top of page

FEAR IS NOT A FRAMEWORK
​This is Not the End of Thought

THE PREMISE

I’m not here to panic about ChatGPT. I’m here to ask better questions. As a writer, librarian, and educator, I’ve spent my life thinking about how we think—how we use tools, how we remember, how we adapt. When the MIT study on AI and the brain made waves, I didn’t see a crisis. I saw a familiar pattern: a new technology arrives, and instead of teaching people how to use it well, we clutch our pearls and call it the end of thinking.

​

This essay is my response to that impulse. It’s grounded in research, sharpened by years of pedagogical work, and deeply invested in what comes next. I’m not defending AI. I’m defending discernment. This isn’t a love letter to the machine. It’s a demand that we evolve with clarity, with context, and with courage.

THE PAPER

click a section or start at the introduction 

Sets the stage by challenging the panic around the MIT study and reframing the debate about AI’s impact on thinking.

Breaks down the MIT study’s methodology and findings without the media hype—just the science, clearly explained.

Places AI within a long history of cognitive tools, showing how humans have always thought through and with technology.

Examines the cultural narratives and institutional fears driving the backlash, not the data.

Argues that refusing to teach AI literacy isn’t rigorous—it’s negligent. This is a pedagogical failure, not a technological one.

Pushes past fear-based binaries and asks what kind of thinking, learning, and values we want to cultivate in an AI-integrated world.

Asserts that the mind has always been distributed—through tools, culture, memory—and AI is just the latest extension.

A curated list of sources that support and contextualize the essay’s central arguments.

Download a PDF of the paper here.

bottom of page