3 ms·
What do you make of the charts that show a marked increase is "Difficulty thinking or concentrating" and "Trouble learning new things"?
by lapcat 2y ago
What do you make of the charts that show a marked increase is "Difficulty thinking or concentrating" and "Trouble learning new things"?
- bloppe 2y agoI reckon I'll just join an anti-phone cult. Idk why everyone's freaking out.
- noosphr 2y agoA new technology has made old modes of thought obsolete. A generation which grew up fetishising those things when they were young is now upset they are no longer valuable or meaningful. Or to quote Socrates on the invention of writing: >For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.
- lapcat 2y ago> old modes of thought obsolete I would say all modes of thought. Again, "Difficulty thinking or concentrating" and "Trouble learning new things". > A generation which grew up fetishising those things A generation? One generation? Which generation specifically are you saying fetishized thinking, concentrating, and learning new things? > Or to quote Socrates on the invention of writing You have to go back 2500 years to find someone else to dunk on? And do I need to point out that our knowledge of Socrates is based entirely on writing, mostly the writing of Plato, which you quote from and which consists of semi-fictional dialogues, thought experiments, not pure historical transcription?
- arc-in-space 2y agoPlease chill a bit. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
- lapcat 2y agoSerious question: do you think that the comment by noosphr was kind, curious, and not snarky? I would say that my response was actually pretty chill. It could have been much less chill. ;-)
- sethammons 2y agoI find nothing unchill in that exchange. Meta comment: people read emotion into things based on their interpretation, sometimes very incorrectly. I have found that assuming best intent moves most things forward. Of course, caveats exist. One "trick" I try as a writer of sometimes-misunderstood comms is to avoid making statements about a person I am responding to. Instead of "you," I may sub in "someone" and I try to stick to events if possible. Instead of "the best you can do is pull up an even from 2k years ago" to "an example from 2k years ago, surely we can find more recent events." (As a trite example). Note I moved away from isolating the other person and who they are to more broad language that let's us focus on the idea at hand, not the person who raised it. </insomnia_thoughts>