3 ms·

Thank you for asking - I understand this is wishy-washy. Here's my reasoning: 1. 'The mind' and 'the body' have a 'relationship'. 2. 'The mind' is affected by

Thank you for asking - I understand this is wishy-washy. Here's my reasoning: 1. 'The mind' and 'the body' have a 'relationship'. 2. 'The mind' is affected by the information age. [e.g.: 1] 3. Therefore if #2, then the 'relationship' has 'changed'. Doesn't this give us a place to stand for what could be an interesting discussion, even if the discussion is a debate about #2? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-goog... I'm entering "~2000" as a value here. I was going to use 1990. My argument doesn't need further precision, and I assume it either exists, or researchers are actively debating.

themitigating 4y ago
You said "The relationship between body and mind has shifted dramatically since ~2000." 1. I still don't get how the body is changed, yes the mind is related to the body but maybe not in this situation? 2. I genuinely didn't know what you were talking about, which is, I assume, the culture changes due to mass information being easily available. The normal way to phrase that would be to reference the cause of the change not just the year. It's like saying "the french people changed after 1332". Now if you said 1776 or 492 those are widely known events. Finally the mind and body stuff in the beginning threw me off