I still don’t think that lateral thinking and non-linear thinking and connections between different disciplines constitute “new” thinking. They are not in any sense new. These are all exactly the kinds of thinking that have led to ALL human developments in science, technology and so on. They do depend for their usefulness, however, on a balance with “old” thinking - if too much old thinking is lost, the benefits of the “new” will be pretty limited. It is my belief that we betray the “net-gen” by allowing them to lose so much “old” thinking, and leaving them with impoverished attention spans and cognitive skills.

Clicking hyperlinks is a reflection of what our brains like to do, and of how we think. It is not a device that especially “changes” how we think, unless we over-use it. I believe the relation between the internet and our minds is like that of television, or a dictionary. Television both reflects our lives and culture, and perpetuates/constrains it. Dictionaries do the same for our language. And the information superhighway does the same for our thought processes. Double-edged sword in all cases.

A very interesting point Clarice. We need to guard that the ‘old’ language doesn’t fall out of use like Latin.

I do think the ‘new’ thinking has many positive aspects though. Lateral thinking, and connections between disparate ideas from different disciplines, should become easier for a generation used to clicking hyperlinks!

The hungry.com example is not believable, is not referenced or supported in any way, is not a parsimonious use of language, and is presented out of context, so its motivation and meaning is unclear. It tells us nothing, apart from the fact that domain names are common in our language now. Big wow.

What is more “interesting” is what has happened to people’s attention-spans. Having a short attention span is not a new way of thinking though. It’s an impoverished way of thinking. Although I’m all for innovative and even implicit teaching, edutainment as he calls it, at the forefront of human knowledge are concepts, ideas, and logic that require a minimum span of attention to grasp, let alone to critique or to build upon.

Furthermore, any generational change in “thinking styles” cannot be solely attributed to the “digital revolution” (an umbrella term if ever there was one), when this is not by any means the only thing that has changed over time. It’s multi-factorial, over-determined, and I find his argument rather simplistic. I could almost forgive it, if it wasn’t from a Digital Immigrant (judging by his website), who really should know better.

I’m reminded somewhat of the David Cameron binary analogue-digital dichotomy (you can put in the URI to that post if you like) - it’s clear what camp he’s in…

Don’t be too hasty to judge the concepts though. What he is claiming is, that despite the fact that the tools have been created by people who think in the ‘old’ way, these tools have in some sense transcended the thought processes that created them, and allowed new thinking in individuals not so used to the old thinking.

it will be interesting to see the kind of computers and games created by Digital Natives, and how they differ from those developed by the vanguard.

Having read his essay, I think he is missing a fundamental point - where did this digital technology come from, I wonder, if not from those he gives the blanket name “digital immigrants” (because it’s not a continuum, yeah? it’s a “discontinuity”) ? And why has it become so ubiquitous? Because it evolved organically, guided by the pre-existing cognitive competencies of those who designed and first began to use it. Because it is designed to take advantage of pre-existing cognitive architecture, not because it is a radical departure from it! Otherwise, it would never have taken off.

It’s a nice metaphor, the notion of the digital “language”, but this man is so far up his own IEEE port, all I can see is the size of his hard-drive.

The window you describe is not just based upon age, but on cultural engagement. The latter is of course influenced by the former, but also by other factors (socio-economic, occupational, educational, cognitive style and so on).