4 ms·

The title giveth, the body takes away. Articles like these have been making the rounds for maybe 6 ears now, and I cannot see how this brings even a moderately

by al_form2000 7y ago

The title giveth, the body takes away. Articles like these have been making the rounds for maybe 6 ears now, and I cannot see how this brings even a moderately non-stale perspective to the fray .I checked the date, it's from today. Must be a slow week at SciAm.

marmaduke 7y ago
Doesn't that make it a replication of previous articles? Authenticity doesn't oblige originality You otoh offer nothing of substance
- vernvandamn 7y ago
  I think stating the article is unoriginal is a valid critique. The article is saying digital distraction is affecting society. We know that. Telling people they shouldn't be so distracted isn't a original thought and therefore reading the article is a waste of time. Despite the authenticity of a publication I wouldn't want to read 10 articles saying the same thing. There is some expectation of originality. Right?
  - wool_gather 7y ago
    Agree, although [there's no telling what's new to someone else][0], so if a message is important enough there can be value in its being repeated in different times and places. Just because I've read a hundred and one articles about e.g., strong passwords, doesn't mean my friends have the first clue. [0]:https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
  - marmaduke 7y ago
    > Despite the authenticity of a publication I wouldn't want to read 10 articles saying the same thing I agree in a mundane sense, repetition is not exciting, but the sorts of large scale messages such as this one, need to be repeated across many sources of information (has Sci Am ever run an article in this before? Not the same as if Huff Post does) before it's taken seriously enough, by enough people, for something to change.
alexandercrohde 7y ago
Yes. It's an odd phenomenon. Some messages of this form seem to live and recirculate for years, perpetuated without much analytical thought. I often get preached at about how bad social media is. The irony is that I don't have any, and the people preaching at me do. My best theory: I suspect both online and offline, people "parrot" ideas 90% of the time. They hear an idea, repeat it without much thought, if it resonates well they repeat it more. I think the reason people do this in-person is the same as they do it online. They say things not because they have deeply reflected on all the ramifications and sincerely believe and live by those ideas. They say things "to get likes."
- jonfw 7y ago
  So there is this common idea that social media is creating sort of "fake" social interactions where things are said and pictures are taken in pursuit of social reward (likes, follows, engagement). But this behavior isn't really caused by social media, in fact this is just a digital representation of a behavior that people have been doing for a really long time. This is a completely fresh perspective to me and I find it very interesting, there's a good chance that you're right.
- reggieband 7y ago
  I don't think it is that odd at all. It is a bit like how people brag about how drunk they get, how stupid the things they did while drunk were, how hung over they are. They pretend like they are confessing but they are really bragging. Same with smoking/vaping. Same with people who relish in the toxic drama they invite into their lives. I believe there is some dark psychology behind all of this. I think we test each other not only on how virtuous we are, but in what ways we are morally deficient. Being addicted to social media is one way we give ourselves permission to indulge in types of negative behavior that existed long before computers existed. These kind of articles are a tacit justification of those behaviors.
coldtea 7y ago
Why does it have to be "non-stale"? Is this need part of the "new is better" dopamine cycle? It's enough to be valid, or thought provoking.
- dymk 7y ago
  My thoughts on this were provoked on this identically, years ago. Again. And again.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Have a look at the posts you've liked, what you've submitted, etc. Are they all brand new developments? Because surely that's not the case with 95% of what's posted on HN, and that's not a bad thing. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - dymk 7y ago
      Yes, I know what that xkcd is; it gets posted all the time too. No, sorry, beating a dead horse still isn’t justified.
unreal37 7y ago
The answer is in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. "As I explain in my book..." This is advertising.

marmaduke 7y ago

Doesn't that make it a replication of previous articles? Authenticity doesn't oblige originality You otoh offer nothing of substance

vernvandamn 7y ago
I think stating the article is unoriginal is a valid critique. The article is saying digital distraction is affecting society. We know that. Telling people they shouldn't be so distracted isn't a original thought and therefore reading the article is a waste of time. Despite the authenticity of a publication I wouldn't want to read 10 articles saying the same thing. There is some expectation of originality. Right?
- wool_gather 7y ago
  Agree, although [there's no telling what's new to someone else][0], so if a message is important enough there can be value in its being repeated in different times and places. Just because I've read a hundred and one articles about e.g., strong passwords, doesn't mean my friends have the first clue. [0]:https://www.xkcd.com/1053/ https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
- marmaduke 7y ago
  > Despite the authenticity of a publication I wouldn't want to read 10 articles saying the same thing I agree in a mundane sense, repetition is not exciting, but the sorts of large scale messages such as this one, need to be repeated across many sources of information (has Sci Am ever run an article in this before? Not the same as if Huff Post does) before it's taken seriously enough, by enough people, for something to change.

alexandercrohde 7y ago

Yes. It's an odd phenomenon. Some messages of this form seem to live and recirculate for years, perpetuated without much analytical thought. I often get preached at about how bad social media is. The irony is that I don't have any, and the people preaching at me do. My best theory: I suspect both online and offline, people "parrot" ideas 90% of the time. They hear an idea, repeat it without much thought, if it resonates well they repeat it more. I think the reason people do this in-person is the same as they do it online. They say things not because they have deeply reflected on all the ramifications and sincerely believe and live by those ideas. They say things "to get likes."

jonfw 7y ago
So there is this common idea that social media is creating sort of "fake" social interactions where things are said and pictures are taken in pursuit of social reward (likes, follows, engagement). But this behavior isn't really caused by social media, in fact this is just a digital representation of a behavior that people have been doing for a really long time. This is a completely fresh perspective to me and I find it very interesting, there's a good chance that you're right.
reggieband 7y ago
I don't think it is that odd at all. It is a bit like how people brag about how drunk they get, how stupid the things they did while drunk were, how hung over they are. They pretend like they are confessing but they are really bragging. Same with smoking/vaping. Same with people who relish in the toxic drama they invite into their lives. I believe there is some dark psychology behind all of this. I think we test each other not only on how virtuous we are, but in what ways we are morally deficient. Being addicted to social media is one way we give ourselves permission to indulge in types of negative behavior that existed long before computers existed. These kind of articles are a tacit justification of those behaviors.

coldtea 7y ago

Why does it have to be "non-stale"? Is this need part of the "new is better" dopamine cycle? It's enough to be valid, or thought provoking.

dymk 7y ago
My thoughts on this were provoked on this identically, years ago. Again. And again.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Have a look at the posts you've liked, what you've submitted, etc. Are they all brand new developments? Because surely that's not the case with 95% of what's posted on HN, and that's not a bad thing. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - dymk 7y ago
    Yes, I know what that xkcd is; it gets posted all the time too. No, sorry, beating a dead horse still isn’t justified.

unreal37 7y ago

The answer is in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. "As I explain in my book..." This is advertising.