Brain Drain

[LaffingBear]

This CBS Sunday Morning segment really resonated with me. There have been times I've wondered whether I'm alone in concerns regarding the subject matter of Ted Koppel's piece.

 

Info-age alert: It's 9-minutes long and requires an attention span beyond today's norm.

 

[+ Tarte Gogo]

The video is not actually about information overload, it is mostly about disinformation and attention span.

I feel the title is a bit of a click bait. They are doing what they are complaining about.

 

I personally don't feel any information overload, I am still quite often bored and unable to find something interesting. The phrase is apparently "running out of Internet" as in: "I have listened to all my favorite postcasts and read my latest kindle book, the forums are quiet, no new nice game to try out... I have run out of Internet".

[+ azdr0710]

I don't take my (smart)phone in with me to the gym - mostly because I have a couple other things with me and don't want to juggle too many things......I have no social media presence on the 'net and, occasionally, feel out of touch while the other people check their phones between - every - set......what are they looking at?.....am I missing out?......do I look uncool sitting here at the chest press not looking at my phone?......

 

I've decided that I'm secure in my smartphone interaction and don't care.......

[LaffingBear]

For me, the point of the piece is that we're being conditioned to shorter attention spans and greater impressionability .

 

This will seem a diversion, but there's a point. Most of my career has been in MBA-type mgmt activities. Finance,statistics, business plans, general mgmt, etc. I took a 3-year detour mid career to work in a Fortune 500 Company marketing department. Oddly, I excelled, and implemented very successful promotional campaigns. But I hated the work. Felt ashamed. Because I simply couldn't believe people were so easily influenced. So impressionable. I moved on, back to business.

 

Now, at the end of my career, and with much more life experience , I recognize that my attitudes weren't only mistaken, they were the polar opposite of reality. People are exceptionally impressionable. Herd mentality affects so much. And people won't consume info that requires any more than the briefest consideration.

 

Watch a few old movies and consider editing... entertainment today occurs in shorter clips.

 

During the 2016 election, I pointed out to several friends that they were sharing/reposting Facebook stories where the cover photo didnt match the story content. I asked if they'd read what they shared, and they not only replied that they hadn't, but were adamant that no one was expected to read what they shared.

 

We're so impressionable, people cannot put down their phones. Its illegal to stare at a phone while driving in CA, and obviously stupid, but every one around me is driving while looking down at the phone in their lap. They can't stop at a signal without checking their device, as if a life saving email or world-shattering tweet might have arrived since they checked 60 seconds ago. San Francisco local legislators have introduced regs to prohibit pedestrian use of devices, as distracted walkers are making streets unsafe.

 

I probably shouldn't bother- who in this day and age will take the time to read a lengthy post like this one? And, I can't help wondering... how many people will actually watch the entirety of Ted Koppel's piece before opining?

[+ Tarte Gogo]

For me, the point of the piece is that we're being conditioned to shorter attention spans and greater impressionability .

 

This will seem a diversion, but there's a point. Most of my career has been in MBA-type mgmt activities. Finance,statistics, business plans, general mgmt, etc. I took a 3-year detour mid career to work in a Fortune 500 Company marketing department. Oddly, I excelled, and implemented very successful promotional campaigns. But I hated the work. Felt ashamed. Because I simply couldn't believe people were so easily influenced. So impressionable. I moved on, back to business.

 

Now, at the end of my career, and with much more life experience , I recognize that my attitudes weren't only mistaken, they were the polar opposite of reality. People are exceptionally impressionable. Herd mentality affects so much. And people won't consume info that requires any more than the briefest consideration.

 

Watch a few old movies and consider editing... entertainment today occurs in shorter clips.

 

During the 2016 election, I pointed out to several friends that they were sharing/reposting Facebook stories where the cover photo didnt match the story content. I asked if they'd read what they shared, and they not only replied that they hadn't, but were adamant that no one was expected to read what they shared.

 

We're so impressionable, people cannot put down their phones. Its illegal to stare at a phone while driving in CA, and obviously stupid, but every one around me is driving while looking down at the phone in their lap. They can't stop at a signal without checking their device, as if a life saving email or world-shattering tweet might have arrived since they checked 60 seconds ago. San Francisco local legislators have introduced regs to prohibit pedestrian use of devices, as distracted walkers are making streets unsafe.

 

I probably shouldn't bother- who in this day and age will take the time to read a lengthy post like this one? And, I can't help wondering... how many people will actually watch the entirety of Ted Koppel's piece before opining?

Seems what you are saying is that some very clever people have found a way to make money involving the control of the attention of less clever people. Well, no news there. Advertising existed in ancient Egypt. All that has changed is the scale.

My message to all these people that are focused on their Facebook feed or similar:

Wisen up. Don’t believe what you are told. You can read crap if you enjoy it, sure, as long as you think critically about it.

Unfortunately thinking critically requires being clever on some level.

There is nothing else we can do, we can’t make stupid and averagely clever people suddenly clever and wise.

And we can’t prevent clever marketing people from using perfectly legal technics to grab their attention.

[LaffingBear]

Seems what you are saying is that some very clever people have found a way to make money involving the control of the attention of less clever people. Well, no news there. Advertising existed in ancient Egypt. All that has changed is the scale.

My message to all these people that are focused on their Facebook feed or similar:

Wisen up. Don’t believe what you are told. You can read crap if you enjoy it, sure, as long as you think critically about it.

Unfortunately thinking critically requires being clever on some level.

There is nothing else we can do, we can’t make stupid and averagely clever people suddenly clever and wise.

And we can’t prevent clever marketing people from using perfectly legal technics to grab their attention.

I dont think its about clever. Or intelligence.

 

Most people who think they're exempt from being influenced are simply impressionable in other ways. Most humans follow some herd to at least some extent. Its very human for me to join the herd that declares "I'm part of no herd."

 

I see comments that older people frequently comment that young people are dumber. They cant do math without a calculator. They're tech dependent. (Same was said about TV in my youth - the idiot box.) I don't think theyre dumber... they just process info differently. And that has consequences.

 

But I absolutely believe we're conditioning people to have shorter attention spans. Less tolerance for the full-story. Know a little about more things, and where to get more info. The old "Master of None" adage.

 

We're redefining civility norms. I love the closing line of the Sunday Morning story... that we may be "walking off the cliff of civilization while staring at our phones."

Edited April 3, 2018 by LaffingBear

[+ Tarte Gogo]

You make a lot of points worth considering in detail here.

 

Most people who think theyre exempt from being influenced are simply impressionable in other ways. Most humans are follow some herd to at least some extent. Its very human for me to join the herd that declares "I'm part of no herd."

Critical thinking is highly useful when you need to smell the marketing bullshit (which you hated spewing).

Unfortunately that does require advanced thinking capacity. So, sure, you can claim I have joined a herd of critical thinkers if you want. I don’t really care about labels.

 

I see comments that older people frequently comment that young people are dumber. They cant do math without a calculator. They're tech dependent. (Same was said about TV in my youth - the idiot box.) I don't think theyre dumber... they just process info differently. And that has consequences.

Oh no, they are not dumber. Absolutely not. Quite the contrary, on average, they are cleverer than our generation.

They know how to use tools and concepts we struggle with. And yes, they don’t know our old concepts, but that is simply because they won’t need those concepts. Don’t clutter your brain with useless stuff: that is clever.

 

But I absolutely believe we're conditioning people to have shorter attention spans. Less tolerance for the full-story.

You may be right here, but I am not sure it will have a bad effect. Maybe it will make society more efficient. Maybe people will be forced to be brief and to the point. Which will lead to easier communication, and faster decision making, based on the important points, and not based on who made the longest, most convoluted speech.

 

Know a little about more things, and where to get more info. The old "Master of None" adage.

Yep, that is efficient too.

Still, not in every aspect: our society continues to specialise, especially with regards to work. So while some people have a broad, not very deep knowledge of most things, which gives them the bigger picture, they also have one or two deep areas of expertise, in their work domain. So I don’t really see anything wrong with that.

 

We're redefining civility norms.

Sure, but isn’t it just like: the norms in which we grew up are very different from the norms of people who grew up before WWII, and theirs were different from of the Victorians’ civility norms? Can we really claim that our civility norms are better than those of the coming generations?

 

I mean, I like them because I grew up with them, but in which sense are they actually better?

[+ oldNbusted]

I'm reminded of the dire warnings about the telephone, how it would be the end of the oh-so-genteel custom of calling upon people, which up to then had meant visiting people in person, not calling them on the phone. I'm squarely in the 'it's different but not intrinsically worse' camp. I've long had a theory that one of the reasons the Sherlock Holmes stories have have endured is the romantic idea that when the stories started in 1887, that was probably the last time in the history of civilization that one person could be somewhat familiar with the entire breadth of human knowledge. Speaking of the 1880s, I think this story is in the public domain now.

 

theatlantic.com: Mark Twain eavesdrops

 

A Telephonic Conversation

"I touched the bell and this talk ensued"

 

Mark Twain, June 1880 Issue

 

I consider that a conversation by telephone—when you are simply sitting by and not taking any part in that conversation—is one of the solemnest curiosities of this modern life. Yesterday I was writing a deep article on a sublime philosophical subject while such a conversation was going on in the room. I notice that one can always write best when somebody is talking through a telephone close by. Well, the thing began in this way. A member of our household came in and asked me to have our house put into communication with Mr. Bagley's, downtown. I have observed, in many cities, that the gentle sex always shrink from calling up the central office themselves. I don't know why, but they do. So I touched the bell, and this talk ensued:—

 

Central Office. [Gruffly.] Hello!

 

I. Is it the Central Office?

 

C. 0. Of course it is. What do you want ?

 

I. Will you switch me on to the Bagleys, please ?

 

C. 0. All right. Just keep your ear to the telephone.

 

Then I heard, k-look, k-look, k'look— klook-klook-klook-look-look! then a horrible "gritting" of teeth, and finally a piping female voice: Y-e-s? [Rising inflection.] Did you wish to speak to me?"

 

Without answering, I handed the telephone to the applicant, and sat down. Then followed that queerest of all the queer things in this world,—a conversation with only one end to it. You hear questions asked; you don't hear the answer. You hear invitations given; you hear no thanks in return. You have listening pauses of dead silence, followed by apparently irrelevant and unjustifiable exclamations of glad surprise, or sorrow, or dismay. You can't make head or tail of the talk, because you never hear anything that the person at the other end of the wire says. Well, I heard the following remarkable series of observations, all from the one tongue, and all shouted,—for you can't ever persuade the gentle sex to speak gently into a telephone:—

 

Yes? Why, how did that happen?

 

Pause.

 

What did you say?

 

Pause.

 

Oh, no, I don't think it was.

 

Pause.

 

No! Oh, no, I didn't mean that. I meant, put it in while it is still boiling,—or just before it comes to a boil.

 

Pause.

 

WHAT?

 

Pause.

 

I turned it over with a back stitch on the selvage edge.

 

Pause.

 

Yes, I like that way, too; but I think it 's better to baste it on with Valenciennes or bombazine, or something of that sort. It gives it such an air,—and attracts so much notice.

 

Pause.

 

It 's forty-ninth Deuteronomy, sixty-fourth to ninety-seventh inclusive. I think we ought all to read it often.

 

Pause.

 

Perhaps so; I generally use a hair-pin.

 

Pause.

 

What did you say ? [Aside] Children, do be quiet!

 

Pause.

 

Oh! B flat! Dear me, I thought you said it was the cat!

 

Pause.

 

Since when?

 

Pause.

 

Why, I never heard of it.

 

Pause.

 

You astound me! It seems utterly impossible!

 

Pause.

 

Who did?

 

Pause.

 

Good-ness gracious!

 

Pause.

 

Well, what is this world coming to? Was it right in church?

 

Pause.

 

And was her mother there?

 

Pause.

 

Why, Mrs. Bagley, I should have died of humiliation! What did they do?

 

Long Pause.

 

I can't be perfectly sure, because I haven't the notes by me; but I think it goes something like this: te-rolly-loll-loll, loll lolly-loll-loll, O tolly-loll-loll-lee-ly-li-i-do! And then repeat, you know.

 

Pause.

 

Yes, I think it is very sweet,—and very solemn and impressive, if you get the andantino and the pianissimo right.

 

Pause.

 

Oh, gum-drops, gum-drops! But I never allow them to eat striped candy. And of course they can't, till they get their teeth, any way.

 

Pause.

 

What?

 

Pause.

 

Oh, not in the least,—go right on. He's here writing,—it does n't bother him.

 

Pause.

 

Very well, I'll come if I can. [Aside.] Dear me, how it does tire a person's arm to hold this thing up so long! I wish she'd—

 

Pause.

 

Oh, no, not at all; I like to talk,—but I'm afraid I'm keeping you from your affairs.

 

Pause.

 

Visitors?

 

Pause.

 

No, we never use butter on them.

 

Pause.

 

Yes, that is a very good way; but all the cook-books say they are very unhealthy when they are out of season. And he does n't like them, any way,—especially canned.

 

Pause.

 

Oh, I think that is too high for them; we have never paid over fifty cents a bunch.

 

Pause.

 

Must you go? Well, good-by.

 

Pause.

 

Yes, I think so. Good-by.

 

Pause.

 

Four, o'clock then—I'll be ready. Good-by.

 

Pause.

 

Thank you ever so much. Good-by.

 

Pause.

 

Oh, not at all!—just as fresh—Which? Oh, I'm glad to hear you say that. Good-by.

 

[Hangs up the telephone and says, "Oh, it does tire a person's arm so!"]

 

A man delivers a single brutal "Good-by," and that is the end of it. Not so with the gentle sex,—I say it in their praise; they cannot abide abruptness.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

Brilliant, @oldNbusted .

 

I am surprised by the bluntness of the operator. I had assumed that people who have a telephone would be wealthy, and so were shown some respect by an operator, since they were 1. Talking to a customer and 2. The operator was himself/herself just a lowly technician, but apparently the language was quite classless (in the good meaning of this word) and straight to the point.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

More on technical revolutions:

 

I remember clearly my uncles saying that calculators would be the doom of society, because I wasn’t as quick as them to do a division by hand. We are going to loose our intellectual ability to calculate!

They even told me, verbatim: “you won’t always have a calculator in your pocket, you know!” Well guess what, within 3 years of hearing that, I owned a Casio wristwatch that was also a calculator! When I confronted them, they refused to admit they had ever said that.

 

When TV arrived, many people said it would all make us stupid because people would stop reading. You could just watch a documentary about the Amazonian forest instead of reading about it! People are going to forget how to read!

 

When writing became common in antiquity, many people said it would all make us stupid, because people wouldn’t have to memorise the old tales of the gods, like the Iliad, anymore, they could just read them from a papyrus instead of learning them by heart. We would loose our ability to memorise!

 

I am not saying societal changes cannot cause harm, but we need some evidence that people are actually getting harmed (in larger numbers that in the past) to make that claim. Otherwise, it is just different, or, when it is more efficient, better.