re: Has technology made us dumber, social media made us less social?

quote:

---

my issue isn't with change as I get older, just with change that is fake,

---

quote:

---

Take food for example. Technology has brought us to the point where we don't have to cook anymore but put shite in a microwave, or put shite other people made in a factory in a pot, and call it their own creation, or cooking. That's not a net positive to me, in the sense of what it's done to our cooking skill set as a people, or in even tasting better. It's driven by both technology and laziness that the technology temps us to succumb to, and our fast pace lifestyles that drive us all nuts at times, and we aren't necessarily eating better either, also arguably eating better food as a result. What they thought of as normal common knowledge, many today think it's magic tricks, and this in spite of the technology at our finger tips.

---

this paragraph is a direct example of this: . confirmation bias and subjective evaluation of the less-advanced past they observed

you prefer home-cooked food. fine. that's great. that doesn't make it superior. it just makes it your opinion

however, you have gone on crusades to try and prove your subjective preference is superior, and the only thing you can rely upon is anecdote and confirmation bias, 2 examples of logical fallacies. that is my exact point about the larger conversation of this thread

quote:

---

This same technology that with a few key strokes has the ability to show you the proper way to can or preserve food for example, does not make people do it, or even know why it's important, or why there's a big difference in the end product you do at your house to what you buy in the store. It just gives you the ability to do so. Meanwhile, go back 50 or 60 years ago, prior to this Information Age, and you would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't know how to can foods, cure meats, make bread, or make things from scratch in understanding the foundation for cooking that made cooking anything they put their hand to more sense, and practiced arts that humanity considered very important in life.

---

this is called efficiency. why would society today need to know these arts? why isn't society better off leaving the information to being placed in easily-accessible areas of indirect research? sounds like an example of advancing society through efficiency

This is an interesting question. Having gone to school from the late 50s through the mid 70s I surely did not have the internet available to me during elementary school, high school, or college. I didn’t have Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw available to me in law school. I suppose that some would argue that we worked harder to learn and research and remembered more as a result. But I certainly use the internet and Lexis/Nexis in my day to day life. I do find that it is not as important to me to “remember” everything that I once remembered because I have ready access to information on the www. I do not pretend to know as much about technology as my 32 year old son, and it takes me longer to do mundane tasks with a computer than someone in their 20s or 30s. From a technology standpoint, I would say that the younger generations are far more advanced than mine.

I remember years ago, in the late 90s, dictating a brief to be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on a recording device with about 20 volumes of Atlantic 2d on my desk. A law clerk came into my office and was simply amazed. He said that he needed to prepare a brief on a computer. He needed to see what was written and edit as he went. I think I made only a handful of changes in the final product. I told him that he needed to try it my way because it would make him think on his feet and speak in a coherent manner. Now, I find that I type my own briefs and edit as I go. I think I have lost some of my thinking on my feet ability as a result of this technology and I do not feel as comfortable as I once did in oral argument.

From a “knowledge” standpoint in my field, I feel pretty confident that I can try a lawsuit as well as, if not better than, my younger colleagues. Some of this is due to the fact that I have been trying cases for more than 35 years. But another aspect of this is the second part of your question. I find that younger lawyers cannot relate to a jury as well as I can relate. It seems to me that the younger generation has become somewhat socially retarded due to social media. There is far less personal communication. Telephone calls and personal meetings are, in large part, a thing of the past. They have been replaced by text messages and emails. I still enjoy receiving a handwritten note, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Is it better? I don’t know. But one either has to adapt or be left behind.

quote:

---

you made an inflammatory and ignorant post that ignored what i was discussing. sorry for bringing back to my actual words

---

How is claiming that you don't have to be poor and trash to punch someone inflammatory? Or ignorant?

In short. frick the internet

Technology has shown just how big the divide is between the intelligent and the mouth breathers.

quote:

---

you prefer home-cooked food. fine. that's great. that doesn't make it superior. it just makes it your opinion

---

As crazy as it is for me to even entertain this as being a serious argument to entertain, let's go with it.

What reference do you have to say that a frozen dinner is better than a home cooked meal of the same dinner, and might that have a lot to do with a serious lack in cooking skills that drives that?

quote:

---

I find that younger lawyers cannot relate to a jury as well as I can relate.

---

that depends on the jury, though. if you're trying a simple case to old jurors? sure

if you need to explain technology or advanced topics? eek. hell, even trying to explain technology to older or more rural judges can be a pain. i had a hearing involving tech a few months ago in a rural setting and it was difficult to explain everything

quote:

---

language evolves, and is evolving. it is evolving now to a more efficient use of letters/memory that's a good thing. rules from teh 18th century used for the sake of having rules, are illogical

---

Language evolves, true, but it's not necessarily a positive evolution, or de-evolution. But yes, change happens over time.

quote:

---

Technology has shown just how big the divide is between the intelligent and the mouth breathers.

---

this is actually a major sociological point that is going to explode much more quickly than people realize

the "technology tax" as i call it is real, and it will further separate good and trash cultures