Data is meaningless in the absence of an organizing context. That means that different people looking at the same data are likely to come to different conclusions. There is a big difference with what a world class artist can do with a paint brush as opposed to a monkey. In other words, the value of Google will depend on what the user brings to the game. The value of data is highly dependent on the quality of the question being asked. The big struggle is over what kind of information Google and other search engines kick back to users.
In the age of social media where users can be their own content creators it might get harder and harder to separate high-quality material from junk. The current network is full of inaccurate, misleading, and biased information that often crowds out the valid information.
Public Policy Council. Where the questions are easy, Google will therefore help; where the questions are complex, we will flounder. However, the unfortunately majority will continue to remain, as Carr says, stupid. The link quality may actually not be going down but the signal to noise is getting worse as commercial schemes lead to more and more junk links.
Literary culture is in trouble…. We are spending less time reading books, but the amount of pure information that we produce as a civilization continues to expand exponentially. That these trends are linked, that the rise of the latter is causing the decline of the former, is not impossible….
Hours spent texting and e-mailing, according to this view, do not translate into improved writing or reading skills. New literacies will be required to function in this world. In fact, the internet might change the very notion of what it means to be smart. Retrieval of good information will be prized. I have no reason to believe that people will be any less credulous, gullible, lazy, or prejudiced in ten years, and am not optimistic about the rate of change in our education systems, but it is clear to me that people are not going to be smarter without learning the ropes.
Got a question? In the coming years we will have to continue to teach people to think critically so they can better understand the wealth of information available to them. The world of information technology will be dominated by the algorithm designers and their librarian cohorts. And who decides that? Being able to look up who starred in the 2nd season of the Tracey Ullman show on Wikipedia is the lowest form of intelligence augmentation; being able to build social networks and interactive software that helps you answer specific questions or enrich your intellectual life is much more powerful.
This will matter even more as the internet becomes more pervasive. Already my iPhone functions as the external, silicon lobe of my brain. For it to help me become even smarter, it will need to be even more effective and flexible than it already is. What worries me is that device manufacturers and internet developers are more concerned with lock-in than they are with making people smarter. That means it will be a constant struggle for individuals to reclaim their intelligence from the networks they increasingly depend upon.
Nothing can be bad that delivers more information to people, more efficiently. It might be that some people lose their way in this world, but overall, societies will be substantially smarter. People now answer questions in a few moments that a couple of decades back they would not have bothered to ask, since getting the answer would have been impossibly difficult.
As the data and information goes digital and new information is created, which is at an ever increasing rate, the resultant ability to evaluate, distill, coordinate, collaborate, problem solve only increases along a similar line. Google itself and other search technologies will get better over time and that will help solve problems created by too-much-information and too-much-distraction.
That tool will allow queries to trigger chains of high-quality information — much closer to knowledge than flood. Humans who are able to access these chains in high-speed, immersive ways will have more patters available to them that will aid decision-making. All of this optimism will only work out if the battle for the soul of the Internet is won by the right people — the people who believe that open, fast, networks are good for all of us. I will have to choose between the answer I like the best.
Or it will force me to do more research to find more information. So much for rational decision making. It sounds hard as it is to make decisions when you have to manage a host of biological responses happening in the background, but we also make decisions based on mental processes that are influenced by biases and memories. Smart people do dumb things all the time.
Meanwhile, half of the U. Congress are climate change deniers. Are these Congress members stupid? According to a study published in Nature, this has nothing to do with intelligence. Missing or incomplete information, urgent deadlines, limited emotional or physical resources: there are many reasons why smart people may make a poor decision.
Decision making is a complex process, and there are many other factors such as your environment, time-pressure, and your actual and perceived knowledge that can impact the decisions you make. While external factors are hard to predict and control, understanding your own decision making styles is a first good step to try and make better decisions.
These shift based on the current situation, the decision to make, and many of the factors we described before. This is just a framework. The scientists discovered that intelligence was linked in general to the thickness of the "grey matter" — the cerebral cortex of the brain, which plays a key role in memory, thought, language and consciousness.
It's dispersed all throughout, in the areas associated with integrating information coming from diverse areas of the brain, which makes sense," Karama said. If one looked at the average thickness of the cortex in these children, the differences between the lowest and highest IQs is on the order of a half-millimeter, Karama explained. That's roughly a third as thick as a penny.
Karama stressed these findings do not mean that cortex thickness — or intelligence — is based solely on genetics.
0コメント