Pinker often uses anecdotal evidence, for instance, when he refers to the “familiar sight” of an SUV driver on a cell phone (6). How effective is this kind of evidence? Where does Pinker provide more scholarly proof, such as expert testimony and formal logical reasoning?
In the article Mind over Mass Media, Steven Pinker asserts that access to technology is promoting critical thinking skills by granting us easy access to information that would not have been readily available in the past. This quick access to information allows us to expound on previous research, information, and theories. The internet increases the ease of performing research. Scholarly information is more readily available. We do not have to worry about duplicating research. We can expand on previously acquired information and use that information as building blocks to further increase our knowledge, or form new theories based on research performed by others. This easy access allows us to share information and increase everyone’s knowledge. Two heads are better than one. It allows us to debate the results of research, share information, and make informed judgments. Being able to share information also gives us the benefit of each other’s perspectives. As Pinker points out, “the effects of experience are highly specific to the experiences themselves.” Experiences are individual. Each person has a unique perspective even when going through the same experience. Pinker’s perspective has merit which he supports with logical reasoning when he states that “ if electronic mediawere hazardous to intelligence, the quality of science would be plummeting,” yet it is not.