Googling stuff can cause us to overestimate our own knowledge | Hacker News Reader

Googling stuff can cause us to overestimate our own knowledge

digest.bps.org.uk

56 pointskostandin_k23 comments

As a web dev (and not a very good one) I spend a lot of time googling coding problems which normally turn out to either have simple solutions or to be based on stupid mistakes I have made. Either way, googling quickly gives me the feeling that I know A LOT less than others do...

Of course reading youtube comments has the opposite effect on me.

I've learned that if I can't find the answer to a programming problem that I'm wrestling within 3 Google searches, I'm thinking about the problem completely wrong and need to step back and re-evaluate.

This is also why interviews are a joke when they expect candidates to have full recall without Internet assistance, documentation, syntax checking, or compiler feedback.

I was once given an online assessment test that was supposed to be for language "X". The recruiter accidently gave me the wrong one. At 3 mintues per question I was google racing and compiler testing like mad to answer each question. I passed.

After the mistake she then gave me the "real" test with the correct language. I did not search google (except for one question) or test with a compiler. I failed.

The authors of Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips 2011 [0] suggest a mechanism. Basically rather than retaining knowledge we retain, essentially, the relevant search parameters. A more compact representation!

The human brain is scary adaptable.

[0]http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dwegner/files/sparrow_et_al...

Essentially we are cyborgs (humans augmented by technology) if you count technology not mounted too or in the body itself, because we augment our knowledge and memory using online access to information particularly through tools like Google provides.

Some might argue against this and only count technology on or in the person, because we could also count books and libraries in the same sense - but I don't think counting the written word generally as a technology we use to enhance ourselves is invalid. It is as valid as counting the contact lenses and eyeglasses people wear to improve their vision IMO.

> Some might argue against this and only count technology on or in the person, because we could also count books and libraries in the same sense.

This is somewhat true but if I want to know the height of mount everest or the most common human blood group I can get that answer in under 3s with google which I couldn't do in a library, not to mention I carry everything indexable by google around in a little 5in across piece of glass and plastic.

True. Carrying the device my be enough to constitute being "on the person", where people argue that is the line to be drawn.

I just want an in-eye hud overlay with beyond human resolution, it's not a lot to ask ;)

Yes. The written word is part of our extended phenotype. Google-ing (especially on the go on your phone) is just so much tighter integrated and has a shorter feedback loop.

For an opposite view on how to use computers to enhance humans, look at SuperMemo. They use technology to help you practice remembering, not to remember for you.

(It's like steroid that let you train harder, vs using a forklift.)

This is interesting because the one thing I can't stand about large electronic documents is that I can't remember where things are and things are constantly re-flowing and appear different every time you look at them. In contrast with books/paper (that I grew up with) I "just know" exactly where I read things and more specifically what the page and paragraph of something looks like. I can grab the book, flip to approximately the right area, see the location and then find the passage. So in some respects the idea of storing the search rather than the content seems quite similar.

Incidentally, annotations also provide strong anchors for this memory and a little doodle in the margins can "store" a lot of content for recall. Annotation capability on the internet seriously blows.

100% describes me. Having grown up pre-google, and now operating in a post-google world, it frustrates me to always know exactly what I need to search for to get a factoid, but never remembering the exact details of the factoid itself.

I think there has to be some correlation between the level of effort required to obtain a piece of information, and the importance our brains assign to it for the purposes of recall.

I know people who can recite verbatim something they studied in a library 20 years ago but have to Google the same recent data each time they need to reference it.

Reminds me of that Einstein quote: "Never memorize something that you can look up."

Thanks for posting this link. I always thought that my brain is rather storing the path to the information instead of the information itself. While learning for an "operating systems"-class I remembered that the information I was discussing with a fellow student was "on a left book page". In this case the information itself was also present, but it certainly helped me to prove my point of view in that situation.

I absolutely do this, and have so for a long while now.

"When wikipedia has a server down, my apparent IQ drops by about 30 points"

https://xkcd.com/903/

Original Paper Searching for Explanations: How the Internet Inflates Estimates of Internal Knowledge

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/xge-0000070.pdf

One of the smartest people I ever worked for, told me I should only learn to look things up, and not worry with memorizing volumes of books. He was the head IT guy at a Telco/ISP. On his desk was a nameplate that read "Think".

I agree somewhat with the headline; however, what is the definition of knowledge? I think knowing how to search for the right things is part of knowledge. Knowing how to search for what you need to know extends your knowledge almost infinitely, and I don't think this is a bad thing. When I introduce others to web development, I prompt them to look things up and help them learn how to search. I think this is a critical skill, or maybe it's because I'm constantly googling while devving haha...

Psychology used to study the behaviour and cognition of undergrad students. Now it studies that of Mechanical Turk workers. Progress!

I don't rely on people's knowledge for the final authority. I rely on people being able to get the right information.

People' intelligence on finding the right information is more valuable than knowledge.

I have a high IQ and a 4.0 college degree (Well 3.956 but that last project till my degree was sabotaged by the professor :) ) I don't trust my "knowledge" and always validate it.

Url changed from http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/google-search-study/?utm_cid=..., which points to this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com