Nutrition for the Mind

One of my favorite meta-blogs is the Encyclopedia Britannica Blogsite. [See: http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main ] The main page opens to the newest posts and to a “menu” divided into a variety of appetizing subject areas. Most contributors have been invited to write and are experts in their fields. The purpose of each entry is to stimulate an online conversation based on each author’s particular expertise. Reader responses are welcome.

Recently a Web2.0 section has been added. Its purpose is to provide a venue in which the intellectual life of the Web can be examined. After all, an unexamined Internet life is not worth living either! Leading contributors include librarians and a former Britannica editor. I sometimes feel I can detect the amorphous scepter of Mortimer Adler lurking in the ethers, pontificating on the four “goods of the mind”—information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom—somewhat like Adele Davis promoting the food groups as the basis of sound nutrition.

The Web2.0 debate decries the state of the well nourished mind. Much concern is voiced on the nature of the well-balanced intellectual meal online searchers are looking for, and on the crumbs offered. Web2.0 fears may be valid. It is possible that the bulk of readily available, free information on the Internet is, at best, snack and fast food.

It has been my experience as a librarian that many people are satisfied with crumbs. They want a quick answer to fill their hunger—any answer, nutritional values of no concern. They want to know when their favorite musical group will be performing in the area, the phone number of the nearest cleaners, and how to get airline tickets cheaply. These are perfectly legitimate uses of the Internet. They may even be the reason the web finally “caught on.” Remember those dot-coms that went under because they were pre-emptive and didn’t have business plans to match the medium? A hamburger joint will fail in a vegetarian neighborhood unless it caters to the customer. However, as everyone knows, a continuous diet of fast foods does not promote good health.

The Internet can provide ample nourishment to the seeker who wants a single, yet filling, meal of limited facts. For example, a searcher can readily locate information on a medical condition, its symptoms, treatment and prognosis that will satisfy them. It is their responsibility to determine whether they are being sold a “bill of goods” or are making healthy choices based on the nutritional needs of the mind.

If they have a truly serious condition, those healthy choices are critical. The authority of the information, its completeness, depth, and currency become as important as the information. A dietary life plan is called for. This is where expert searchers like librarians and “invisible web” resources become vital. This interaction is the meeting with a nutrition expert to plan one’s diabetic eating plan; purchasing the best nutritional values book available; beginning an exercise program; and changing one’s relationship with food and life. It becomes knowledge building with a goal of relevant understanding.

As Web2.0 contributors fear, many seekers of the “goods of the mind” are not getting a balanced diet with informational crumbs, fast and/or junk food. But are those committed to lifestyle change, longevity, and maximizing their health really going to stop when GOOGLE serves up a reasonable answer? Actualy GOOGLE Scholar provides entree into current scholarship and authors working in several research areas--if you know how to maximize that resource. Will a critically thinker be satisfied with one source? I hope not!

Web2.0 debate based on this characterization of intellectual prowess resembles is a “straw man” argument. What gourmand mind fills itself on the web? A judicious taste of Internet information networks won’t hurt once in a while. It may even introduce the gourmet to an elusive, tidbit heretofore unknown. One of the serendipitous findings of network theory, as it applies to the Internet, is the surprising occurrence of innovation and critically important information coming from peripheral and poorly connected nodes.

If the Web2.0 characterization is correct, the fault resides elsewhere. Elements of critical thinking must be taught at the dinner table of education, beginning with the high chair of elementary school and leading on from the formal banquet of post-graduate work. Standards must be set and met. Knowledge is not miraculously conferred in one sitting. Understanding integrates traditional food-of-thought sources like treatises, current documentation of nutritional elements similar to those found in peer reviewed journals, creative combinations of novel and flavorful concepts, and caloric limitations set by established theory and empirical demonstration—all contribute to the totality of the mind’s nourishment.

The Internet is not the bête noire of the mind. The responsibility of fitness rests with the individual. Flab or fit? The assessment depends on motivation, purpose, and conditioning. Those who revere Mortimer Adler, as I do, should not fear the decline and fall of the intellectual banquet of the mind because an Internet hot dog stand takes over our favorite corner. There is room for both. Those who really care, go elsewhere for sustenance.