7 ms·

I jokingly enforce a no-googling-at-the-lunch-table rule on my millennial coworkers (I'm gen Oregon Trail). This allows for the type of fatuous speculation tha

I jokingly enforce a no-googling-at-the-lunch-table rule on my millennial coworkers (I'm gen Oregon Trail). This allows for the type of fatuous speculation that makes for decent conversation. Occasionally I even give in to the need to know.

klenwell 11y ago
This allows for the type of fatuous speculation that makes for decent conversation. Well put. Brings to mind "Modern Jackass" magazine from one of my favorite This American Life episodes: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a-little-bit-of-knowledge http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a...
nightpool 11y ago
I dunno, I find Googling-enabled conversation to be just different, not necessarily better or worse then pre-Google convos. This might have more to do with me growing up with them though (also, I misclicked the upvote button and downvoted you instead, sorry!)
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Googling'-enabled' conversation tends to end the conversation in my experience. Someone looks up the answer and we're done.
  - azernik 11y ago
    With people I know, that's usually the prompt to jump to a related topic. Long conversations tend to end up looking like collaborative Wikipedia link surfing.
    - nightpool 11y ago
      Generally, I just tend to end up talking about things that can't be trivially fact-checked. YMMV I guess
- vacri 11y ago
  I'm gen Oregon Trail as well, and I prefer fact-checking in conversation. It drives me nuts to see people run down a rabbit-hole for an hour over an obvious misconception. Online fact-checking doesn't really ruin conversations in my view, and it helps stop spread misinformation.
acheron 11y ago
Heh, are we embracing the "Oregon Trail generation" name then? This may be the first time I've seen a reference to it outside of a discussion of the group itself.
- pmarreck 11y ago
  I love that name but isn't it just another name for Gen X?
  - sixo 11y ago
    To my ear, it's a subset of Gen X, and definitely doesn't encompass all of Gen X culture.
    - mlangdon 11y ago
      It's approximately 1978 though '82. Basically the last generation that has a living memory of the before time, but grew up riding the crest of the wave of everything that happened over the past 30 years, technologically. Or, people who played Oregon Trail on Macs and Commodore 64s in grade school.
      - riffic 11y ago
        Apple ][, bah
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The dates don't match the description; from the (last, more specific) description, you'd need to drop back at least about 5, maybe closer to 10, years earlier on the start date for that "generation". Really, just thinking of it as "members of Generation X with an early and lifelong interest in technology" would probably work better than trying to carve it out as a narrower subset of Gen X by age.
        mlangdon 11y ago
        Here[1] is (I believe) the originating article. Meanwhile, the first really popular version of Oregon Trail came out in 1985[2]. Ultimately I just meant it as a jaunty shorthand for the intergenerational window in which I was born. If you were also born then and this does not jive with your experience, it's going to be okay, eventually. [1] http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/ http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generat... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_(video_game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_(video_game...
herbetyukost 11y ago
> I jokingly enforce a no-googling-at-the-lunch-table rule on my millennial coworkers Trying to control what other people can do... great joke! > fatuous speculation that makes for decent conversation Misinformed conversation... sounds awesome.
- mlangdon 11y ago
  You seem fun! There's a deeply sarcastic culture of fake rules at my company, in which groove this fake rule fits precisely. Lunch time is generally understood as a time of bullshitting, conviviality and foosball. Every time we have to wait 30 seconds to find out, e.g., how many apple seeds you can eat without killing yourself, we are all richer for it.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    > e.g., how many apple seeds you can eat without killing > yourself, we are all richer for it. I'm ashamed to say I had to know. I found two estimates: the seeds of 25, or of "over 2000" apples. Either way, we should be safe, and it just goes to show how much more fun wondering is than an extremely inconclusive answer.
    - rangibaby 11y ago
      That's where I would think "there's only one way to find out..."
lmm 11y ago
It says something bad about us as a species if we can only enjoy a conversation when most or all of the participants are making large numbers of errors.
- ergothus 11y ago
  We were talking about ignorance (not knowing, and speculating) vs being wrong (thinking you know, but being wrong). I've seen people move from speculating to assuming too often, but I don't see speculation as inherently wrong.
  - lmm 11y ago
    I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation. But if speculation is more interesting than actual knowledge about the same subject then I think there's something wrong with that.
    - ergothus 11y ago
      You make a lot of sense...but I'm afraid I must run into the "wrong" category. The thing is, the topic under question is usually pretty pointless (see "deceased" example above, or my musing about how the first time bread "raised" must have been freaky, or any such thing). While learning a piece of trivia is _nice_, it's rarely as interesting as the act of speculation. Because I'm not really (all that) interested in the question at hand, I'm teaching myself (and regularly exercising the ability) to NOT KNOW, to DESIRE KNOWLEDGE, and to ACCEPT THAT SOME THINGS ARE BEYOND MY GRASP. It's good to find that somethings ARE in my grasp (answer someone gave about about "deceased" was the first time I've had that question answered!), but I get that lesson a lot in life. When I wrestle with the "big" questions (What should I do with my life? Am I happy right now? Why did this terrible thing happen to me? Does existence care about me? Why do I care if it does?) some comfort with the unknowable is good. When I'm dealing lesser "big" questions (Am I actually good at this, or am I just faking it and haven't be caught yet? Am I an insensitive ass to people around me? Can I really buckle down and get this project completed? Why the heck do people vote for <INSERT POLITICIAN HERE>?) I likewise want to have experience with both being able get answer as well as NOT being able to get answers. Learning is awesome. I love it. But I also need to be good at dealing with wanting to know, or dealing with being unable to know. Around me I see too many people of many ages that aren't interested in things they can't easily learn.
Ensorceled 11y ago
That's odd, what kind of decent conversations are based on fatuous speculation on facts that are a google search away? I'd much rather have real conversation about politics, whether "The 100" is good TV, social issues, or just about anything really, than an argument about facts that could just be googled.
- mlangdon 11y ago
  Yes, some people don't enjoy jokes. This is well documented. I'd rather talk about literally nothing than have another political conversation where I am either preaching to the converted or shouting at a stone wall.
  - Ensorceled 11y ago
    Where did you get that I don't enjoy jokes? Yeah, I'm seeing that mentioning "talking politics" on a mostly American forum immediately labels you as a "debbie downer".
    - drjesusphd 11y ago
      As an American, I find this attitude disturbing as well. It's like there's a cultural repulsion to talking about anything of consequence. And we wonder why US politics is in the state that it's in...
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      > Where did you get that I don't enjoy jokes? You should read this - http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html excerpt: "But our engineering strength is also our social weakness. Countless times as engineers you will find yourself interrupting someone telling a story, an anecdote or a joke to correct a false assumption, provide an extra fact that the narrator overlooked, give a bigger perspective on the problem or point out that the joke premise is actually flawed. You can identify this behavior because the person interrupting usually starts with the phrase "Well, actually...". As a kid, I thought this was my strength. I knew a little bit more than my sister. So whenever she would say something, I would quickly interject something like "Well, actually, the origin of the word Shih Tzu means Lion Dog and has nothing to do with the dog's digestive patterns". Yes, I was really fun to hang out with. Whoever pulls a "well, actually" almost always shifts the conversation to himself. And now we are no longer following along with your friend's joke, we get to learn how much more you know about the limitations of the Sun Protection Factor scale in sunblock products. Even the most rudimentary of the well-actuallistas is able to spoil even the best Ricky Gervais material. But instead of rolling with the punches and participating in a brainstorm of ideas and exploding humor, they contribute interruptions, facts and details that merely produce stop energy on an ongoing discussion. They turn the center of attention towards them." ----- Similar with "talking politics." When people want to "talk politics" they usually really mean "Let me show you how right I am and how wrong you are if you disagree. Let me show you how smart I am." Nothing to do with being a "debbie downer." Now, where is that traffic?

klenwell 11y ago

This allows for the type of fatuous speculation that makes for decent conversation. Well put. Brings to mind "Modern Jackass" magazine from one of my favorite This American Life episodes: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a-little-bit-of-knowledge http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/a...

nightpool 11y ago

I dunno, I find Googling-enabled conversation to be just different, not necessarily better or worse then pre-Google convos. This might have more to do with me growing up with them though (also, I misclicked the upvote button and downvoted you instead, sorry!)

k-mcgrady 11y ago
Googling'-enabled' conversation tends to end the conversation in my experience. Someone looks up the answer and we're done.
- azernik 11y ago
  With people I know, that's usually the prompt to jump to a related topic. Long conversations tend to end up looking like collaborative Wikipedia link surfing.
  - nightpool 11y ago
    Generally, I just tend to end up talking about things that can't be trivially fact-checked. YMMV I guess
vacri 11y ago
I'm gen Oregon Trail as well, and I prefer fact-checking in conversation. It drives me nuts to see people run down a rabbit-hole for an hour over an obvious misconception. Online fact-checking doesn't really ruin conversations in my view, and it helps stop spread misinformation.

acheron 11y ago

Heh, are we embracing the "Oregon Trail generation" name then? This may be the first time I've seen a reference to it outside of a discussion of the group itself.

pmarreck 11y ago
I love that name but isn't it just another name for Gen X?
- sixo 11y ago
  To my ear, it's a subset of Gen X, and definitely doesn't encompass all of Gen X culture.
  - mlangdon 11y ago
    It's approximately 1978 though '82. Basically the last generation that has a living memory of the before time, but grew up riding the crest of the wave of everything that happened over the past 30 years, technologically. Or, people who played Oregon Trail on Macs and Commodore 64s in grade school.
    - riffic 11y ago
      Apple ][, bah
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The dates don't match the description; from the (last, more specific) description, you'd need to drop back at least about 5, maybe closer to 10, years earlier on the start date for that "generation". Really, just thinking of it as "members of Generation X with an early and lifelong interest in technology" would probably work better than trying to carve it out as a narrower subset of Gen X by age.
      - mlangdon 11y ago
        Here[1] is (I believe) the originating article. Meanwhile, the first really popular version of Oregon Trail came out in 1985[2]. Ultimately I just meant it as a jaunty shorthand for the intergenerational window in which I was born. If you were also born then and this does not jive with your experience, it's going to be okay, eventually. [1] http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/ http://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generat... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_(video_game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_(video_game...

herbetyukost 11y ago

> I jokingly enforce a no-googling-at-the-lunch-table rule on my millennial coworkers Trying to control what other people can do... great joke! > fatuous speculation that makes for decent conversation Misinformed conversation... sounds awesome.

mlangdon 11y ago
You seem fun! There's a deeply sarcastic culture of fake rules at my company, in which groove this fake rule fits precisely. Lunch time is generally understood as a time of bullshitting, conviviality and foosball. Every time we have to wait 30 seconds to find out, e.g., how many apple seeds you can eat without killing yourself, we are all richer for it.
- OJFord 11y ago
  > e.g., how many apple seeds you can eat without killing > yourself, we are all richer for it. I'm ashamed to say I had to know. I found two estimates: the seeds of 25, or of "over 2000" apples. Either way, we should be safe, and it just goes to show how much more fun wondering is than an extremely inconclusive answer.
  - rangibaby 11y ago
    That's where I would think "there's only one way to find out..."

lmm 11y ago

It says something bad about us as a species if we can only enjoy a conversation when most or all of the participants are making large numbers of errors.

ergothus 11y ago
We were talking about ignorance (not knowing, and speculating) vs being wrong (thinking you know, but being wrong). I've seen people move from speculating to assuming too often, but I don't see speculation as inherently wrong.
- lmm 11y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with speculation. But if speculation is more interesting than actual knowledge about the same subject then I think there's something wrong with that.
  - ergothus 11y ago
    You make a lot of sense...but I'm afraid I must run into the "wrong" category. The thing is, the topic under question is usually pretty pointless (see "deceased" example above, or my musing about how the first time bread "raised" must have been freaky, or any such thing). While learning a piece of trivia is _nice_, it's rarely as interesting as the act of speculation. Because I'm not really (all that) interested in the question at hand, I'm teaching myself (and regularly exercising the ability) to NOT KNOW, to DESIRE KNOWLEDGE, and to ACCEPT THAT SOME THINGS ARE BEYOND MY GRASP. It's good to find that somethings ARE in my grasp (answer someone gave about about "deceased" was the first time I've had that question answered!), but I get that lesson a lot in life. When I wrestle with the "big" questions (What should I do with my life? Am I happy right now? Why did this terrible thing happen to me? Does existence care about me? Why do I care if it does?) some comfort with the unknowable is good. When I'm dealing lesser "big" questions (Am I actually good at this, or am I just faking it and haven't be caught yet? Am I an insensitive ass to people around me? Can I really buckle down and get this project completed? Why the heck do people vote for <INSERT POLITICIAN HERE>?) I likewise want to have experience with both being able get answer as well as NOT being able to get answers. Learning is awesome. I love it. But I also need to be good at dealing with wanting to know, or dealing with being unable to know. Around me I see too many people of many ages that aren't interested in things they can't easily learn.

Ensorceled 11y ago

That's odd, what kind of decent conversations are based on fatuous speculation on facts that are a google search away? I'd much rather have real conversation about politics, whether "The 100" is good TV, social issues, or just about anything really, than an argument about facts that could just be googled.

mlangdon 11y ago
Yes, some people don't enjoy jokes. This is well documented. I'd rather talk about literally nothing than have another political conversation where I am either preaching to the converted or shouting at a stone wall.
- Ensorceled 11y ago
  Where did you get that I don't enjoy jokes? Yeah, I'm seeing that mentioning "talking politics" on a mostly American forum immediately labels you as a "debbie downer".
  - drjesusphd 11y ago
    As an American, I find this attitude disturbing as well. It's like there's a cultural repulsion to talking about anything of consequence. And we wonder why US politics is in the state that it's in...
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    > Where did you get that I don't enjoy jokes? You should read this - http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html excerpt: "But our engineering strength is also our social weakness. Countless times as engineers you will find yourself interrupting someone telling a story, an anecdote or a joke to correct a false assumption, provide an extra fact that the narrator overlooked, give a bigger perspective on the problem or point out that the joke premise is actually flawed. You can identify this behavior because the person interrupting usually starts with the phrase "Well, actually...". As a kid, I thought this was my strength. I knew a little bit more than my sister. So whenever she would say something, I would quickly interject something like "Well, actually, the origin of the word Shih Tzu means Lion Dog and has nothing to do with the dog's digestive patterns". Yes, I was really fun to hang out with. Whoever pulls a "well, actually" almost always shifts the conversation to himself. And now we are no longer following along with your friend's joke, we get to learn how much more you know about the limitations of the Sun Protection Factor scale in sunblock products. Even the most rudimentary of the well-actuallistas is able to spoil even the best Ricky Gervais material. But instead of rolling with the punches and participating in a brainstorm of ideas and exploding humor, they contribute interruptions, facts and details that merely produce stop energy on an ongoing discussion. They turn the center of attention towards them." ----- Similar with "talking politics." When people want to "talk politics" they usually really mean "Let me show you how right I am and how wrong you are if you disagree. Let me show you how smart I am." Nothing to do with being a "debbie downer." Now, where is that traffic?