A Critical Review of Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains
By Matt Hibbard
Social and Ethical issues in the Digital Age
SUNY Empire State College
Dr. Jase Teoh
April 9, 2014
Introduction / Summary
The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains is a book written by Nicholas Carr
and published by the W.W. Norton & Company in 2010. Carr has written several books on
topics that deal with technology, business and culture. He is also a columnist for several news
publications including the Atlantic, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. In 2008,
Carr wrote an essay for the Atlantic title Is Google Making Us Stupid? Carr used this essay to
prompt his readers to think about how the Internet and their online habits have changed the way
people think and are able to concentrate deeply.
This book combines casual observations, historical perspectives, and actual science,
including neuroscience, to study how our brains have adapted to this new technology over the
years. It is a very thought provoking look at ourselves and how our interaction with modern
technology and new forms of media have changed the way we think, read, and engage in the
learning process.
Author’s Main Theme / Thesis
The Shallows is Carr’s attempt to expand on his thoughts from the 2008 essay and to
show how evolutions in various forms of media, including the Internet, have essentially altered
the channels that our brains use to think and learn. He argues that as we have moved from
printed text to online multi-media, our brains have shifted from becoming deeply engaged in the
whole content, concentrating on the whole message, and reflecting on the message to being
something more like a quick searching browsing machine that skims over titles and uses search
tools to find specific pieces of information in fast and efficient manners.
In the prologue The Watchdog and the Thief, Carr refers to the works of media professor
Marshal McLuhan who coined the phrase “The Medium is the Message.” McLuhan studied the
effects of media on people’s intellect and culture from the 1960s through the 1980s. McLuhan
believed back then, as Carr does now, that people get caught up in the content of the media
and in the process they lose sight of what the media that is delivering that content is doing to
their lives. Internet enthusiasts tend to exploit the great things that are available to enhance our
lives today as a result of the technology and new media opportunities. Carr believes that as this
is happening, our brains, and our lives for that matter, are suffering from a fundamental
transformation on how we seek knowledge and our abilities to do so effectively.
Main Points and Supporting Arguments
The most compelling arguments that Carr makes come from scientific studies and
research that has been conducted that demonstrate how the Internet can affect brain functions
and how we think. In Chapter One Hal and Me Carr quotes a philosophy major from Florida
State University that suggests books are irrelevant, don’t make sense, and are a waste of time
because he can use Google to find the information he needs faster. He then points out a study
conducted by a research company that studied 6000 kids on their internet use and found a large
portion of them did not actually read as we traditionally do, from left to right and from top to
bottom. Instead, they found these students would scan all around somewhat randomly to try and
find the information they needed.
In Chapter Two The Vital Paths Carr refers to the concept of “neuroplasticity” which
suggests that the nerves, circuitry, sensory channels, etc. in our brains that dictate the way we
do things are not hardwired. Instead, they are plastic and malleable, meaning they can be
changed in time given proper stimulus. He starts this argument by illustrating how the brain and
the nervous system has been able to make remarkable recoveries from traumatic injuries, but
also points out the work of notable neuroscience experts that claim these types of
transformations occur continuously in the brain, even without traumatic stimulus. In fact, the
simple process of learning how to do something is an example of how our brains are
continuously adapting to new stimulus. The suggestion is that as the Internet presents us with
techniques for getting to the information and knowledge we are seeking in a quick hit manner,
our brain circuitry is actually adapting to this new stimulus and is essentially being “trained” to
seek knowledge in this manner. At the same time, the circuitry that used to allow us to engage
in deep reading of text, long passages, and intense concentration is no longer intact.
Is this really a problem though? Opponents of Carr’s views, such as the Florida State
student mentioned earlier, do not see much value in deep reading of text, long book passages,
etc. In other words, is there value to literature? Carr addresses this in Chapter Three Tools of
the Mind where he makes comparisons of the oral language before the alphabet and
widespread access to the printed word and how restrictive it was. He makes a solid argument
that since people started reading, literacy has led to monumental developments of knowledge in
history, science, language, philosophy, and many other subjects. Furthermore, the ability to
write, closely related to the ability to read, is a priceless trait that a human can possess. As the
Internet influences us to read less, it is assumed that our writing ability will deteriorate with it.
Together, these two phenomenons will lead to a diminishment of humanity. Carr expands
further on this concept in Chapter Four The Deepening Page by making an argument that
literature, reading, and writing has been one of the main driving forces in peoples’ abilities to
think abstractly and express themselves in artistic ways.
Getting back to the studies, Carr cites numerous studies in Chapter Five A Medium of
the Most General Nature that shows how much more time people spend in front of their
computer or TV screens and how much less time they are spending reading printed text. The
suggestion is that there is an overall trend among people to rely more on visual and audio
media for information, entertainment, etc., than on the traditional printed word. This alone is not
much of an argument as one could argue that much of what people are doing in front of their
screens is still reading. However, in Chapter Six The Very Image of a Book, Carr points out how
reading electronic text, even electronic books such as Kindle books, still presents too many
opportunities for distractions. He cites numerous review critics who wrote about their electronic
reading experiences and it seems to stand out that the concept of being at your computer where
you have ongoing access to the Internet, social media, and e-mail (even if these have nothing to
do with what you are reading) presents a level of distraction that is not experienced when
reading a traditional book. This problem is likely to become more of an issue as more people
choose to interact with these e-reader programs via their mobile technology such as Ipads,
smartphones, etc.
In Chapter Seven The Juggler’s Brain, Carr offers up some information in an attempt to
discredit the Flynn Theory which suggests that the IQ of people continues to get higher and
higher, an argument that many advocates of computer technology, video games, and digital
media often use to claim that such technology is making us smarter. He notes that the Flynn
Theory was being observed long before the general public had widespread access to computers
and the Web. In addition, Carr points out that other measures of mental abilities, such as the
PSAT exams, suggest that we are not getting smarter and in fact are scoring worse than ever in
areas such as critical reading and writing. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the IQ
scores of citizens in Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, who are among the heaviest
users of mobile technology, have not increased and in some cases have slightly decreased in
recent years.
The overall theme of how digital media is making it harder for us to focus and learn with
intense concentration and critical thought is analogized in Chapter Eight The Church of Google
to Leo Marx’s assessment of the writings of Nathaniel Hawthorne. The suggestion is that
industrialism has led to the detriment of the contemplative mind because of the hustle and
bustle of busy people in modern society. This alone does not necessarily say anything about
people’s intelligence though as the Flynn Theory has shown that since the industrial revolution
we have been getting smarter. It is suggested though that much of this “intelligence” is
measured through means that require instantaneous processes, such as mathematical
reasoning or application of systems and protocol to scenarios to solve problems. The concern is
for the deeper learning and long term understanding. In Chapter Nine Search, Memory Carr
refers to some studies conducted many years ago about the processes required to transfer
content from short-term memory to long-term memory. Such studies have shown that there are
both biological factors and time factors involved, both of which can be interfered with by external
forces that cause distractions in the process and inhibit one’s ability to transfer knowledge into
long term memory.
Finally, in Chapter Ten A Thing Like Me, we are presented with research based
evidence that suggests spending time in our natural world, as opposed to unnatural or artificial,
leads to more successful cognitive performance. In the Epilogue Human Elements, Carr makes
his final argument related to the concept of natural vs. unnatural environments by suggesting
that as we rely more on artificial intelligence to provide us with the information we are seeking,
our own intelligence will become artificial.
Critical Remarks
Overall I think Nicholas Carr does an excellent job at getting us to think about how we
are evolving in terms of our ability to think critically, concentrate deeply, and comprehend long
passages of reading. I was able to connect with many of the examples he uses, including his
own personal observations, as I have found it harder and harder to read long works of literature
without getting distracted, both by external distractions as well as internal distractions that I
bring upon myself. I found the examples of historical observations coupled with scientific
research to be very thought provoking, almost to the point of frightfulness as the obvious
questions come to mind…where will this take us and what can we do about it?
These questions lead to what I think is one of the few downfalls to Carr’s book. He really
does not address these questions. He makes reference to a couple futuristic predictions about
where technology may be going, but only makes general comments that intelligence will
continue to come more and more from computers and artificial intelligence than from the human
brain. More importantly, the only real suggestion that Carr makes for us to alleviate the negative
effects of this trend is to simply be mindful of it and don’t be too quick to accept any technology
that disregards the significance of the human element. However, what could he have really
suggested? While it may very well be true that this technology is taking away the need for us to
think and use our brains, thus making it harder for us to do so when we need to, at the same
time it offers so many positive benefits that it cannot simply be a choice. It is not conceivable to
think that people will make a choice between using something great but makes me dumber vs.
using something old and inefficient even though I may be smarter because of it.
It is also somewhat ironic, or maybe not, that I was experiencing the main point Carr was
trying to make as I was reading his own book. Knowing what his thesis was after the prologue,
the subsequent ten chapters, while loaded with interesting references to perspectives as well as
scientific research, still seemed to drag on and on without any new revelations coming from it. I
found it virtually impossible to read complete chapters in one sitting and remember enough
about what I had read to write this review report. Maybe it was his intention, a great way to
prove his own point. Nevertheless, as I consider how much “smarter” I might be for reading this
book, I’m not sure I am any smarter than if I were to have just read the Atlantic article he wrote
Is Google Making Us Stupid? Of course, that would go completely against his argument.
A Critical Review of Jane McGonigal’s Reality is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How
They Can Change the World
By Matt Hibbard
Social and Ethical issues in the Digital Age
SUNY Empire State College
Dr. Jase Teoh
April 11, 2014
Introduction / Summary
Reality is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How They Can Change the World is
a book written by Jane McGonigal and published by the Penguin Group in 2011 in London,
England. McGonigal has a PhD in Performance Studies from the University of California at
Berkeley and is the Director of Game Research and Development at the Institute for the Future.
This book serves as McGonigal’s attempt to change the public perception of games and
the people that play them. Often we hear public opinion that games, especially online computer
games, are an unproductive waste of time and that people who play games are not living in
reality, especially people that spend large amounts of time online playing them. The fear is that
as more and more people keep spending more and more time playing computer games, we will
see a mass exodus of people away from reality which will cause massive social problems. This
book tries to alleviate those fears by showing how games are currently, and have the potential
for further, enhancing of many soft skills that people need in order to cope with reality and to
solve big problems in our world.
Author’s Main Theme / Thesis
As mentioned above, McGonigal’s main thesis is that games are not bad. In fact, they
are good, and have the potential to be great. Great for what? Great for humanity, Earth, civility,
science, and many other important social aspects of life as we know it. She attempts to
convince us of this by separating her message into three main themes. The first theme is that
games contain a lot of engaging elements that, individually, we can all find significant benefits
from. Whether this be finding our creative spirits, self-esteem and motivation, developing an
interest in something, learning how to set goals, etc., the more time we spend playing games
the more intrapersonal development we can have.
The second theme is that certain types of games, reality games in particular, have the
potential to motivate us to engage in positive and productive habits or deliberate operations
within real world settings for the good of society. The third theme is based on games that
include large numbers of players, such as MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing
Games). McGonigal suggests that these types of games help us to build significant social skills
such as collaboration and teamwork and how to structure collective power for intended
purposes. All of these skills could lend tremendous benefit to real world attempts to solve world
problems such as climate change, hunger, pollution, energy, etc.
Main Points and Supporting Arguments
The themes mentioned above are further broken down into fourteen key points to
support her argument. The first point is that if we want a society filled with people that are selfmotivated or a high degree of intrinsic motivation to do things such as volunteer work, then
games can help us develop those people. People like to play games, no matter what kind of
game it is. Whether it is golf, Tetris, or a video game such as Portal, people like to play games.
That isn’t to say that people like to play every game, but just about everyone likes to play some
type of game out there. There are four things that all games have in common, but one of the
most important is that they contain unnecessary obstacles. In other words, people do things in
the game that they really do not have to do because there are certain expectations, rules, and
challenges that people want to be able to overcome. Her example of golf is an excellent one as
there are so many rules about what you can and cannot do to get that little ball in that little hole
that is 400 yards away in four strokes or less. Why? Why try to hit it to a specific spot with this
club, why can’t I just throw it on there? Why can’t I just walk up and drop the ball in the cup?
Why am I even bothering myself with doing this when I have work to do? The answer is
because people get a great sense of personal satisfaction by voluntarily overcoming a
challenge, even if the challenge has little meaning behind it. If more people would learn how this
feels, then real world volunteerism would be something that more and more people would
engage themselves with.
There is also a certain level of value that needs to be placed simply on our own personal
happiness. McGonigal makes an argument that quality of life is one of the most important
factors in our society today and that quality of life is enhanced by happy people. She suggests
that much of reality is depressing, and when you have a society full of depressed people, it is
hard to induce the level of engagement needed to make the world a better place. Game
developers today are putting a lot of emphasis on game elements that invoke positive human
emotions and essentially make us happier and put us in a better mood to confront reality. This is
related to McGonigal’s third point and another humanistic trait that we all have, the happiness
derived from accomplishing something, or the satisfaction we get from getting work done. Of
course, in games a lot of the “work” is relative nonsense. Nevertheless, these nonsense
missions teach us that without clear goals and a plan of steps to achieve the goal, we cannot
get anything done. When people look to solve real world problems, they need to be able to
develop a goal and an action plan, and games help train us to do just that.
The fourth point that McGonigal makes is that if we want to be able to solve major
problems of the world, we need to learn how to be optimistic about our tasks, even in the face of
failure which will surely happen along the way. Gamers learn how to appreciate failure,
especially when it is accompanied with positive failure feedback. McGonigal suggests that not
only do gamers like this, but they find motivation within it, pointing out that gamers tend to get
bored with something when they are too good at it, yet are eagerly engaged when they are not
quite good enough but will be if they keep working at it.
The fifth point McGonigal makes is that some games are designed to be played socially
with others and those games help people to develop prosocial emotions such as happy
embarrassment and vicarious pride. Scientific research has show that happy embarrassment,
such as the enjoyment we get from teasing or being teased by others, is a trait that better allows
us to build trust with other people. Vicarious pride refers to the sense of pride we all get when
we see someone else experience success, especially if we played a part in guiding or mentoring
them to that success. The concluding suggestion is that social games help us to build trust with
others and appreciate the value in stepping forward to help others achieve their goals.
McGonigal is big on the idea of value from social interacting games. In the previous example,
she is pointing to something that is relatively small scale or an individually possessed trait for
social interaction. In another example, point #6, she talks about the value of being part of
something big, something epic. She uses the example of the game Halo to illustrate the
satisfaction that gamers observed by being part of a massive group effort to accomplish
something monumental, even though their part in the task had very little effect at all and the task
would have likely been accomplished even without them. The suggestion is that gamers
develop this intrinsic satisfaction of being a part of something bigger than themselves. We can
easily look at current world problems such as recycling / waste and energy conservation and
see so many people that do not participate because they know the problem is bigger than them
and the few Kilowatts of energy they conserve or the aluminum soda can they save, wash, and
bring back to the store will make no significant difference towards such a huge problem.
Gamers on the other hand, they don’t look at it that way. They will do those things just to be part
of something epic and monumental with the hope that if everyone jumps in, they will in fact
make a difference.
From here, McGonigal goes briefly into the concept of how alternate reality games
(ARGs) such as Chore Wars, Quest to Learn, and SuperBetter can engage gamers to
accomplish positive things in the real world, outside of virtual spaces. While these game
examples have very specific intended outcomes, one can envision taking any real world
challenge, big or small, and developing a game concept around it that incorporates a positive
reward feedback system. Related to this is McGonigal’s eight point, the application of reality
based awards and recognition that are not really games but include some game-like elements.
She uses the example of plusoneme (+ 1 me) where people can go online and award you with a
plus one up score for a particular trait that you demonstrated. Nike + is also a great example of
this same concept, where people are encouraged to participate on positive activities for their
health by a simple game-like points based awards and stats system. McGonigal’s ninth point is
also related to alternate reality games and it focuses on the benefits of gamers that establish
themselves, comfortably, in communities of strangers. The suggestion is that in order to solve
big real problems in the world, it will take communities of people with the same goals in mind,
most of whom will be strangers to each other and we must be able to adapt to this environment.
Gamers with experience in games such as Comfort of Strangers, Ghosts of a Chance, and
Bounce know the power of a community and are more willing to accept the strangers in that
community as partners for a cause. To finish off the subject of alternate reality games,
McGonigal makes her tenth point with reference to “happiness hacks” which are games
designed to bring happiness to people in unsuspecting or unintentional ways such as random
acts of kindness or dancing.
The last major topic area is based on “very big games” and is the basis of McGonigal’s
eleventh through fourteenth points. She starts off by discussing the tremendous value in
crowdsourcing, where large groups of people are solicited to help do a tremendous amount of
real world work. The suggestion is that game designers have been working, and continue to
make progress, on creating games that engage masses of people in solving real world
problems. Furthermore, she asserts that gamers will be the ones that you can count on to
participate in large bandwidths purely for the emotional psychological effects vs. non-gamers
who would need to rely more on rewards of monetary value which is an unsustainable concept.
She expands on this concept further in her twelfth point that games have the potential to
crowdsource people by attracting them to the potential for an “epic win.” The value of achieving
something epic was discussed earlier and McGonigal takes this concept a little further in her
section on big games to suggest that putting game like elements to structured tasks and goals
could rally the force needed to conquer major world challenges.
One of the strongest points that McGonigal makes is her thirteenth point that gamers
and game designers of massive multiplayer games are learning how to master the art of
collaboration, cooperation, coordination, and co-creation. The suggestion is that if we are going
to tackle the problems of the world, all of these skills will be required among all participants.
Furthermore, she offers evidence that in order to get good at these things, we need to spend
almost 10,000 hours practicing them, which can be done effectively in game environments.
McGonigal’s final point is that in order to solve the problems and save the world, people need to
be able to have three other essential skills beyond the ones already discussed. They include
being able to take a long look into the future and evaluate how current actions right now will
affect things in the future, have an ecosystems thought process where people consider how
making a change or taking action in one part of a system will affect other parts of the system
when they are interwoven and interconnected, and pilot experimentation where we learn to test
out our theories in small scale before applying them to the larger whole. Gamers with 10,000
hours experience doing these things will be well prepared to bring these skills to the challenges
of the world.
Critical Remarks
My remarks come from two different angles. One angle is focused on the book itself and
the things McGonigal has written. The other angle is focused on the reality of the topic and the
ability to make the leap from concept to practice.
First let’s start with the book itself. I think the book is very well written and very
interesting. It presents an alternative viewpoint in contrast to an overwhelming public sentiment
that video games and computer games are bad and an unproductive waste of time. I have had
related conversations with friends and family members about this topic where they were
convinced that games are going to help lead our nation, and world for that matter, into an
endless spiral of doom led by delusional world leaders that grew up on video games having no
sense of reality. Being one of those gamers, it makes me want to hide in a corner and when
engaged in the conversation all I can do is simply nod my head in agreement and pretend that I
am not really a gamer. After reading this book, I look forward to engaging those individuals back
into the conversation again and offering some new perspectives that should cause them to
second guess, and allow me to feel better about the time I have spent online playing games.
The structure of the book’s content is put together quite well indeed. She does not
overwhelm us with scientific research but includes just enough so that we are convinced that
much of the psychological factors that play into things like intrinsic motivation is not just a
random observation, but something based on scientific proof. The games she uses as examples
are also well suited to support her argument and she does a great job at explaining how the
games work so that we can see the connections. Although, at times I felt her examples maybe
contained a little too much detail and got away from the point of the book. Nevertheless, after
reading about the positive traits of these games I feel as though I want to try them out myself as
most I have never played.
However, my admiration for McGonigal and her support of my gaming habits does not
help me to make the leap to the “epic wins” that she suggests I am capable of because I may be
approaching my 10,000 hours of game time. For me, this insinuation almost takes the book and
categorizes it into fiction writing to some extent. I do not disagree with the first part of the book
that highlights how many positive soft skills, happiness, and quality of life can be enhanced
through game play, nor do I disagree with the positive benefits of alternate reality games and
the potential they have for improving one’s real life. However, this concept of solving world
hunger, political instability, climate change, etc., by crowdsourcing gamers is a bit much for me
to swallow. I think these problems require much more academic strength and people with
practical solutions than just somebody with a few thousand hours of teaming up with some
random gamers behind fictional avatars to kill some ogre warlords.
I think the concerns that many people have about the negative effects of games are
legitimate too. There is significant argument, and research supporting it, that gamers who spend
intense amounts of time secluded in their computer games do suffer from some social skill
deficiencies and some of the game content (sex, violence, etc.) can lead to people acting out in
undesirable ways. While she does make a quick note to acknowledge that not all game play is
positive, she does not really address these issues well. However, that may not have been her
intent. Her intent seems to suggest a new perspective, not necessarily a counter-argument to
those concerns.
Nevertheless, we are still asked to assume that these gamers will make the leap from
their games to real world problem solving because they simply have the skills to do so. I think if
somebody in the academic or scholarly community wanted to corroborate her position, they
should focus some research on people who are making a difference in society, people who are
deeply involved in working towards solutions for hunger and climate change, and see if there is
some statistical correlation between these people and gamers, or hours spent playing games.
The last observation I will make here is that I found it odd that in the section on reality
games, she did not really address simulation based games. She devoted the whole section
almost entirely to alternate reality games, which was interesting for me as I really am unfamiliar
with these. However, there has been a lot of emphasis put into games that try to simulate real
world tasks and skills such as flying planes for pilot training and other similar machinery
operation scenarios (construction equipment, race cars, passenger cars) along with other fields
that use science simulators, medical simulators, and other types of virtual reality applications for
productive purposes. Pointing to the positive benefits of these applications I feel would have
supported her argument much better.