6 ms·

I speak to human beings daily. I've known dozens, or maybe hundreds, of human beings who have never been so rude as to pay more attention to their devices than

I speak to human beings daily. I've known dozens, or maybe hundreds, of human beings who have never been so rude as to pay more attention to their devices than to me when in the middle of a conversation. Anyone who would do that would be the exception rather than the rule. Is it your opinion that I'm in some anecdotal bubble that's not representative of the rest of society? Or are you perhaps taking a bad experience with someone and extrapolating it to the rest of humanity? For the vast majority of us, technology sometimes enriches parts of our lives and sometimes supplants parts in a way that has zero net gain or loss. For example, is having my head stuck in a kindle or even a phone really so different from having my head stuck in a book? Are these people anti-social? http://www.lenbernstein.com/People-reading-newspapers.jpg http://www.lenbernstein.com/People-reading-newspapers.jpg Are these the good old days when everyone was engaged in each other? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/4035501233_26ee1ba200.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/4035501233_26ee1ba200.jp... Your condescending and holier-than-thou attitude notwithstanding, are you any happier than all the people I know who have smartphones and kindles and who use them daily? You sound pretty pretty pissed off and disgruntled, maybe alienated, so I'd put my money on the negative.

lifeformed 14y ago
I don't think artursapek is arguing that these technologies are bad. There's certainly a time and place for them all, but they shouldn't be a substitute for a social situation. If I invited my friends out to a dinner and everyone brought a book with them and just read the entire time, I'd be just as pissed as if they were on their phone the entire time. There's' also certainly something fundamentally different about browsing Facebook and Twitter over reading a book. Books are intentional - you've committed to a topic, and there's a finite amount of information to digest. When you're checking social media, you don't know what you're going to get, but it'll probably keep you occupied. You're just consuming mostly trivial information, hoping something interesting happens on your screen. It's like flipping through TV channels to pass the evening. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's probably something best kept in moderation. artursapek's post is about his observations on how people are increasingly consuming this information fast food in excess.
- artursapek 14y ago
  You get it.
- abraininavat 14y ago
  What? > Books are intentional - you've committed to a topic, and there's a finite amount of information to digest. When you're checking social media, you don't know what you're going to get, but it'll probably keep you occupied. This is a bizarre argument. 1. In what way is a book more intentional than Facebook? How is visiting Facebook an unintentional act? I don't think you're using the common definition of 'intentional'. 2. "You've committed to a topic." How is this a substantial difference? What if I don't know the topic of the book before I start reading it? And when I read a newspaper, do I know the topic any more than when I browse social media? 3. "There's a finite amount of information to digest." Even admitting this is true (which is sort of a stretch), again, how is this a substantial difference? The fact that the information is infinite doesn't imply the amount of time I choose to spend on the information is infinite. 4. "You're consuming mostly trivial information." By what standard? What you're consuming is information about the people you know. How is this more trivial than reading 50 Shades of Gray? 5. "it's probably something best kept in moderation." Sure.. so is reading books for leisure. So is reading books for school. So is working. So is eating. So is everything you do, regardless of its nature. You two aren't saying anything substantial. The OP doesn't like social media, online shopping, or horoscopes, and he doesn't like people who spend lots of time engaged in them. Fine, we get it. I don't happen to like those things either. But I don't act as if that means anything.
  - Apocryphon 14y ago
    It's a lot easier to browse social media without focus. It's like surfing the channels of TV. You can't browse a book in the same way, it's an activity that requires focus.
    - abraininavat 14y ago
      If this is true, why does it matter? Show me some evidence to support that focusing on 50 Shades of Gray is better than zoning out on Facebook.
artursapek 14y ago
Kindles are simply super-books. I own a Kindle, I love my Kindle. There's nothing wrong with Kindles or newspapers. There's also nothing wrong with reading a newspaper or playing with your phone when you're on a subway surrounded by strangers. I do that, everyone has always done that and always will. There's a huge difference anyway between iPhones and books/newspapers. It's not a good comparison. The only similarity is the posture one holds when consuming them, which is why your photos sort of work for your argument. Reading a book or newspaper takes effort and concentration, whereas flicking through whatever stream on your iPhone takes little to no thought at all. It's active consumption vs. passive consumption. I believe that to live a healthy life you do need a good balance of production and consumption. Several of you responding to my post seem to think that I miss a time when everyone used to talk to everyone and people were all "engaged with each other" and that I think socializing is dead. That's not it. I'm simply worried about how ubiquitous and in-front-of-our-faces these devices are becoming, and how addictive they are. If it clarifies anything, I also don't use Facebook and I didn't grow up on television, so maybe I'm just an outcast in that regard. However, I enjoy reading and going to the cinema and I'm focusing all my energy on starting a software company. So I'm also not Amish. Call me disgruntled, maybe I am. I think I have a reason to be. Try to convince me that most of the time you spend on your phone is time well spent. It's probably not. Well, not too long from now that shit is going right in front of your eye, wrapped around your cranium.
- burntsushi 14y ago
  > Try to convince me that most of the time you spend on your phone is time well spent. It's probably not. Well, not too long from now that shit is going right in front of your eye, wrapped around your cranium. Most of my time spent on my smart phone: texting, emails, weather, Google Nav, music, looking up random junk, checking weather, snapping a quick picture, etc. Some of these things are for pleasure (music, random facts) and others have varying utility. None of this means I whip out my smart phone in the middle of a conversation with someone else.
- abraininavat 14y ago
  > There's a huge difference anyway between iPhones and books/newspapers. It's not a good comparison. The only similarity is the posture one holds when consuming them, which is why your photos sort of work for your argument. Reading a book or newspaper takes effort and concentration, whereas flicking through whatever stream on your iPhone takes little to no thought at all. It's active consumption vs. passive consumption. You assume way too much about what people do on their phones. I used to commute to work via bus. I was one of the many people with his face stuck in his phone. You assume I was "flicking through whatever stream", not thinking at all. You'd be wrong -- I was almost always either reading books for leisure through the Kindle App, or reading some research paper PDF I had stored on my phone. Many other people would be having SMS conversations, I'm sure. I don't know by what logic you can insist that this is less productive or worthwhile than having an idle chat with the person next to you, or just sitting there staring blankly (which is what most people not using a phone do). > I believe that to live a healthy life you do need a good balance of production and consumption. While this is true, it's irrelevant. You haven't shown or given any evidence to support that people who engage in social networking or who use smartphones for leisure have a worse production/consumption balance than those who read books, newspapers, or magazines. > I'm simply worried about how ubiquitous and in-front-of-our-faces these devices are becoming, and how addictive they are. You've yet to give a reason this should be something to worry about. > I enjoy reading and going to the cinema and you've offered nothing but your opinion to support that your choices of leisure are better than any other choices. You're not saying anything worthwhile, man. Give me a reason to think you're anything other than a kid who's emotionally immature enough to think that he's better than everyone else around him because he's not on Facebook.
blazingfrog2 14y ago
I speak to human beings daily. I've known dozens, or maybe hundreds, of human beings who have never been so rude as to pay more attention to their devices than to me when in the middle of a conversation. I don't know you but, if you're not 20 years old, like the parent, you're talking apple and oranges.
- Bakkot 14y ago
  I'm 20 and can never recall having had the experience the OP describes.
  - ceol 14y ago
    I'm 23 and laughed when the OP talked about "remembering junior high" and how "people never did this shit back then, because they couldn't." Yeah, you probably couldn't find a middle schooler with a smart phone back in 2005 (the year the OP was in 8th grade), but you damn well know they were playing with Game Boy Advances and, later, Nintendo DSs. They were on Myspace and Livejournal. They were exploring EverQuest and Battlefield 1942. It seems the OP is suffering from a severe case of nostalgia to think a mere 8 years ago people were somehow immune from being antisocial.
PeterisP 14y ago
That's the whole point - if someone started reading a book or newspaper while on a walk with their mate or during a group conversation, then it used to be socially unacceptable. And, as you say, the tech doesn't change anything - if we're hanging out and suddenly you're zoning out by checking FB on your phone instead of connecting with me (I'm right here! Right now!), then it's just as offensive as if I'd fold out a full-size newspaper between us while we're sitting in a cafe.
eranki 14y ago
You missed the point, which is that people are likely to pull out their phones at totally inappropriate times these days. Go to any restaurant or bar and see how many dates/couples/groups are just staring blankly into their phones. That doesn't really happen with books.

lifeformed 14y ago

I don't think artursapek is arguing that these technologies are bad. There's certainly a time and place for them all, but they shouldn't be a substitute for a social situation. If I invited my friends out to a dinner and everyone brought a book with them and just read the entire time, I'd be just as pissed as if they were on their phone the entire time. There's' also certainly something fundamentally different about browsing Facebook and Twitter over reading a book. Books are intentional - you've committed to a topic, and there's a finite amount of information to digest. When you're checking social media, you don't know what you're going to get, but it'll probably keep you occupied. You're just consuming mostly trivial information, hoping something interesting happens on your screen. It's like flipping through TV channels to pass the evening. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's probably something best kept in moderation. artursapek's post is about his observations on how people are increasingly consuming this information fast food in excess.

artursapek 14y ago
You get it.
abraininavat 14y ago
What? > Books are intentional - you've committed to a topic, and there's a finite amount of information to digest. When you're checking social media, you don't know what you're going to get, but it'll probably keep you occupied. This is a bizarre argument. 1. In what way is a book more intentional than Facebook? How is visiting Facebook an unintentional act? I don't think you're using the common definition of 'intentional'. 2. "You've committed to a topic." How is this a substantial difference? What if I don't know the topic of the book before I start reading it? And when I read a newspaper, do I know the topic any more than when I browse social media? 3. "There's a finite amount of information to digest." Even admitting this is true (which is sort of a stretch), again, how is this a substantial difference? The fact that the information is infinite doesn't imply the amount of time I choose to spend on the information is infinite. 4. "You're consuming mostly trivial information." By what standard? What you're consuming is information about the people you know. How is this more trivial than reading 50 Shades of Gray? 5. "it's probably something best kept in moderation." Sure.. so is reading books for leisure. So is reading books for school. So is working. So is eating. So is everything you do, regardless of its nature. You two aren't saying anything substantial. The OP doesn't like social media, online shopping, or horoscopes, and he doesn't like people who spend lots of time engaged in them. Fine, we get it. I don't happen to like those things either. But I don't act as if that means anything.
- Apocryphon 14y ago
  It's a lot easier to browse social media without focus. It's like surfing the channels of TV. You can't browse a book in the same way, it's an activity that requires focus.
  - abraininavat 14y ago
    If this is true, why does it matter? Show me some evidence to support that focusing on 50 Shades of Gray is better than zoning out on Facebook.

artursapek 14y ago

Kindles are simply super-books. I own a Kindle, I love my Kindle. There's nothing wrong with Kindles or newspapers. There's also nothing wrong with reading a newspaper or playing with your phone when you're on a subway surrounded by strangers. I do that, everyone has always done that and always will. There's a huge difference anyway between iPhones and books/newspapers. It's not a good comparison. The only similarity is the posture one holds when consuming them, which is why your photos sort of work for your argument. Reading a book or newspaper takes effort and concentration, whereas flicking through whatever stream on your iPhone takes little to no thought at all. It's active consumption vs. passive consumption. I believe that to live a healthy life you do need a good balance of production and consumption. Several of you responding to my post seem to think that I miss a time when everyone used to talk to everyone and people were all "engaged with each other" and that I think socializing is dead. That's not it. I'm simply worried about how ubiquitous and in-front-of-our-faces these devices are becoming, and how addictive they are. If it clarifies anything, I also don't use Facebook and I didn't grow up on television, so maybe I'm just an outcast in that regard. However, I enjoy reading and going to the cinema and I'm focusing all my energy on starting a software company. So I'm also not Amish. Call me disgruntled, maybe I am. I think I have a reason to be. Try to convince me that most of the time you spend on your phone is time well spent. It's probably not. Well, not too long from now that shit is going right in front of your eye, wrapped around your cranium.

burntsushi 14y ago
> Try to convince me that most of the time you spend on your phone is time well spent. It's probably not. Well, not too long from now that shit is going right in front of your eye, wrapped around your cranium. Most of my time spent on my smart phone: texting, emails, weather, Google Nav, music, looking up random junk, checking weather, snapping a quick picture, etc. Some of these things are for pleasure (music, random facts) and others have varying utility. None of this means I whip out my smart phone in the middle of a conversation with someone else.
abraininavat 14y ago
> There's a huge difference anyway between iPhones and books/newspapers. It's not a good comparison. The only similarity is the posture one holds when consuming them, which is why your photos sort of work for your argument. Reading a book or newspaper takes effort and concentration, whereas flicking through whatever stream on your iPhone takes little to no thought at all. It's active consumption vs. passive consumption. You assume way too much about what people do on their phones. I used to commute to work via bus. I was one of the many people with his face stuck in his phone. You assume I was "flicking through whatever stream", not thinking at all. You'd be wrong -- I was almost always either reading books for leisure through the Kindle App, or reading some research paper PDF I had stored on my phone. Many other people would be having SMS conversations, I'm sure. I don't know by what logic you can insist that this is less productive or worthwhile than having an idle chat with the person next to you, or just sitting there staring blankly (which is what most people not using a phone do). > I believe that to live a healthy life you do need a good balance of production and consumption. While this is true, it's irrelevant. You haven't shown or given any evidence to support that people who engage in social networking or who use smartphones for leisure have a worse production/consumption balance than those who read books, newspapers, or magazines. > I'm simply worried about how ubiquitous and in-front-of-our-faces these devices are becoming, and how addictive they are. You've yet to give a reason this should be something to worry about. > I enjoy reading and going to the cinema and you've offered nothing but your opinion to support that your choices of leisure are better than any other choices. You're not saying anything worthwhile, man. Give me a reason to think you're anything other than a kid who's emotionally immature enough to think that he's better than everyone else around him because he's not on Facebook.

blazingfrog2 14y ago

Bakkot 14y ago
I'm 20 and can never recall having had the experience the OP describes.
- ceol 14y ago
  I'm 23 and laughed when the OP talked about "remembering junior high" and how "people never did this shit back then, because they couldn't." Yeah, you probably couldn't find a middle schooler with a smart phone back in 2005 (the year the OP was in 8th grade), but you damn well know they were playing with Game Boy Advances and, later, Nintendo DSs. They were on Myspace and Livejournal. They were exploring EverQuest and Battlefield 1942. It seems the OP is suffering from a severe case of nostalgia to think a mere 8 years ago people were somehow immune from being antisocial.

PeterisP 14y ago

That's the whole point - if someone started reading a book or newspaper while on a walk with their mate or during a group conversation, then it used to be socially unacceptable. And, as you say, the tech doesn't change anything - if we're hanging out and suddenly you're zoning out by checking FB on your phone instead of connecting with me (I'm right here! Right now!), then it's just as offensive as if I'd fold out a full-size newspaper between us while we're sitting in a cafe.

eranki 14y ago

You missed the point, which is that people are likely to pull out their phones at totally inappropriate times these days. Go to any restaurant or bar and see how many dates/couples/groups are just staring blankly into their phones. That doesn't really happen with books.