Has Google Made Us Worse Listeners? Passive vs Active Listening in the Age of Search Engines

The Epistemological Question of Knowledge in the Digital Age

The question of how the mind can appropriately accumulate knowledge is a topic that has been a subject of countless debates. Among the many nuances and complexities surrounding the nature of knowledge, the rise of search engines as an epistemological source has reinvigorated the specific question of which testimonies we ought to believe and why we ought to believe them. In Hanna Kiri Gunn’s publication “Has Google Made Us Worse Listeners?” she offers insight into how we interact with search engines, or more specifically, Google.

Kiri argues in her paper that although Google offers us a new capacity to improve as listeners, a large portion of Internet users do not interact in an ideal manner with this feature and would benefit from becoming active participants in the learning process. In this paper, I shall summarize Gunn’s paper, critically examine her arguments on why Google has made us worse or better listeners, and defend her conclusions from potential objections. Thereafter, I shall ask questions left unanswered and give advice to the reader.

Hanna Kiri Gunn’s Argument: Google and the Problem of Listening

Gunn’s paper begins by clarifying the difference between ‘passive listening’ and ‘active listening’. Gunn rests the entire paper upon this distinction, namely, that passive listening is a form of information gathering wherein we accept a testimony with no intent to investigate it or to remember it, while active listening consists in both the listener and the speaker participating.

Passive Listening vs Active Listening

What Is Passive Listening?

Passive listening, according to Gunn, occurs when individuals simply accept information without engaging with it critically or attempting to retain it. This form of listening often appears when users search for information online and quickly accept the first answer presented to them.

Why Active Listening Matters for Knowledge Formation

Active listening, on the other hand, allows us to “responsibly form beliefs, and allows us the opportunity to update or revise existing beliefs.” Indeed, the duty of being a good listener is a crucial aspect of our epistemological responsibilities.

Google, Personalization, and the Risk of Echo Chambers

Gunn also argues that the personalization of Google filtering can allow us to fall into an echo chamber, wherein the information gathered cannot possibly confront a person and force them to engage in active listening. One of the primary concerns we face when tasked with confronting information presented to us on Google is learning how to decipher whether it can be trusted. The assumption that the specific information on Google must be true has led many users to engage more frequently in passive listening.

Gunn also notes that traditional literature on the nature of testimony is lacking, as it primarily concerns the nature of the speaker rather than the duties of good listening. However, good listening is equally important in the process of knowledge acquisition, especially in an era where information is widely accessible online. Furthermore, good listening is imperative to a healthy society, as our beliefs affect not only ourselves but others as well. The responsibility of forming beliefs carefully therefore extends beyond the individual and becomes a social concern.

Listening Widely and Intellectual Curiosity

Gunn also argues for the importance of listening widely, emphasizing the role of intellectual curiosity in the pursuit of accuracy. This pursuit often requires acknowledging the possibility that we may have been mistaken in our previous beliefs.

This concern is especially relevant for a democratized source of information such as the Internet, since Google has allowed a wide diversity of opinions to be published and distributed. Consequently, we rely on Google to sort through and filter the vast amount of information available on the web.

Understanding Google as Testimony

However, this reliance is not necessarily problematic if the hierarchy Google provides is based upon the quality of the work rather than which website receives the most clicks. Finally, Gunn argues that it is necessary to listen with the sincere attempt to understand, which is a more focused method of learning than the passive listening that many people practice online when they merely read information without consciously attempting to understand it.

We must therefore understand Googling, Gunn claims, as deciphering the claims of others. As she explains, “treating online testimony as a kind of testimonial-credit account instead of a deep resource of the worldviews of others changes our attitude to what is available to us”.