In class on the 14th, the discussion touched on many topics, but the one in particular I would like to expand on is the arguments of both Carr and Bush. Essentially, Carr says that as we continue to advance the methods which we present our information, our attention span will decrease. Bush says however, that as we advance the ways in which we present our information, the methods in which we store and retrieve information will reflect our  natural way of thinking.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with Bush. While Carr makes many good points, I feel his overall logic is flawed because it fails to take into account the impact of information delivery systems on our way of thinking. What Carr considers a generation with a lack of attention due to instantaneous computerized  information could simply be a more accurate representation of how human’s naturally think. Whereas the perceived superior attention of those who were raised using a book system, represent a learned system of “attention” that conforms to and is the result of the available technology.

The logic behind “declining attention span” is flawed.  The use of books in and of itself requires far more attention focused on the activity of finding and compiling the appropriate books to then further the research of the topics at hand. In the case of electronically accessible information, all of the information that a researcher uses is complied into a “Hypertext” which is focused specifically at the topic at hand and has links to related topics and information available (this method mirrors the way that people naturally think, which contrasts to the book method, where a researcher has to thumb through pages of potentially unrelated information to find what he or she is looking for). Therefore, I would personally argue that Carr’s assertion may be somewhat correct that we do in fact have a decreased attention span in terms or compiling research, but that it is no way negative thing, as the information systems we have now do not require the strenuous effort to compile research, but rather are more consistent with how humans naturally think.