Google is destroying your memory
July 15, 2011 by Amara D. Angelica

(Credit: iStockphoto)
Well, OK, maybe not totally destroying it, just making it unnecessary to rely on friends, libraries, books, notes, and other forms of “transactive memory” (external systems), thanks to the rise of Internet search engines, Wikipedia, and other Internet tools.
So says Columbia University psychologist Betsy Sparrow, co-author of an article in Science Express.
“Since the advent of search engines, we are reorganizing the way we remember things,” she said. “Our brains rely on the Internet for memory in much the same way they rely on the memory of a friend, family member or co-worker. We remember less through knowing information itself than by knowing where the information can be found.”
Creative forgetting
Sparrow’s research reveals that we forget things we are confident we can find on the Internet. We are more likely to remember things we think are not available online. And we are better able to remember where to find something on the Internet than we are at remembering the information itself.
But what is the quality of what we’re finding with these random crowdsourced tools? Maybe it’s time to take another look at The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains? Do we have any way to know what’s real on the Internet any more? Speaking of, why are schools still forcing students to memorize if they have all these great tools?
“Perhaps those who teach in any context, be they college professors, doctors or business leaders, will become increasingly focused on imparting greater understanding of ideas and ways of thinking, and less focused on memorization,” said Sparrow. “And perhaps those who learn will become less occupied with facts and more engaged in larger questions of understanding.”
Transactive memory tools
OK, that’s all good, but we are still stuck with unstructured search tools with millions of random hits and an unwieldy kluge of software and hardware tools to access our electronic alter egos. (That’s not knowledge, that’s texting, to paraphrase Truman Capote.)
So let’s see, I use Google Chrome bookmarks in a complex hierarchy, Instapaper “Read later” (which I never do), Kindle and paper books, countless desktop folders with terabytes of files, thousands of random audio and video recordings…
And then there’s lifelogging tools, like Lifelapse for iPhone, which I just started experimenting with (takes a photo every 30 seconds and lets you share it via a one-minute video) and Lifenaut, which lets you create a “mindfile” that preserves biographical pictures, videos, and documents in a digital archive.
But none of these tools really provides deep structured access to reliable, credible information. That may have to wait until Watson@home shows up….
Meanwhile, what tools do you use to remember, organize, and archive knowledge?
Comments (8)
by JBQuigs
As I understand it, there is a school of thought that going back to Biblical times, and even into the medieval period, that so few people could actually read that many people were simply better at remembering things. The line of thinking being that if someone didn’t have the ‘crutch’ of having something written down to read later, then the brain would be forced into remembering things on its own.
A more recent example of this is the cell phone: because we can simply click on someones name, as opposed to manually dialing their number, we aren’t forced to actually remember their numbers. This usually becomes inconvenient if/when the phone’s battery dies // no signal // what-have-you.
I can really only remember 2-3 numbers off the top of my head. At least I have everyone’s numbers on hard-copy in the event my phone dies/breaks on me again . . .
by card54
Is this not a phenomenon that began with scribing, or even earlier with the recognition that experienced elders and topically focused experts were themselves transitive memory tools for the rest of us? The first transitive memory tool I can recall and recognize as such was our 1965 World Book Encyclopedia. I was amazed at the volume of information I could find in those volumes, once I know how to look things up!
“Looking things up” has become the default for most of the information we do not deal with on a regular basis. If that is the case, then indexing information resources becomes a much more important cognitive function than storing primary information. Even with Google, many of us have our “go to” Internet resources that have proven reliability and authority.
Barring the apocalypse, we are now able to find vastly larger amounts of information than ever before. I’m curious as to what changes our cognitive processes have undergone in light of this use of “second order” knowing, or knowing where to find knowledge.
by card54
…learned how to look things up…
by michaeltristan
losing my humanity to a machine bit by bit. Where will I draw the line? How far do I let the machine in?… I’ve been typing for so long now, I can no longer write in cursive and was painfully reminded of that upon receiving a letter from a dear old friend and early mentor. I wanted to cry when I pulled the envelope from the box, first because it was so beautiful – a sacred object that clearly wore his mark and spoke of who he is as a person; second wave of tears were of shame, taking personal stock and realising I could barely form print that was legible, cursive but a distant memory. Never had the chance to take on any personality enough to represent me. Google is not the problem, we are. Time to re-define what it means to be human.
by thinkahol
see David Brin’s Disputation Arenas for ideas for creating a pruning process in our most important platform for collective understanding (the web).
by Mentalyptis
^ Did you already forget? :S
by geekette
Wow. This is a GREAT article. Thank you so much Dr. Editor for this piece. It not only makes a hugely important social-technical observation, but gives a number of links that are actually helpful! NICE WORK. I will try using lifelapse as a way to deal with a bully who has been bothering me. :)
by Khannea Suntzu
Uhm what?