Digital Dementia

[lizzie]

I think that stems back to the growing and relatively new science which related to psychology (forefathers are Freud, etc) - the forefathers of Psych studies penned what is 'normal' human behavior and then anyone who is not 'normal' is encouraged to be medicated / altered to be 'fixed' . . . sounds to me like the humors which were a main staple of medicine for quite some time in Western-European history.

To the bolded: perhaps so, but I personally don't find it at all normal to be anxiety and depression-ridden, and to have to rely on chemicals to feel okay. To me, that is an abnormality, although I have experienced it from time to time. When I am going through those periods, I find that I want to retreat and go within, rather than getting too tied up with digital communication. I find it much more satisfying to go see someone, and visit in person. I want REAL connectedness, over intellectual stimulation.

 

[Superfly]

I'd have to dig for the article, but I recently read that the people who deal mainly in 'life on-line' have a tendency to lose grip on RL societal interaction, and some can become dependent on electronic communication. Like those you see constantly checking their texts, or spend a great deal of time in chat rooms (or political boards, lol) and actually fail to develop the ability to interact face to face.

With the information at your finger tips, they also lose the thinking process on how to research something that's not online, old reference books, things of that sort.

I'll see if I can find the article, I found it rather interesting.

Never thought about that - I need to make sure that my daughters understand how to use encyclopedias. I mean, it's common sense, but still - I'm pretty sure they are comfortable with dictionaries, because I keep them around the house, but a refresher course wouldn't hurt.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

To the bolded: perhaps so, but I personally don't find it at all normal to be anxiety and depression-ridden, and to have to rely on chemicals to feel okay. To me, that is an abnormality, although I have experienced it from time to time. When I am going through those periods, I find that I want to retreat and go within, rather than getting too tied up with digital communication. I find it much more satisfying to go see someone, and visit in person.

I agree that it's abnormal to be ridden with anxiety and extreme depression - what I think is off, though, is the approach to treatment for most people. Also, I think that people are overdiagnosed with such issues.

What's missing is a deeper understanding of why people have more difficult time in life with certain issues, and what is different person to person.

 

[soot]

I write for free publications online - I don't see that. I see the opposite. Knowledge is readily accessible, endless and free - I don't see a dumbing down of people, I see people more able to express their thoughts and communicate with others.

Forums alone are a good sign of this - look at this forum and how it's grown in the last few years. People are finding their beliefs, investigating their theological views and political standpoints. . . and shooting from the hip.

I think you're conflating knowledge with information, and they're two very different things.

This forum is filled with a lot of information and more than just a little disinformation, but very little real knowledge.

The fact that a high school drop out is posting his thoughts on the economy to the Internet doesn't necessarially mean that the Internet's store of real knowledge has increased in any signifigant way.

There's a principal in information science called (I believe) Mohrer's Law.

What it states, in principal, is that people will put in the least amount of effort necessary to meet their information needs.

Additionally, it's been demonstrated in numerous studies that people will value information more if it comes from a source closer to them (you'll be more likely to trust what a friend tells you, despite that friend not having any real expertise on the given toipc, than trust an expert who you don't know and have never met).

Finally, another principal of information science is what's known as the "anomalous state of knowledge" (or ASK). Essentially what this is, is the idea that people who are looking for information frequently don't know what they don't know.

Put all of that together, mix in the Internet, and you've got the perfect storm of people thinking that they're becoming better informed, smarter, and more knowledgeable while nothing could be futrther from the truth.

Essentially, you're taking the word of a high school drop out about the state of the economy, you trust what he's saying because you know his posting history and that he generally tends to say smartish things and besides, you two tend to agree on a lot of stuff, your questions about the economy are quickly answered all in one place by this self-styled econ guru, and you don't know enough about the subject to even ask the kinds of educated questions that would help you ascertain whether or not you should be talking his thoughts as authoritative.

You read what he has to say and you think you've learned something, and I guess after a fashion you have, but you haven't really learned anything worth knowing.

I guess my point is that "more" isn't necessarially "better".

Seeing "more people more able to express their thoughts and communicate with others" doesn't mean that those thoughts are worth having or worse sharing.

 

[grip]

Funny - because I've read that we use more brain power, now, than ever before - and are capable of computing and processing a larger amount of information in one sitting than in the past.

I guess it depends on the scientists, or those who they study. :shrug:

Non-issue in my view. I use the computer and my devices to expand my knowledge - not to keep up with menial little things that I can do on my own. I guess some people are too reliant - but that doesn't constitute for a large percent of the population and odds are - they'll suffer heart attacks from sitting too much before dementia sets in.

Of course - we can't forget that time hasn't gone by to study the REAL effects - just assumptions on future events.

To be honest the study was on people who spent up 7+hrs a day on their smart phones. I'm not sure that applies equally to simple online time though I don't use my cell enough to know the difference. Like with anything there are usually pluses and minuses, and I find internet access a very valuable source of information.

I average total 'online' time about 3-4 hrs daily, which is about all I can stand. And the biggest problem I see with excessive digital distraction is the lack of emotional development. I don't see this generation growing up with the maturity level appropriate for their age or a grasp of reality, living so much thru a digital online, fantasy driven existence.

 

[tech30528]

I wonder how many bits of 'knowledge' were basic components in life 75 / 100 / 500 years ago that we're entirely incapable of pulling up - now. At one time remembering numbers wasn't necessary :shrug:

I was several years in to my carrier as a mechanic before I discovered that not many people can flip metric to standard in their head. Just always came naturally to me and it is useful in my field. I just assumed everyone could do it.

 

[tech30528]

I think the dehumanizing aspect of our digital society has a lot to do with mass shootings.