3 ms·

>Instead of people using technology to magnify their lives, they are confining their lives to their phone. I just love it how people jump to conclusions about

by natch 10y ago

>Instead of people using technology to magnify their lives, they are confining their lives to their phone. I just love it how people jump to conclusions about what is going on with other people, based on cursory observation. I doubt your conclusions are very accurate. I suspect many of the people you see engaged with their phones are enriching their real lives, not just the life in the phone, but the life outside of the phone, by connecting with friends, arranging IRL meetings, and learning. The guy in the video was doing this to a pathological degree... projecting his own unexamined intuitions as facts about other people.

coldtea 10y ago
>I just love it how people jump to conclusions about what is going on with other people, based on cursory observation. If by "cursory" you mean "many years of close, and 24x7 observation, including of close relatives and friends", then what's not to love? It's not like people saying that are some tourists to Earth that have just some short-term cursory relationship with the "other people". At some point, there's enough observation to "jump to conclusions" about what is going on with other people. The alternative is a kind of solipsism, as if we cannot say anything and make generalizations of what we see people do ever, and can only speak for ourselves. As if everybody else is some unique snowflake that one needs to study meticulously to draw conclusions from their behavior. Or as if somehow there's some inner difference that makes their outward behavior (e.g. glued to a screen all the time, even in the most intimate situations) unfit to draw conclusions from ("Yeah, this person has his eyes glued to some BS mobile app while just 10 meters in front of them there's fireworks and naked people running around and Kanye jamming with Bruce Springsteen, KISS, Aphex Twin and Keith Jarrett on stage, but you cannot say that they're oblivious to their surroundings -- in actuality said person totally enjoys and absorbs whats going on around them"). We should be able to call a spade a space, and masses of tourists with their phones out snapping pictures of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre as uncultivated idiots.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  There's obviously a huge amount of people addicted to their phones, and many people on HN profit off of them so they refuse to admit it. However this romantic idea that without phones people would be living vivid moments to the fullest also needs to die. Lets not romanticize the lived experience of a boring commute as a sensory roller-coaster just to score a few points against people glued to their phones. People who make arbitrary distinctions in the book/e-reader/smartphone spectrum are just wrong. Many people use their phones productively during their commutes. When I lived in Vancouver, I'm sure many people mistook me for a Candy Crusher or Facebook Scroller, but I was actually learning japanese.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >However this romantic idea that without phones people would be living vivid moments to the fullest also needs to die. Lets not romanticize the lived experience of a boring commute as a sensory roller-coaster just to score a few points against people glued to their phones. No, but the problem is that people don't just do that on "boring commutes", but screen-staring increasingly encroaches other parts of life, from concerts to dates. While at it, let's also lay to death the idea that all eras/decades/periods are the same, and everything a society does, from norms to arts, is either "the best it has ever been" or "the same as it always was", and anyone complaining is only romanticizing. There are peaks and valleys, progress and regression, in lots of social norms and output, and its worth to point them out. I mean, even when it was fashionable, they probably already suspected that the mule haircut was a bad idea...
- grogenaut 10y ago
  Man I was in the Louve in 2001 and people were snapping tons of photos with their ~200x128 pixel phones instead of just looking at the painting. There were repros for sale reasonably right next to the real photo. Also that painting is impossible to see well due to the protection glass and there are so many better paintings just to the left or right of it, which I sadly couldn't get a good look at because everyone getting their 8 seconds in front of the Mona Lisa. Totally unrelated but I feel the louve is a massive misuse of space in a lot of cases. The room right before the lisa on one side is a massive long gallery with around a hundred gigantic (8'x12' or bigger) religious passion paintings that no one really looks at with a few gems sprinkled throughout. The other side is a very high gallery with some great paintings 20'+ up in the air. It's like the louve has so many paintings they feel it just all has to be out on display without thought about how people will look at it (or at least that section is). I found the impressionist museum much better but this is 16 years ago.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    The Louvre is one of those important institutions of mankind completely ruined by tourists. Unlike the Met or the Frick in New York, going in super early on a weekday doesn't even help. It's almost always packed. At least it's better than Versailles...

by natch 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>I just love it how people jump to conclusions about what is going on with other people, based on cursory observation. If by "cursory" you mean "many years of close, and 24x7 observation, including of close relatives and friends", then what's not to love? It's not like people saying that are some tourists to Earth that have just some short-term cursory relationship with the "other people". At some point, there's enough observation to "jump to conclusions" about what is going on with other people. The alternative is a kind of solipsism, as if we cannot say anything and make generalizations of what we see people do ever, and can only speak for ourselves. As if everybody else is some unique snowflake that one needs to study meticulously to draw conclusions from their behavior. Or as if somehow there's some inner difference that makes their outward behavior (e.g. glued to a screen all the time, even in the most intimate situations) unfit to draw conclusions from ("Yeah, this person has his eyes glued to some BS mobile app while just 10 meters in front of them there's fireworks and naked people running around and Kanye jamming with Bruce Springsteen, KISS, Aphex Twin and Keith Jarrett on stage, but you cannot say that they're oblivious to their surroundings -- in actuality said person totally enjoys and absorbs whats going on around them"). We should be able to call a spade a space, and masses of tourists with their phones out snapping pictures of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre as uncultivated idiots.

RodericDay 10y ago
There's obviously a huge amount of people addicted to their phones, and many people on HN profit off of them so they refuse to admit it. However this romantic idea that without phones people would be living vivid moments to the fullest also needs to die. Lets not romanticize the lived experience of a boring commute as a sensory roller-coaster just to score a few points against people glued to their phones. People who make arbitrary distinctions in the book/e-reader/smartphone spectrum are just wrong. Many people use their phones productively during their commutes. When I lived in Vancouver, I'm sure many people mistook me for a Candy Crusher or Facebook Scroller, but I was actually learning japanese.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >However this romantic idea that without phones people would be living vivid moments to the fullest also needs to die. Lets not romanticize the lived experience of a boring commute as a sensory roller-coaster just to score a few points against people glued to their phones. No, but the problem is that people don't just do that on "boring commutes", but screen-staring increasingly encroaches other parts of life, from concerts to dates. While at it, let's also lay to death the idea that all eras/decades/periods are the same, and everything a society does, from norms to arts, is either "the best it has ever been" or "the same as it always was", and anyone complaining is only romanticizing. There are peaks and valleys, progress and regression, in lots of social norms and output, and its worth to point them out. I mean, even when it was fashionable, they probably already suspected that the mule haircut was a bad idea...
grogenaut 10y ago
Man I was in the Louve in 2001 and people were snapping tons of photos with their ~200x128 pixel phones instead of just looking at the painting. There were repros for sale reasonably right next to the real photo. Also that painting is impossible to see well due to the protection glass and there are so many better paintings just to the left or right of it, which I sadly couldn't get a good look at because everyone getting their 8 seconds in front of the Mona Lisa. Totally unrelated but I feel the louve is a massive misuse of space in a lot of cases. The room right before the lisa on one side is a massive long gallery with around a hundred gigantic (8'x12' or bigger) religious passion paintings that no one really looks at with a few gems sprinkled throughout. The other side is a very high gallery with some great paintings 20'+ up in the air. It's like the louve has so many paintings they feel it just all has to be out on display without thought about how people will look at it (or at least that section is). I found the impressionist museum much better but this is 16 years ago.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  The Louvre is one of those important institutions of mankind completely ruined by tourists. Unlike the Met or the Frick in New York, going in super early on a weekday doesn't even help. It's almost always packed. At least it's better than Versailles...