7 ms·

I really believed computers would make people smarter, better informed, able to make more rational decisions. They'd understand and trust science more, make bet

I really believed computers would make people smarter, better informed, able to make more rational decisions. They'd understand and trust science more, make better political decisions. We even had a slogan for it: "computers are bicycles for the mind": https://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/21/steve-jobs-bicycle-for-the-mind-1990/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/21/steve-jobs-bicycle-... I was so naive...

rbanffy 5y ago
I never imagined the Great Machine that wiped out the Krell would be a social network…
- notum 5y ago
  Come to think of it, FaceBook does give form to monsters from the Id.
astrange 5y ago
Reading too much science is actually common with anti-vaxxers and other such people, they love quoting renegade doctors and having absolute faith in arxiv papers they misread or quoted out of context. Most published research is false even if it's peer-reviewed, and it may be better to leave it to people who read it full time and understand it's an ongoing conversation.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  Hah, so maybe the Catholic Church was wiser than we knew by restricting their libraries to initiated scholars, there’s always talk of how the layman will misinterpret the mystical texts, better protect them from self harm.
  - astrange 5y ago
    In this case it's similar to how Qanon recruitment works. They say to "do your own research" but then push them so their research only finds the sources suggesting Obama is actually JFK wearing a mask or whatever. Not that the liberal "trust the experts" worked, since Fauci's policy was to only say things that made him sound trustworthy, whether or not they were true. (and he admits this)
- lnwlebjel 5y ago
  Is it "Reading too much science" or is it just that human characteristic of confirming ones own biases (ie anchoring bias, confirmation bias or whatever they're called)? Personally, I think its a lack of Baloney detection skills: https://www.openculture.com/2016/04/carl-sagan-presents-his-baloney-detection-kit-8-tools-for-skeptical-thinking.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/04/carl-sagan-presents-his-... Don't just leave it to the experts! Also, I'm not sure you can say that "Most published research is false". There are many degrees between true and false. In the physical sciences, with which I'm familiar, the papers are demonstrably 'mostly true'. For example, as a bi-product of an experiment last week we observed an Ekman spiral (first published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral).
  - astrange 5y ago
    > Also, I'm not sure you can say that "Most published research is false". There are many degrees between true and false. In the physical sciences, with which I'm familiar, the papers are demonstrably 'mostly true'. For example, as a bi-product of an experiment last week we observed an Ekman spiral (first published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral). I agree it depends on the field. I was thinking of medicine, where there's a well known paper about this[1] that's led to some improvements like pre-registered experiments, although there's some newer ones that show ongoing problems in social sciences[2]. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) [2] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705 (Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones)
haihaibye 5y ago
SMBC has a comic about this - "Wacky 90s fads" https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fads https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fads I admit that I too was once a believer...
ramesh31 5y ago
>I really believed computers would make people smarter, better informed, able to make more rational decisions. They'd understand and trust science more, make better political decisions. As a 90's kid who grew up online, this was my thought at the time as well. Turns out computers were more like an op-amp for the existing inadequacies of human nature, rather than a bicycle for the mind.
jonnycomputer 5y ago
It is a bicycle for the mind. Remember back when if you wanted to learn about a topic, you had to travel to a library, spend a couple hours looking up books in a card catalogue, and then find 1 book, that maybe answers your question. I'm constantly using the internet to learn new things, to learn about all kinds of things (e.g. Californian urchin galls, best way to process small branches for firewood, the use bison horn fire carriers among Plains Indians, the grub hoe, etc. etc.; I'm constantly using Google Lens to identify plants in my area, which ones are native, which ones invasive, etc.) The problem is something else. The problem is that the internet is more than one thing. It is a couch for the lazy, a distraction for the procrastinator, a massive entertainment delivery device; and most of the monetary value of the internet doesn't come from it being a bicycle for the mind, but for the other things. Not everyone chooses to ride on the bicycle. Instead of, say, reading Wikipedia, they read Infowars. The world would be a much better place if a lot of people spent their time reading Wikipedia (with all of its faults) instead of scrolling Twitter, Facebook, and slanted news sites like Breitbart, CNN, Fox, etc. etc. etc.
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Put another way, computers and the Internet are a tool to accelerate the process of becoming more of what you are. If what you are is a curious, humble person looking to understand the world better, it can help with that. If you're a vicious self-promoter looking to crush everyone on your way to the top, it can help with that too. If you're a terrorist looking for how to build a bomb or fly a plane or use certain guns, again, it can help. Computers are information. Giving people access to information does not magically make them moral, or curious, or thoughtful. It just amplifies what they were already trying to do.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    An amplifier of the mind. (:
  - atomashpolskiy 5y ago
    This sounds too simplistic (idealistic?). Maybe computers at their core are indeed pure, neutral information, but internet is definitely more than just that. It also amplifies all kinds of adverse mass psychology effects, rewards herd behavior, enables propaganda wars, provides means to monitor and control population at unprecedented scale, etc. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but I think you might be willing to see only the brighter side of it.
segmondy 5y ago
It did make people better, more informed even if wrongly
DataGata 5y ago
Bicycles for the minds are only useful for minds that have a good idea of where they're biking to!

rbanffy 5y ago

I never imagined the Great Machine that wiped out the Krell would be a social network…

notum 5y ago
Come to think of it, FaceBook does give form to monsters from the Id.

astrange 5y ago

Reading too much science is actually common with anti-vaxxers and other such people, they love quoting renegade doctors and having absolute faith in arxiv papers they misread or quoted out of context. Most published research is false even if it's peer-reviewed, and it may be better to leave it to people who read it full time and understand it's an ongoing conversation.

jazzyjackson 5y ago
Hah, so maybe the Catholic Church was wiser than we knew by restricting their libraries to initiated scholars, there’s always talk of how the layman will misinterpret the mystical texts, better protect them from self harm.
- astrange 5y ago
  In this case it's similar to how Qanon recruitment works. They say to "do your own research" but then push them so their research only finds the sources suggesting Obama is actually JFK wearing a mask or whatever. Not that the liberal "trust the experts" worked, since Fauci's policy was to only say things that made him sound trustworthy, whether or not they were true. (and he admits this)
lnwlebjel 5y ago
Is it "Reading too much science" or is it just that human characteristic of confirming ones own biases (ie anchoring bias, confirmation bias or whatever they're called)? Personally, I think its a lack of Baloney detection skills: https://www.openculture.com/2016/04/carl-sagan-presents-his-baloney-detection-kit-8-tools-for-skeptical-thinking.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/04/carl-sagan-presents-his-... Don't just leave it to the experts! Also, I'm not sure you can say that "Most published research is false". There are many degrees between true and false. In the physical sciences, with which I'm familiar, the papers are demonstrably 'mostly true'. For example, as a bi-product of an experiment last week we observed an Ekman spiral (first published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral).
- astrange 5y ago
  > Also, I'm not sure you can say that "Most published research is false". There are many degrees between true and false. In the physical sciences, with which I'm familiar, the papers are demonstrably 'mostly true'. For example, as a bi-product of an experiment last week we observed an Ekman spiral (first published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral). I agree it depends on the field. I was thinking of medicine, where there's a well known paper about this[1] that's led to some improvements like pre-registered experiments, although there's some newer ones that show ongoing problems in social sciences[2]. [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) [2] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/21/eabd1705 (Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones)

haihaibye 5y ago

SMBC has a comic about this - "Wacky 90s fads" https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fads https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fads I admit that I too was once a believer...

ramesh31 5y ago

>I really believed computers would make people smarter, better informed, able to make more rational decisions. They'd understand and trust science more, make better political decisions. As a 90's kid who grew up online, this was my thought at the time as well. Turns out computers were more like an op-amp for the existing inadequacies of human nature, rather than a bicycle for the mind.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

It is a bicycle for the mind. Remember back when if you wanted to learn about a topic, you had to travel to a library, spend a couple hours looking up books in a card catalogue, and then find 1 book, that maybe answers your question. I'm constantly using the internet to learn new things, to learn about all kinds of things (e.g. Californian urchin galls, best way to process small branches for firewood, the use bison horn fire carriers among Plains Indians, the grub hoe, etc. etc.; I'm constantly using Google Lens to identify plants in my area, which ones are native, which ones invasive, etc.) The problem is something else. The problem is that the internet is more than one thing. It is a couch for the lazy, a distraction for the procrastinator, a massive entertainment delivery device; and most of the monetary value of the internet doesn't come from it being a bicycle for the mind, but for the other things. Not everyone chooses to ride on the bicycle. Instead of, say, reading Wikipedia, they read Infowars. The world would be a much better place if a lot of people spent their time reading Wikipedia (with all of its faults) instead of scrolling Twitter, Facebook, and slanted news sites like Breitbart, CNN, Fox, etc. etc. etc.

ergot_vacation 5y ago
Put another way, computers and the Internet are a tool to accelerate the process of becoming more of what you are. If what you are is a curious, humble person looking to understand the world better, it can help with that. If you're a vicious self-promoter looking to crush everyone on your way to the top, it can help with that too. If you're a terrorist looking for how to build a bomb or fly a plane or use certain guns, again, it can help. Computers are information. Giving people access to information does not magically make them moral, or curious, or thoughtful. It just amplifies what they were already trying to do.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  An amplifier of the mind. (:
- atomashpolskiy 5y ago
  This sounds too simplistic (idealistic?). Maybe computers at their core are indeed pure, neutral information, but internet is definitely more than just that. It also amplifies all kinds of adverse mass psychology effects, rewards herd behavior, enables propaganda wars, provides means to monitor and control population at unprecedented scale, etc. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but I think you might be willing to see only the brighter side of it.

segmondy 5y ago

It did make people better, more informed even if wrongly

DataGata 5y ago

Bicycles for the minds are only useful for minds that have a good idea of where they're biking to!