Being efficient does not mean that we are giving up our opportunity of deep thinking. Google, and other new tools that we can use, is definitely bringing a mind change. As Nicholas Carr has noticed, those new tools and method lead to a change in our way of both learning and living. Max Planck once said, “A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” And it is the same case as Google. It is till being critiqued by the older generation and those who are advocates for our not changing, but our new generations are growing up with it. They have not experienced a life without it. Thereby, how do they know if it is good for us? It is always a good thing to change. We might not be able to prove if the change is benefit, but we will know. The most interesting thing I found in Carr’s paper is the example of how Socrates thought about writing. Here is how he says about it: “in Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, ‘cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.’ And because they would be able to ‘receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,’ they would ‘be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.’ They would be ‘filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.’” The comment Carr makes on this opinion is that, Socrates was’t wrong, but he was shortsighted. This comment is exactly what I want to say about Carr’s paper. Socrates failed to foresee the great progress that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and