Reading Digitally, Thinking Digitally

Ünal Özmen

Cave walls, tablets, parchment, paper; the printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and the internet—all were inventions born of the desire to spread emotion, knowledge, belief, in short, the word. As knowledge increased, the means of dissemination developed, and knowledge became industrialized. Undoubtedly, each invention made access to knowledge easier. Yet, unfortunately, its spread and multiplication, its change in quality, did not democratize knowledge. On the contrary, it turned knowledge into a tool of authority.

Although it is said that knowledge is power and that we live in an information society, the concept of “information pollution” also belongs to this era. Especially through the internet and social media platforms, and the new type of reader and way of thinking they created, polluted information has been produced and distributed. With the speed at which digital information spreads, the solemn world of printed publications has been shaken to the same degree. Distancing from printed publications has inevitably led to mental poisoning, which in turn has caused cognitive decline.

In the digital realm, object and subject switch places; digital tools turn the user into a follower, forcing them to become a scanner: eyes skim over the text without depth, ears hear but do not listen. As organs grow lazy, they eventually turn from slow, concept-heavy texts that require mental effort to fast-consumed content. At this point, the individual no longer needs concepts or conceptual knowledge. Concepts become empty symbols without meaning. This leads the individual, and eventually society, to a lack of analytical thinking: at that point, one cannot form judgments based on knowledge, loses the ability to establish cause-and-effect relationships, and relies on emotional opinions when making decisions.

Emotion feeds on personal opinions, and opinions, as unshakable and unchangeable beliefs, turn the individual into a stubborn person. The American thinker Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) speaks of four methods we use to rid our thoughts of doubt and decide that we are thinking correctly: the method of tenacity, the method of authority, the method of natural preferences, and the method of science. The most comfortable of these, the one that gives mental ease and peace, is tenacity. A person who fixes their opinion can continue to live unaware of the world, alone with their emotions, as long as they are not affected by a practical change that challenges their mind.

The internet, especially social media algorithms, prevents individuals from leaving their fixed opinions by presenting the content they want to see/hear. By gathering stubborn personalities on the same platform and hiding opposing content, it keeps users away from ideas that might break their stubbornness. That is why written messages and debates on information-sharing platforms called social media, which have turned into echo chambers where followers and followed flatter each other, show no traces of deep thought.

From Tenacity to the Scientific Method: Is a Turn to Evidence-Based Thinking Possible?

The information pollution and slogan culture offered by the internet do not liberate the individual but instead imprison them within their own cognitive limits. So is it possible to develop an original, knowledge-based judgment, to escape screen addiction, and to delve into the depth of concepts? Are we ready to free ourselves from the ready-made answers that flatter us? I believe this requires confronting questions that break our stubbornness and shake us.

The fundamental feature of digital technology is its ability to spread information rapidly. This feature also forces the receiver to be fast. Therefore, digital technology must both break down information into small pieces by eliminating details that slow its speed and cleanse it of content that strains the receiver’s capacity. The way to shrink information is to detach it from its context, to discard background knowledge and cause-and-effect relationships. The result of this is shallowness. Intellectual shallowness means giving up thinking, losing the capacity for comprehension. According to Renaissance philosopher Nicolaus Cusanus (1401–1464), one possible outcome of this situation is a turn toward intuition. Shallowness, intuition, or at best mysticism, makes the individual indifferent to worldly affairs.

Although digitalization plays an encouraging role, it is not correct to see it as the sole cause of shallowness. In the end, technology provides an environment; what matters is entering that environment prepared. If one does not have sufficient equipment, it is not you who use technology, but technology that uses you. This is what happens today on platforms called social media: a limited number of written, auditory, and visual messages—most of which we do not know where, by whom, or for what purpose they were produced—are transmitted among billions of passive users. Those who receive and forward messages without verification or logical analysis become couriers of well-packaged, malicious industrial messages.

The shrinking of information by information technology, and the weakening of its content while shrinking, is not the fault of technology, but being the recipient of contentless information is the fault of the user. It is neither possible nor necessary to resist technology, block it, ignore it, or live without it by placing our faults on it. By knowing and accepting this reality, it is possible to make maximum use of digital opportunities. For this, it is enough to be a good media literate with critical awareness.

Critical awareness and media literacy skills are acquired by engaging with knowledge and participating in the process of knowledge production. A reader can gain this skill from printed publications that provide lasting learning. Unlike digital sources, printed publications (books, journals, newspapers, etc.) require attention, effort, patience, and physical contact, offering the reader the opportunity to analyze and follow ideas. If we understand that concepts are acquired from printed publications that represent analytical resolution, and if we possess conceptual knowledge, we can escape being dragged along by speed and fragmented remnants of information. Although some may consider the deep perspective represented by printed publications as mere nostalgia, it remains, now and in the future, the only and most reliable shield to protect our minds.

Yorumlar