Clive Thompson, author of Smarter Than You Think, is a writer for the New York Times, Wired Magazine, as well as his long-time science-and-tech blog, Collision Detection. The introduction of the internet in the 1990s, followed by his realization that “amazing things happened more often than not when everyday people are given remarkable powers of self-expression on a global scale” prompted him to report about science and technology and its influence on one’s everyday life. Since his first days as a magazine writer, he has developed a writing style which encompasses “…deeply reported stories that get beyond headlines and harness the insights of science, literature, history, and philosophy” (Thompson). Now a prominent and respected writer, he has further developed this style with the publication of his book, Smarter Than You Think.
With this novel, Thompson hopes to dispel the notion that “…society and civility would fall off a cliff” (Thompson) due to internet use, just as he once used to believe. This book, published in 2014 by Penguin Random House—a publication company specialized in adult and children’s fiction and nonfiction print—argues that the “internet has [caused us to] learn more and retain information longer, write and think with global audiences, and gain a [mental] awareness of the world around us” (Thompson). In other words, Thompson asserts that technology, specifically the internet, is making the general population much smarter than ever before, thus making it beneficial. More specifically, in the chapter “Public Thinking” he hopes to persuade to younger generations and critics that technology has improved our writing, reading, and critical thinking skills in comparison to years previous, and will continue to do so.
Throughout the chapter, presents three sub-claims to describe his thoughts on his general argument that technology is making us smarter. First, he asserts that the internet has caused us to write more than ever before. He then continues his argument by showing that having an audience—all internet users—influences the quality of our writing. Lastly, he finishes his assertion by demonstrating that our connections to those around the world, via the internet, has improved our communication skills. With each claim, rhetorical moves are used to persuade his readers to adopt his beliefs. His incorporation of sufficient evidence from varied sources builds his logos. He does this to show that he is informed on the topic due to his research, adding substance to his argument. Furthermore, his tone and diction allow his readers, critics of all ages, to understand exactly what he is saying. The informal tone and use of non-complex words allows the text to be inclusive to all those who want to read it, thus expanding the amount of people his message gets to. These devices ultimately convey the feeling of being talked to rather than being talked at, allowing the audience to be more likely to agree with Thompson.
These rhetorical moves are mostly seen in Thompson’s second sub-claim: the presence of an audience causes us to improve our writing and think more precisely. This claim is formatted in a basic argumentative structure, meaning that an initial claim was made and supported with evidence immediately after. This is first shown as he uses blogger testimonies to show that “audiences clarify the mind even more” (Thompson, 52). After making his claim, he introduces the founder of DuckDuckGo, Gabriel Weinberg, and his belief that “blogging forces you to write down your arguments and assumptions…[leaving you] to really defend your position for yourself” (Thompson, 52-53). In doing so, he used Weinberg’s quote—his evidence—to show that audiences do influence one’s quality of writing. This format was then shown again as he used a study done by Vanderbilt University in 2008 to demonstrate that “…the effort of communicating to someone else forces you to think more precisely, make deeper connections, and learn more” (Thompson, 55). Once again, the basic argumentative structure was used to develop his argument. His decision to do this was influenced by the fact that his audience would be critics, some even being from the younger population. This straight forward style of writing allows his readers to understand his claims and evidence; there is no room for confusion. Rather than feeling perplexed and eventually abandoning the work, the readers can fully comprehend his claim and possibly contribute to the conversation.
Generally, Thompson is successful in asserting his main argument within the chapter. He does this primarily by increasing his logos with use of sufficient and reliable evidence. Throughout the text, he quotes notable figures, such as Deborah Brandt, Cecil Day-Lewis, Gabriel Weinberg, Sir Francis Bacon, and Emily Dickinson, to either explain various phenomenons or to discuss history and compare it to today. While he used Weinberg to explain an audience’s influence to rid writing of “hand waving” (Thompson, 53), he used Brandt to describe how past generations “[wrote]…mostly for work” (Thompson, 50), as opposed to today’s generation who “[write] about things [they’re] simply interested in” (Thompson, 51). Furthermore, he uses real world application, in the form of personal anecdotes and research, to develop his argument. First, he uses his mother’s lack of prose writing throughout her 77 years of life to show that the invention of technology has increased today’s quantity of writing. He later uses the Vanderbilt and Wikipedia studies to show that the presence of an audience, whether they are physical or virtual, enhances our quality of writing and allows us to think more precisely. In doing so, he relays to his readers that his argument is valid; he is not simply persuading them to agree with a belief that has no supporting evidence. In other words, his logos increase his ethos, causing his argument to appear valid and strong. Though the overall strengths of Thompson’s argument persuade his audience to adopt his pro-internet belief, it is only to an extent.
Though Thompson had many strengths, most of which were discussed previously, his weaknesses somewhat hindered his overall argument. His most evident weakness was that his argument was biased. Throughout the chapter, he discusses the use of technology and its benefits on the human population thus far. Although this can be considered a strength, there is no mention of a negative stance on the issue, not even in the introduction. Rather than introducing a critic’s belief and disputing it with a counterargument, he instead presents his main claim and supports it using multiple sub-claims and sources of evidence. Furthermore, another obvious weakness was the failure of his evidence to directly relate to his sub-claims, and thus his main argument. “Public Thinking” asserts that the internet has made us smarter, specifically through social media’s tendency to persuade us to write more and better than ever before as a sub-claim. To support this, Thompson states that “we compose 154 billion e-mails, more than 500 million tweets, and over 1 million blog posts each day” (Thompson, 46-47). He then continues to say that “…we’re composing at least 3.6 trillion words daily, the equivalent of 36 million books” (Thompson, 47). Although this seems impressive, which it is, it only supports half of the sub-claim. The statistics show that we write much more compared to those who lived decades ago, not that we write better. Thompson fails to provide any evidence that the quality of our writing has improved, if it has at all. The evidence he provides throughout the chapter is weak, relative to his many sub-claims and his general assertion. Though his overall argument towards his audience of varied-aged critics was somewhat successful, the inclusion of a counterargument and relative evidence to his sub-claims would have made it much stronger than it stands now.
Overall, I agree with Thompson’s main claim. It is evident to me that my ability to write, speak, and think has changed over the years, partly due to the use of technology. However, I identify most with Thompson’s claim that having a global audience, via technology, has improved our quality of writing. This phenomenon, called the audience effect, is a “shift in our performance when we know people are watching” (Thompson, 54). Though I have never experienced this through my writing, as my audience has always been my teachers, I have found this phenomenon to be true through other activities I have done. The activity I found this to be most prominent is choir. As a member of the choral program, I was required to perform in three shows per year. With each show came hours of rehearsal as a single choir, followed by a dress rehearsal as a program immediately prior.
Throughout my four years, I have noticed that with each “performance” came a more distinct value of excellence. When practicing in the choir room—the only people there being those in the choir, our director, and our pianist—I have to admit that we were not very good. We never sang the right notes, our voices clashed, and we missed all our entrances. It was evident that we weren’t doing as well as should as we should have; there was no point. At dress rehearsals, however, we did much better. With our audience being the members of the four other choirs on campus, we felt the need to do better. We had to prove to the other groups that we were the best of the program. As a result, our voices blended well together, we showed facial expressions, and we correctly followed the conducting of our director. It was noticeable to everybody that we improved. The most improvement, however, was shown during the actual show. We realized that not only did we want to impress our choral director, but also our audience—friends, family, teachers, and possibly even strangers. With this in mind, we gave the performance of a lifetime; our energy increased, we sang every note, and we sounded as if all eighty of us were one person. I believe this occurred because we wanted to prove to our audience that we were worth the $25 they were required to pay. With each succeeding performance, the quality of our sound and appearance increased, primarily due to the presence of an audience. For this reason, and many others, I agree with Thompson and his claim that an audience can affect the quality of activities you do.