Is Google Making us Stupid?

I found this to be an extremely interesting article! Before I started reading it, I assumed I would disagree because, after all, that internet and google is very beneficial in expanding our knowledge—we can look up information about anything we want to know more about! However, the writers made some excellent points that put things in perspective for me.
First, they explained how people nowadays like to skim information because they lose concentration after just a few pages. We are losing our ability to contemplate ideas, make mental connections, and read deeply and insightfully. The format of the internet, as the authors said, “distributes information in a swiftly moving stream of particles”, and our brain is beginning to do the same. If you think about it, the internet dictates a lot in our lives.
Our attention and concentration has been affected by the stimulus provided on the web—all the blinking ads, pop-up ads, hyperlinks, shortcuts, etc. have resulted in scattered thought.
Human intelligence is fascinating. One of the reasons it is so fascinating is because of the concept of human creativity. However, the internet and computers aim to systemize everything and take away creativity and insight. Another powerful statement from the authors was that “the last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.” This is powerful because it is saying that these companies will do just about anything to sell their product—regardless of the negative consequences.
Socrates feared that if people relied on words as apposed to the knowledge in their minds, they would “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” This is what is beginning to happen to us, and it relates to the topic of becoming more stupid! It is SO important to use intellect and creativity in everything we do, and as this article suggests, companies like google are making this more and more difficult.
This article can be related to my area of expertise—motivation. What motivates companies like google to continues making everything so easy and systematic? In this case, I think they are motivated by extrinsic factors and incentives, and not because it is personally rewarding and they love what they do They are motivated by power, money, and status. The CEOs and other employees have learned to value the power, money, and status, so they are incentives that the people are motivated to obtain.
I would also argue that the creators of these internet programs have high achievement needs. They set challenging goals for themselves but persist, even in the light of obstacles and frustrations—their motivation to achieve pushes them through so they can succeed.

I too found this article fascinating, and pinpointing several internet habits that people do nowadays that have greatly changed from before computers were so useful.
I do read books for pleassure, but, on the internet there is a vast amount of information available. Reflecting upon my own habits, yes, I do find myself skimming for some bit of information on the internet that is interesting or useful to me for whatever reason, like researching for a paper. If I don't see anything, it's on to whatever else I find next because otherwise I see reading the whole thing word for word as a waste of time. So I think the author is right on that reading habits are much different when applied to the internet.
Everything now is about convenience, and although it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article, IM's and text messages are all about getting your message across with the least amount of effort (words) possible. So we abbreviate words and use symbols to try to get our message across instead of typing whole words out. I've seen it get to a point where somehow one letter is a big deal, like shortening "night" to "nite." Is that really necessary? I've seen this different type of writing style cross over into people's formal papers for school as well, where there was IM lingo all over the place and it was quite awkward to tell the person whose paper I was proofreading that they need to use properly spelled out words.
I can relate this to my area of expertise which is perception. Between our five senses, our brains are taking in a huge amount of information but can only process a small amount at a time, the rest is filtered out. Reading things off of your computer screen isn't totally visual, you can hear your computer running, you can feel the chair under you, maybe you have food in your mouth while you're sitting there. But, are you really paying attention to your feet on the floor or that chair you're sitting on? Probably not until I brought it to attention. This illustrates that we perceive things selectively. Also, when searching for something on Google, it throws out many options and information at you and there's only so much that your eyes can take in and allow the brain to process the information being sent.

I prefer reading books - tangible, paper books - to reading on the internet. My dad prefers to make phone calls rather than texting. My grandpa prefers the radio to TV, and my great-grandma still thinks that bread was better before it came pre-sliced. New technology is always coming, and it's always bothering someone. To say that these are stressful in the sense of "threatening one's well-being" might be stretching it a little, but in the case of Google making us stupid, or creating artificial intelligence, it might be fitting. So, if we, as internet consumers, feel that the internet and Google are diminishing our learning abilities, or capacity for new knowledge, we have a couple of choices. At this point, I think we're in what's called an "approach-approach conflict," which basically means we have two positive options to choose from in order to resolve the conflict and the stress we feel. We can either turn back around to something that we know works, ie. full book volumes, library research, and single tasks at a time, or we can embrace the future, and continue on the path of many paths and options that the internet provides. The fact of the matter is that we would still be stuck in some period long ago if we kept stalling technological advances in favor of what we know. However, there is a point where our "still human" sensibilities should be telling us no - and that's the point when we need to pay attention to that stress and choose the best option to eliminate that perceived threat, or at the very least, the lesser of two evils.

I agree with the this article and the comments the author made. Whenever I have to do a research paper for a class, the first thing I do is go online to find articles. I do exactly what the article described- I skim through paragraphs and abstracts to find what I want. Rarely have I actually read an entire research article from beginning to end. Because we are able to type in what we want to search for, this eliminates the long process of searching through Annual Reviews and other journals/magazines to find the topic we are looking for. The internet just makes it so easy to find information on any topic that we are required to do much less work than in the past. Why would someone go through the process of searching through many books and magzines manually to find a specific topic when you can simply type in a few words in a database and find hundreds of articles on the topic you are looking for withing a few minutes? Since there are so many articles, we pick and choose sections of each article to read, quickly skimming over the rest. Though I agree with the author's opinion that the internet is harmful to our ability to read deeply, I myself am glad that I have the convenience to find so much information so quickly.

This article can be related to memory, which is my area of expertise. Memory can be defined as the persistence of learning over time through the storage and retrieval of information. When we encode information into our memory, this requires attention and effort. As the article suggests, the internet distracts our attention, making it hard to concentrate on one reading for an extended amount of time. This is not good for college students, because as you all know, we must read a lot of textbooks, many of which include long chapters. If we are not able to concentrate for very long, we will not get much reading done. Also, our lack of concentration on the readings will make us more likely to use rote learning (learning through repitition and memorization) instead of developing a full understanding of the subject. Because we may not be able to read as well, we may just skim over the text and try to find the important concepts/terms, memorize them for the test, and then forget about them afterward. This, in turn, will lead to less information that is maintained as long term memory. This demonstrates that the effect of the internet can also effect the process in which we encode memory, and also impact how much information makes it into our long term memory.

I also agreed with what the article was saying overall about a decrease in attention span. However, I think that before we declare that Google is making us stupid, we need to define what we mean by intelligence. My chapter on culture talked about how intelligence can be perceived by different people as a very different entity.

For example, if we would decide that intelligence is knowing many different facts, we may actually be able to say Google is making us much more intelligent. Like others were saying, we can now search out pretty much anything we want to know through the Internet. The article bemoaned the fact that we are losing our ability to read deeply and interpret text (which I do believe is alarming). However, maybe in our drive to become more efficient, more mechanic (as Google is trying to do), the rapid surface knowledge will be a mark of intelligence, rather than the deep philosophical thinking of the past.

That being said, though, I find it hard to believe that we will all just be sucked in to the Internet for all our waking hours. It is true that the Internet has incorporated communication with others through programs like Skype and television. Howard Gardner has named eight different kinds of intelligence (interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, kinesthetic, verbal-linguistic, mathematical, and so on). While many, if not all of these can be met partially through the Net, some of them cannot be completely satisfied. So, for people who are kinesthetically intelligent, perhaps Kurt Warner or the Williams sisters, is Google making them stupid?

Finally, I do not believe Google is entirely at fault here either, for our decreased attention spans. I think (though I could be wrong) that commercials today are MUCH faster moving than they were in the past. At home I have a few Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis DVDs that include commercials from that time period. There is about one camera view, the music is simple and easy to understand, the person displaying the product does so slowly, and they are obviously in black and white. Today’s commercials, whether they are on the Internet or TV, are mostly flashy, fast-moving and move from one scene to the next.

I think the author made a lot of thought provoking points, and although I don't entirely agree with him on certain areas, it is scary to think of a world where our minds are basically giant, unemotional computers. I must admit, whenever I need a fact or some quick research I'll immediately go to google to find what I need...fast. In my own personal experiences, I'm always looking for the quickest, most efficient way to get tasks accomplished. However, I don't think I'm alone and can see that this constant need for immediate gratification is pervasive throughout our entire culture. Take a look at anything we see in the media today. We as humans are always looking for the quick fix to any problems we have. Overweight? Get on Nutrisystem and get back into shape by simply eating different food and don't worry about changing your lifestyle. Want to make more money? Sign up for the latest get-rich-quick scheme that promises hope, but turns out to be neither wealth producing nor instantaneous. As a society as a whole, it seems we aren't willing to put in the time or the effort to improve or make changes the "old fashioned" way...we'd much rather take the shortest and quickest route to our destination. The same is true with research; most of us don't see the point in doing all the hard work ourselves when Google can be queued up in seconds and find us exactly what we're looking for. Am I saying Google is a bad thing? Of course not, it is a great tool that saves a lot of time. However, when carried to an extreme like the article suggests is happening, we may have a problem.

So, how exactly has our culture gotten to it's current state of emphasizing instant gratification and efficiency? I believe it all boils down to conditioning. On a personal level, we have all been operantly (is this even a word?) conditioned to seek the quickest, easiest solution to any problem we face. As BF Skinner showed in his experiments, specifically with rats in the "skinner box," people/animals will usually repeat behaviors that are followed by favorable outcomes. To give a very brief summary of one of his experiments, Skinner would take animals (usually pigeons or rats) and stick them in a small box with a lever. The goal was to get the animal to systematically press the lever upon certain conditions (say, for instance, a small green light comes on). However, when the animal was put in the box initially, it had no idea what the task to be completed was. So, whenever the animal would touch the lever, they would be reinforced with a piece of food. Eventually, the animal is shaped to perform the task, and the behavior is refined through further reinforcement and/or punishment. In this context, reinforcement is something that increases the behavior, while punishment is something that decreases it (eg: hitting the lever when the light is red and receiving a shock, naturally the animal will learn to not hit the lever when it's red!). So, the point of all that was to relate to our present situation with Google. When we are confronted with a research problem, we are similar to the animals in the box. We don't really know how to go about the task, so we use trial and error. Doing a lot of "book research" usually takes a long time and may not get us to where we need to go, thus it acts like a shock in the Skinner experiments. The outcome was not successful, so we were in essence punished. However, when we go onto Google and find what we need right away, it is a powerful reinforcer and we will continue to go back to Google or the internet in general whenever we need to find some information. This, of course, assumes that Google will still be an efficient source for us and continue to be reinforcing. Coversely, should Google lose effectiveness and no longer be a reinforcer, we would probably search for new ways to find information that resulted in our desired outcomes.

I have to say that I both agree and disagree with the article’s statement that Google (or other means of using the internet) is making a new generation stupid. There is certainly some basis to the thought that the internet and cyber-communication has changed the way in which persons process things. As compared to only 10 years ago, it is amazingly simple to find any information a person may need. This, of course, highly applies to students or others who feel the need to research something. But, there really are both good and bad results from this change in technology. I agree that our attention spans have been lowered; when a person is so used to just pressing ctrl+f to search for a keyword, scanning pages and pages of paper documents can be tiresome. And yes, one can interpret the speed and ease of using google to research as an increase in laziness and apathy in students, academics and lay persons.

However, I would like to point to the article to be published in Discover magazine. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/feb/15-how-google-is-making-us-smarter

Here, Zimmer discusses the idea of the extended mind. That is, google acts like an extra appendage of the human mind, thus making it easier for one to find the knowledge needed. This article argues that our minds are constantly seeking ways to extend itself, and the internet is simply the next step our minds may take. This is a very interesting rebuttal to the argument overall. I will leave with this quote:

“Socrates worried that writing would make people forgetful and unwise. Sure enough, writing did rob us of some gifts, such as the ability to recite epic poems like The Iliad from memory. But it also created a much larger pool of knowledge from which people could draw, a pool that has continued to expand…”

Like most of you, I both agree and disagree with Carr. He makes a valid point that most of us do not use traditional research methods, such as microfilm and stack searching. However, I do not necessarily view this as a bad thing. We have created new technology, like every generation before us, which makes our life easier and more efficient. Ancient cultures used the wheel to make work easier for them; perhaps that invention could have been criticized for making people lazy and weak. However, I would argue that its advantages strongly outweigh its disadvantages, and the same could be said for Google and other such internet resources. We are not becoming unintelligent, just intelligent in a different sense of the word. I do, however, agree with Richard Foreman, who said we are turning into “pancake people,” meaning that we know a small amount on a wide range of topics. Whenever I come across something I want to know just a little more about, I search it on Google (or even Wikipedia…shhh). Perhaps this is good, though, because it may bring certain important subjects to people’s awareness that would have otherwise been ignored.
Like Brad mentioned, conditioning plays a large part in why we are so apt to use Google over traditional research methods. The law of effect, devised by E.L. Thorndike, states that positive consequences following certain behaviors strengthen those behaviors (and negative consequences weaken behaviors), which was later added to by B.F. Skinner and his studies on operant conditioning. Every time we use Google, we are positively reinforced with quick, efficient answers that increase the likelihood of us using Google again. Also, Google is often cheaper and provides easy to understand information in the comfort of wherever you feel comfortable using Google – all reinforcers that consistently bring us back to Google. Our current use of Google as a society reminds me of Cliff’s notes that students used to use to study literature. Rather than taking the time to read the book, students would buy a short, relatively cheap, and easy to understand outline of the book. We use Google as Cliff’s notes for anything we desire because positively reinforces us with time and efficiency. Even if Google does not give us the fastest or best information every time, as long as it intermittently reinforces us, we will continue to use it. In addition, better information that can be found by searching in the stack or reading microfilm in the library is not as reinforcing as the time saved finding facts online. For this reason, I would argue not that Google is making us stupid, but perhaps Google is making us mentally lazy.

I must admit that when I first began reading this article I was very skeptical, especially on its biological basis. However, after looking over the biology chapter and reading the entire article, I found that the author had made some good points. Both the article and the book spoke on a very important property of the human brain: plasticity. It was not known until recently that the human brain is able reorganize and produce new neurons after childhood development. It is important to note that this “plasticity” of the brain still seems to decrease with age, which was not mentioned in the article. At any rate, it is possible that one portion of the brain could become more developed with greater use and practice, while another portion decreases in size due to lack of activity. The book mentions that portions of the prefrontal cortex of the brain and the neurotransmitter acetylcholine have been associated with memory and attention. Therefore, keeping plasticity in mind, it is plausible that a certain portion of the prefrontal cortex with higher concentrations of acetylcholine becomes smaller or rewired due to lack of activity.

Though this scenario is plausible, I am not certain that the internet alone could really cause a significant effect on this portion of the brain. The internet may be filled with pop-ups and ads causing interruptions to thought, but so is our everyday life. Family members, roommates, and neighbors always provide unwanted noise while others are reading or studying. The internet does provide faster results that are easier to find, but I don’t think it is completely eliminating deep reading. One could scan many articles briefly to find pertinent information and then read a relevant article more deeply. Also, schools still require the reading and interpretation of many books and articles. In conclusion, I am not certain that this argument holds much water in a biological sense. However, it is conceivable that we have been conditioned to feel that answers should be readily available and have less of a desire to search for them due to the easy access of the internet and its plethora of information.

This article was a really interesting point of view. I can relate this to health psychology because of all of the stress and emotions and physiological responses to this age of technological instant gratification we have lived in for the past 10 years or so.
There is a phenomenon called the adaptation-level phenomenon that basically states that we relate and assess our situations based on previous experiences. For example, you may think 40 degrees is really cold if you live in Florida, but we wouldn't think too much about 40 degrees at all. We can also adjust our views when variations occur within these situations. So if you moved to Florida it would feel super warm for a while, but pretty soon you'd begin to think that 40 degrees was really cold. I think this really applies to the article- it explains our constant hunger for new and improved technology. It essentially says that we may not ever be able to reach absolute satisfaction- we will always want something faster, something better, something improved. Technologically speaking, I think this is happening faster than ever before. We become tired of a new cell phone within months- so now they are only made to last about a year so we can buy a new one. We constantly think the internet is too slow or things take too long to download. We want something faster, something more. It will be really interesting to see if this constant need for more holds strong in the world of technology, or if at some point it all comes crashing down because it can't go any faster.

I forgot to add that the phenomenon mentioned above relates to happiness. It helps us understand why things we strive for sometimes become monotonous not long after we achieve them- happiness is a very relative concept for human beings. There is a lot of truth behind the whole "you can only be happy when you choose to be." The natural push and pull of your emotions will prevail if you let them- explaining why so many people feel that their lives are unsatisfactory. (Which causes a whole lot of health effects such as depression and even immune system suppression).

I thought this article was extremely interesting, and even though I really appreciate the service that Google provides, I agree that the extensive usage of internet resources had changed the way human brains function. I still enjoy reading for leisure purposes and can even "force" myself to sit down and read an entire journal article for APA papers and other academic research. However, my mom has commented that I "skim" any material on the computer ridiculously fast and make any technology-related decisions with excessive speed. My reading speed and my quick decisions scare her, since her first computer experience was with the "dinosaurs" from the 80s and she's convinced that she's still capable of producing pages of hieroglyphics that are impossible to displace. I’ve tried to help her become more comfortable with computers, but she’s only resorted to having me perform any complicated computer-related tasks!

I have observed myself and noticed that I do read information that is presented on the internet much faster than actual printed text. However, I am a relatively fast reader anyway, so maybe it’s just a reaction to the information I’m reading online. If I am reading the information for a class or anything educational (like a journal article for Research Methods last semester), I print out either a PDF or HTML version of the article so I can highlight the article and write comments and notes. In essence, “what I read” dictates “how I read” the information. I spend more time and devote more energy when I am reading academic materials. Also, I value the resources that Google and particularly Google Scholar offer, because they speed up the research process and allow students to conduct research from home and anywhere online, without being forced to dig through stacks of journals.

I thought it was very interesting and somewhat concerning, though, when the article discussed how online search engines and websites seem to think that the world would function better if human brains were supplemented with artificial intelligence like technology. If our world comes to view the human brain as replaceable, we are each in danger of being cared for and treated as less valuable. This particular portion of the article was the only part that actually concerned me regarding technology and websites because being viewed as replaceable or able to be supplemented is a potential threat to the human race.

At first when I heard the title of this article, I did not see how I could relate it to my expert area-psychological disorders. However, after reading through the author's thoughts on what technology has done to our thinking mechanisms, I found that it could easily relate to attention deficit disorder (ADD) and/or attention deficit hyper activity disorder (ADHD). I am not suggesting that the new-age technology is the cause of children and some adults being diagnosed with ADD and ADHD, but for people who are pre-disposed to lose attention quickly, it cannot help. The author hints at this idea with a quote, in regards to new technology and its consequences: "The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." This fits well with the symptoms of ADD/ADHD which include: problems paying attention or concentrating, trouble following directions and easily bored or frustrated with tasks. Children with ADD/ADHD also tend to move constantly and are impulsive, not stopping to think before they act.
Another interesting comparison to make is the number of children diagnosed with an attention disorder nowadays as opposed to those diagnosed before the internet age. For instance, is it a coincidence that the children born in the past two decades are diagnosed with attention disorders at much higher rates than children that were not born into the internet age? Although more children are being diagnosed with ADD and ADHD than ever before, this is simply an observation that can be made, and not a causal statement.
Unfortunately, however damaging the internet can be to those pre-disposed to attention disorders, the companies that profit off of the business and distractibility of a website are not looking to change anytime soon. “The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow concentrated thought. It is in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.” I’d say they are doing a pretty good job.

I knew I would agree with this article right away because I think the internet is making us stupid. I have come to hate technology. I hate that I am always available because I have a cell phone. I hate that if I don't check my e-mail one day I might miss something very important from a teacher. I try to be on my computer as little as possible.
My area of expertise is, broadly, relationships. The internet and technology in general has changed everything about interpersonal relationships. It has opened many doors while closing many others. When my ex was overseas, we would talk on instant messenger and webcam every day. Obviously that was amazing for our relationship while he was gone but when he came back, we had completely forgotten how to talk to each other and how to be with each other in person because our entire relationship had been via internet and video. Even in everyday relationships we do most of our communicating via e-mail and text messages. This has opened a door of long distance communication but it has also closed the doors of body language and intimate communication. Have we forgotten how to talk to each other in person? I think we have. Just as Carr argues that Google has made us stupid and has made us stop taking the time to enjoy a good book, technology has done the same to relationships. Google is a cell phone and reading is in-person communication. We are so desperate and lazy now that we can meet "Mr. Right" online! We can have a love life over the internet without leaving the comforts of our own homes.
Just as Google is making us stupid, technology is making us robots.

The article makes some good points about how use of the internet may be having some effects on the way we think, but I don't think that necessarily means it is making us stupid. As I was reading this, the thought that came to my mind was that what is happening is that people are using the internet as a way to store their information. It's like another way of storing memories, an extension of their mind. Tess brought up the discover article related to this which I had previously read and was probably where my idea came from.

I personally think this is how I experience the internet. When I look something up I only need to skim the it to get the information I need. If I find it interesting I'll then read the whole thing but often there is no need to read the whole thing because it's store in my "virtual memory." If I need more information I can look it up any time.

For better or worse, the internet is set up this way as much or more by our own design as Google's. Online businesses like Google earn their money through advertising. They figure out how to best set up their websites by testing the behaviors of the users with A/B testing. This means they set up 2 versions of the website and show half of visitors one and half the other. Which ever version persuades the most ad clicks or whatever it is that earns them money is the one they'll use. It is therefore our own behaviors that decides how websites on the internet are set up.

Let me start off by saying that this article proved to be completely relevant to my own life, in that I noticed my mind started wandering during the time it took me to read through it. I was quite surprised, but did my best to stay focused and eventually made it to the end. More than it being relevant to my practical everyday living, this article had much to do with my area of "expertise," if you will, states of mind, consciousness, etc. Obviously one must be fully conscious in order to read material and process it in a deep, meaningful way. It's not our capability for consciousness that is being compromised with the internet, but perhaps it has managed to change the nature of our consciousness. According the textbook I am currently engaged in, consciousness "restricts our attention, combines sensation with learning and memory, allows us to draw on lessons stored in memory and helps us select personally meaningful stimuli from the input of our senses." Our reading has changed over the years and though I can't exactly explain how this has happened, I am willing to say that it probably does have something to do with the internet. My attention span has shortened. I find it impossible to stay on the same page for too long, and I could scroll down an entire article without being able to recall most of its content. The flashes of media clips and rolling advertisements are appealing to my senses, but perhaps they are what I am truly learning and putting into memory rather than the important reading. What's happening during our state of consciousness has dramatically changed and we resort to the computer far more often than other print sources. I'm not quite sure if I have a specific conclusion here, but I did gather that this article had lots of relevance to consciousness and state of mind.

This article relates very well with my expertise in intelligence. According to my book, people who have no experience in psychology define intelligence as "a mix of practical problem-solving ability, verbal ability, and social competence." However within the world of contemporary psychology, there are two theories that stand out: Sternberg's Triarchic Theory and Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Sternberg and Gardner differ primarily in the number of aspects their theory includes. Sternberg's Theory includes three aspects: Componential intelligence (mental processes such as learning how to do something), Experiential intelligence (ability to adjust, use new concepts or adapt creatively), and Contextual intelligence (making the most of one's strengths and compensating for one's weaknesses). Goleman's Theory, on the other hand, lists seven different areas (logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal).

So, according to these definitions of intelligence, is Google really making us stupid? I think from the discussion above, we can see that there is definitely something about Google that is causing us to lose abilities we once had. Therefore, which areas of intelligence are lacking? After looking through the list, we can find examples for almost every area of intelligence under each of the theories.

Within Sternberg's Theory, Componential intelligence seems to be struggling because of the ease of 'Googling' something instead of researching something in a traditional way. (Example: Instead of spending hours in the library looking for a quote we need, we type it in to Google and within seconds we have found the exact resource we're looking for.) In addition, instead of learning how to do something through experimenting (thus growing our Experiential intelligence), we quickly look up a 'how-to' from the internet. (Example: Instead of reading a map to find the shortest route to Ames, we type it in to MapQuest which gives us turn-by-turn directions for the shortest or fastest route.) However, after contemplating Contextual intelligence, I'm torn...I think this might be one area that has possibly grown because of advancements like Google. For example: people who have different weaknesses can compensate for them by using online resources.

These are just a couple of examples of ways Google has hindered and helped us, but in the end are we just being lazy or are we actually becoming more stupid? Wait, should that be stupider? SpellCheck hasn't underlined either forms, so maybe they are both right...I guess I'll Google it.