ILNews

Indiana Judges Association:The Thinker 2.0

David J. Dreyer
September 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidHave you been thinking lately? Judges and lawyers make a profession of “thinking,” of analyzing, balancing, applying, and just plain old wondering. But do we think like we used to? Rodin’s famous sculpture “The Thinker” shows a sitting man deeply pondering. As the figure intensely contemplates, it shows a remarkable image of the perseverance of intellect – what makes us human. Indeed, the sculpture could also be called The Judge, The Lawyer, The Mechanic, even The Parent. Life’s endeavors ask our brain to do a complex job because life presents hard problems that we have to stop and figure out.

But what if Rodin made The Thinker today? It would probably sit with that same intense look, but is it not more likely that there would be an iPhone in its hand? The Thinker 2.0 might be spending more time buying apps than reflecting upon a problem. This is becoming more unsettling, particularly since Nicholas Carr’s provocative 2008 Atlantic article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet Is Doing To Our Brains.” Carr examines how human thinking is affected by technology – and raises a warning flag about Google and the Internet. Google believes “information is a commodity,” says Carr, and “the more pieces of information we can ‘access’ … the more productive we become as thinkers.”

What really worries Carr are the consequences of Google pervasiveness. “The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable,” says Carr, “not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. … Deep reading … is indistinguishable from deep thinking.” He laments the erosion of our inclination or ability to build great ideas in our complex minds, and our potential as … “‘pancake people’ spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” (quoting Robert Foreman)

Now if half of this is true, we judges and lawyers must pause, leave our computers, and think. In this “digital information age,” have we become digital thinkers, or what? As music fans already know, “analog” is oftentimes preferable to “digital.” Digital is not new, but means shorter, separate segments, to be very fast. Historical digital means of transmitting information include smoke signals, Morse code, even Braille. Analog means a continuous stream with more density and content, like a written sentence.

Thinking metaphorically, blogger Dave O’Hara writes, cooking strictly by recipe is digital, but cooking by instinct, reasoning, and preference is analog. Obviously there are speedy digital machines to write sentences. But do the speed and the ease of gathering information affect our time to reflect and form real ideas, not just repeat others? As judges need time, for example, to get behind the reasoning of a case or a brief, the siren of quick information by our digital technology tempts us all to replace slower deliberative thinking. Digital thinking may solve questions with a “pancake” approach,” but what if the case needs a whole loaf of bread?

Maybe we should be analog thinkers with digital law clerks.

But not all authorities are so pessimistic. Duke professor Cathy N. Davidson (Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn) has long studied learning and the Internet. She writes students understand “interconnection” long before their teachers and enjoy remarkable educational results. “Crowdsourcing,” for example, or instant collaboration and idea-sharing, has led her students to find more interest and excitement in coursework, and introduce new ways to learn and write better. Professor Davidson writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education that she even included students in grading and, “That democratizing of who can pass judgment is digital thinking.” She recently wrote to me, “I do not believe devices alone affect thinking, critical or otherwise. Practices, on the other hand, are another matter … we need to be teaching kids and adults how to use and contribute wisely to this remarkable new interactive means of exchanging information.”

Our system of justice is irrevocably changed by digital technology because we are changed. Our challenge is: understand the means of thinking may be different, but the substance does not have to be.

Futurist Richard Watson (Future Minds) worries about “screen culture,” and writes, “One consequence of … connectivity is that we are continually distracted … We seldom get the opportunity to sit quietly and think deeply … Digital technology, it seems, is good for spreading and developing ideas, but not much use for hatching them.”

The Thinker 2.0 should have an iPhone – and hopefully knows when to put it down.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School, and he is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT