Douglas Rushkoff was once a digital enthusiast. He could be seen as early as 1994 appearing on programs such as CNN Morning News to extol the revolutionary power of digital technology. He adamantly professed that its widespread adoption will be remembered as a monumental step in our continuing evolution. But as evidenced by his 2010 documentary Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier, Rushkoff has recently grown cautious in his praise.
In the years since his national television appearances, Rushkoff has noticed a fundamental change in the Internet. It is no longer “a thing one does, but a way one lives.” According to Rushkoff, that way of life is not without its risks.
His underlying concerns regarding our unbridled submersion into the digital realm revolve around the negative effects our reliance on the virtual can have on our connection with the external. In addition to an increase in cases of legitimate physical ailments resulting from excessive Internet usage, Rushkoff is also wary of the subtler but equally debilitating psychological impact that an addiction to digital technology can have. He refers to digital natives who have been consumed by digital usage as “casualties of the digital revolution.”
Specifically, Rushkoff, along with Rachel Dretzin, target their expose on the myth of multi-tasking. American high school students spend an average of 50 hours per week with digital media. While these students remain convinced that they are capable of multi-tasking successfully, recent studies have proved otherwise, concluding that multi-tasking learning environments do not optimize learning opportunities.
Test results cited by Rushkoff and Dretzin question whether multitasking is inhibiting our abilities to engage in genuinely analytical thought. It’s a classic struggle between quantity and quality.
Dr. Gary Small, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, has conducted studies that have demonstrated an increase in brain function when searching the Internet. Small found that the amount of brain activity that one experiences while Googling doubles the functioning that takes place while one reads a book. On the surface, the results are cut and dry. Such a finding appears to support the notion that Internet activity is boosting brain activity, and therefore nurturing the intellect. But Small is quick to point out that when measuring brain activity, less may be more. A swell in brain activity does not necessarily equate to an increase in learning. It may instead signal a decrease in efficiency as the brain works harder to accomplish less.
Once a champion of a deep integration of digital technologies within our lives, Rushkoff now wonders if our increase in digital media usage can be linked to what he describes as a “shrinking capacity to think.” Ruskoff and Dretzin ponder the same question that Mark Bauerlein poses; are we raising “The Dumbest Generation?” As Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future suggests, “the dawn of the digital age” once aroused our hopes for a hyper-informed era. Now it raises fears for a hyper-connected but constantly distracted generation.
Rushkoff goes as far as to compare our naivety regarding the potential pitfalls of digital media to our long dismissal of the perils of smoking. Though digital media may not be a killer, it is a threat. Finding a balance between our digital and daily lives will be a key component to maintaining a healthy information metabolism in the digital nation.
