and whether it was the one I was looking for is not outsourced to technology but has to be done by me. Thus, technology is a strong aide and ally but, in consequence, does not make us more stupid.
Secondly, technology can make our lives simpler and easier. Imagine the time, when no one had a washing machine. Traditionally, the woman of the household had to do all the washing, which could take hours or even days, depending on the size of the family. With the invention and later the mass production of the washing machine, washing could be done in minutes, leaving the whole day for self-fulfilment. The invention of this machine gave the housewives leisure and time to do things they actually loved to do. It empowered women all around the world and engendered emancipation. Technology, in this case, improved the ability of a large part of the population to think - because it was the first time they had time to educate themselves further, engage in the public life, enter vivid discussions and follow their own interests.
However, there are certain tendencies towards laziness that could be attributed to technology. As previously states, search-engines can make our quest for a certain information more efficient. Nevertheless, having the ability to enter a question into the mobile device and get an immediate answer could lead to a deterioration of our own ability to think critically and trying to answer questions through debate and deduction instead of asking the internet straight away. Therefore, technology, to a certain extent, could be a contributor to the laziness of thinking.
There are multiple reasons why the accusation that technology will lead to a diminishment of our ability to think is overdrawn. Technology can improve our daily life and help us to be more efficient, leaving more time to think critically and reflect. Technological development has brought our society to a point where information is accessible to anyone, making everybody able to learn and educate themselves. Technology gave us innovations that left the whole society better of.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-08 | roudabehvm16 | 50 | view |
| 2019-10-31 | Kyunghwan Kim | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-23 | King kobra | 58 | view |
| 2019-09-19 | King kobra | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-16 | pkaul7 | 50 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans tothink for themselves will surely deteriorate. 75
- Claim Though often considered an objective pursuit learning about the historical past requires creativity Reason Because we can never know the past directly we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts documents and artifacts 61
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 73
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. 82
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, look, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 14.8657303371 148% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2503.0 2235.4752809 112% => OK
No of words: 487.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13963039014 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96537776654 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509240246407 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 797.4 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.625304245 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2692307692 118.986275619 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7307692308 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.30769230769 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180772649526 0.243740707755 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0547416842149 0.0831039109588 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664865486369 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115401735051 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480819101231 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.1392134831 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.