4 ms·

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

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.
- lifeformed 14y ago
  I was trying to make the argument that zoning out on Facebook, flipping through TV channels, browsing Reddit front page for 2 hours, is all like eating mental junk food. It's tasty but not very nutritious - it should be consumed in moderation alongside a healthy diet of enriching foods/mental activities. My main point isn't really about the technology, but the content - it doesn't matter if the material is on a cell phone, Kindle, book, or newspaper. Of course there can be junk in books and newspapers, and enriching information can be found online. I was just ranking the action of "aimlessly browsing social media" as pretty low on the nutrition charts. OP doesn't feel strongly about social media or online shopping - he just doesn't like when you do it in the middle of a date, just as I wouldn't like someone pulling out a book in the middle of a social event.
  - mayanksinghal 14y ago
    > zoning out on Facebook, flipping through TV channels, browsing Reddit front page for 2 hours Not that I rate the intellectual output of these things above reading books but the value that people get out of them may be higher. Firstly, it seems unfair to judge people based on whether they choose to read books or surf sites. I, for one, find internet more interesting, dynamic, fluid and cheap source of information as well as entertainment than books. > aimlessly browsing social media That has some value too. For a person who prefers that kind of past time, I would argue that chances of them engaging in an activity of much higher intellectual engagement are pretty low anyway. They are probably looking for an easy and light way to spend time or consume information about their peers.

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.
lifeformed 14y ago
I was trying to make the argument that zoning out on Facebook, flipping through TV channels, browsing Reddit front page for 2 hours, is all like eating mental junk food. It's tasty but not very nutritious - it should be consumed in moderation alongside a healthy diet of enriching foods/mental activities. My main point isn't really about the technology, but the content - it doesn't matter if the material is on a cell phone, Kindle, book, or newspaper. Of course there can be junk in books and newspapers, and enriching information can be found online. I was just ranking the action of "aimlessly browsing social media" as pretty low on the nutrition charts. OP doesn't feel strongly about social media or online shopping - he just doesn't like when you do it in the middle of a date, just as I wouldn't like someone pulling out a book in the middle of a social event.
- mayanksinghal 14y ago
  > zoning out on Facebook, flipping through TV channels, browsing Reddit front page for 2 hours Not that I rate the intellectual output of these things above reading books but the value that people get out of them may be higher. Firstly, it seems unfair to judge people based on whether they choose to read books or surf sites. I, for one, find internet more interesting, dynamic, fluid and cheap source of information as well as entertainment than books. > aimlessly browsing social media That has some value too. For a person who prefers that kind of past time, I would argue that chances of them engaging in an activity of much higher intellectual engagement are pretty low anyway. They are probably looking for an easy and light way to spend time or consume information about their peers.