We like to think our intelligence is self-made; it happens inside our heads, the product of our inner thoughts alone. But the rise of Google, Wikipedia and other online tools has made many people question the impact of these technologies on our brains. Is typing in "Who has played James Bond in the movies?" the same as our knowledge about the names like Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig? Can we say we know the answer as long as we know how to rapidly get the information on Google? Here the question is about how we define intelligence itself. The answer appears to be interesting, because the evidence from psychological studies suggests that much of our intelligence comes from how we coordinate ourselves with other people and our environment. An influential theory among psychologists is that we're cognitive misers . This is the idea that we are unwilling to do mental work unless we have to. We try to avoid thinking things fully when a short cut is available. If you've ever voted for the presidential candidate  with the most honest smile, or chosen a restaurant based on how many people are already sitting in there, then you are a cognitive miser. The theory explains why we'd much rather type a zip code into Google Maps than memorize and recall the location of a place - it's so much easier to do so. Research shows that people don't tend to rely on their memories for things they can easily access. Buildings can somehow disappear from pictures we're looking at, or the people we're talking to can be changed with someone else, and often we won't notice - a phenomenon called "change blindness". This isn't an example of human stupidity - far from it, in fact - this is an example of mental efficiency. The mind relies on the world as a better record than memory. Philosophers have suggested that thinking is really happening in the environment as much as it is happening in our brains. The philosopher Andy Clark called humans "natural born cyborgs ", those naturally capable of absorbing and combining new tools, ideas and abilities. In Clark's view, the route to a solution is not the issue - having the right tools really does mean you know the answers, just as much as already knowing the answer. Rather than being forced to rely on our own resources for everything, we can share our knowledge. Technology keeps track of things for us so we don't have to, while large systems of knowledge serve the needs of society as a whole. I don't know how a computer works, or how to grow vegetables, but that knowledge is out there and I can get to benefit. The internet provides even more potential to share this knowledge. Wikipedia is one of the best examples - an increasingly large database of knowledge from which everyone can benefit. So as well as having a physical environment - like the rooms or buildings we live or work in - we also have a mental environment, which means that when I ask you where your mind is, you shouldn't point toward the centre of your forehead. As research shows, our minds are made up just as much by the people and tools around us as they are by the brain cells inside our skull. What is the writer's attitude towards the rise of technologies like Google and Wikipedia?
Supportive Objective Indifferent Neutral