Info Flee the internet you fools, or, it really is bad for you.

[IronWing]

So I'm free to disregard this thread, after all the internet is bad for me.

You can't leave until you've learned to tie a bowline.

 

[crashtech]

I think it's too late to worry about it now. I just hope they perfect the Google Assistant cranial implant before I get Alzheimer's.

 

[Jaskalas]

And, yes, you probably are right that if you don't have loads of information organised in your own head, you aren't going to make insightful connections in the same way.

Now this concept piques my interest. Has the "smart" phone generation forfeited brain development in favor of followers on twitter?

 

[Jaskalas]

It's been observed as an increasing problem of the highest order in education.

The more the internet is used as a source of information, the more memory is damaged.

To put it another way "why should I learn this when I can look it up" has become "I can't learn this, I must look it up". Why does that matter? Because being able to use knowledge is highly linked to the ability to recall and use facts to synthesize new ideas and be able to test them. Students can't work out an obvious chain of causation or analogous reasoning and therefore have no comprehension, just regurgitation without the ability to apply a process of critical examination.

It's more than the rare situation and unfortunately, it's not a matter of sloth but neurological changes which cannot be undone.

We are manufacturing idiocy with tools meant to inform but instead,
they have become a drug from which there is no escape at least for now. I wonder if this will be addressed at a national level or no.

First, almost all of that article appears dedicated to the harm of how social media and smart phones combine in an effort to "brain drain" people, steal their attention span and immediate cognitive function. You appear to misstep away from the thrust of their citations (and thus evidence?) when you talk about "easy knowledge" and the potential adverse effects of not having to earn it or work it.

Can you give me an example of knowledge that must be "learned" in some better fashion than just "look it up"?

Isn't that the purpose of every book, what is the distinguishing difference in how Wikipedia works VS how we learned before? It appears to be that we merely traded one pitifully inadequate book for a vastly superior one. With both all human knowledge and a readily searchable index. Light years beyond what paper books can accomplish in terms of speed, relevance, and efficacy.

What is the intrinsic harm in such an improved "book"?

Perhaps you have conflated this with the adverse effects of over stimulation from smart phones beeping at people all day long. A fixation on those would prevent the focus required in the absorption of knowledge. If we are to proceed on the subject of the internet being harmful, we should dutifully separate the good from the bad. And I'd list "easy knowledge" as a definite "good".

 

[sandorski]

[Nerd Standoff]Google says you're wrong.....

 

[pmv]

Now this concept piques my interest. Has the "smart" phone generation forfeited brain development in favor of followers on twitter?

To be honest, my (irrational) anxiety is that we are heading to some strange and novel borg-like condition, where everybody is accustomed to being plugged in at all times, and where individual creativity doesn't work as it once did (because people don't have enough information organised in their heads to be able to make immediate insightful connections between things), but instead we come up with ideas via a hyper-rapid interaction with others.

I also don't even know why I don't like this concept, given that I'm supposed to be on the 'collectivist' side of politics, but dislike it I do. It might also be a phantasmagorical fear, but, dammit, I like to 'own' my books and music, not depend on plucking them out of the ether and then throwing them back again! It seems similar when it comes to raw information.

 

[pmv]

Isn't that the purpose of every book, what is the distinguishing difference in how Wikipedia works VS how we learned before? It appears to be that we merely traded one pitifully inadequate book for a vastly superior one. With both all human knowledge and a readily searchable index. Light years beyond what paper books can accomplish in terms of speed, relevance, and efficacy.

What is the intrinsic harm in such an improved "book"?

I think the difference with books is the speed of access, and the fact that with books you need some sort of indexing system internal to your own mind - the ability to remember what you have read and where to find it and how it connects to other works. With search engines the indexing is done entirely for you, and every fragment of data is accessed independently.

I don't know that I buy the idea of it being a major 'neurological' change (maybe, maybe not, I don't know enough about brains as physical systems to say) but I think it's plausible that the sheer ease of looking things up is changing people's habits and attitudes.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

It is a problem and, I liken it to a lack of problem solving skills.The ability to problem solve is based on creativity. Creativity is based on a mastery of basic skills and knowledge as it relates to your field of interest and life. By always turning to online sources for solutions to end results, you lose the ability to think outside the box which, in this case, is literally the container that holds your multimedia device.

 

[Thump553]

I totally disagree with labeling this as a problem, and I'm speaking as someone who grew up in the era of black and white TV and when knowing the Dewey decimal system and using the town library was the peak of intellectual study.

Knowing how to think, how to analyze is far, far more important than rote memorization. The neanderthals had larger brains than we do-because they had to memorize everything-having no writing.

One of my favorite anecdotes is one about a scientist talking with Albert Einstein at a party. They wanted to pursue the discussion more in depth later, and the scientist asked Einstein for his phone number. Einstein walked over to a desk, pulled out a phone book (remember those?) looked it up and told him. Astonished, the scientist said "You are one of the smartest people in the world and you don't know your phone number?" Einstein replied "No I don't-why memorize something I can easily look up?"

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I totally disagree with labeling this as a problem, and I'm speaking as someone who grew up in the era of black and white TV and when knowing the Dewey decimal system and using the town library was the peak of intellectual study.

Knowing how to think, how to analyze is far, far more important than rote memorization. The neanderthals had larger brains than we do-because they had to memorize everything-having no writing.

One of my favorite anecdotes is one about a scientist talking with Albert Einstein at a party. They wanted to pursue the discussion more in depth later, and the scientist asked Einstein for his phone number. Einstein walked over to a desk, pulled out a phone book (remember those?) looked it up and told him. Astonished, the scientist said "You are one of the smartest people in the world and you don't know your phone number?" Einstein replied "No I don't-why memorize something I can easily look up?"

You're missing the point. "Knowing how to think, how to analyze" isn't possible without mastering the basics of problem solving. Einstein would have remained a clerk if he'd been able to Google relativity.
Are you trying to argue Neanderthals were less intelligent because they lacked writing as opposed to the yoots of of today who can't read the original constitution because they don't know cursive?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're missing the point. "Knowing how to think, how to analyze" isn't possible without mastering the basics of problem solving. Einstein would have remained a clerk if he'd been able to Google relativity.
Are you trying to argue Neanderthals were less intelligent because they lacked writing as opposed to the yoots of of today who can't read the original constitution because they don't know cursive?

You, I and others are in a sense from two worlds and we understand that learning is a process if it is to have utility beyond the regurgitation of facts. For those like us the internet is like a magic box, but for others, it's more Pandoras and I'm referring to the youngest generations and of course, this is a generalization. You mention Einstein and that applies. Even Gauss and Euler, mathematicians beyond the ability of "mere mortals" to grasp in their methods of reasoning had to learn (which requires retention and comprehension) things on which to build upon. They knew they had to build on the work of others and had the insight to go from things they knew to things which required wading into unknown territory. But again they had a foundation of understanding that was sometimes flawed but more often than not, sound.

Perhaps a better understand the problems a (hopefully useful) set of questions may help define "the beast".

Why is the ability to use cognitive skills in problem solving worstening? Why is it increasingly harder for students to absorb and retain material from a text book and the need to "dumb it down" to be comprehensible?

For those who don't know, my wife is a professor in the sciences and she keeps in contact with others of like education and ability. Other than some newly discovered molecular mechanisms and the like there's just small talk about labs and teaching. Highly intelligent students are having problems with "ordinary" learning principles and some of those recognize it in themselves. It's torture to have to read in anything other than small bites. As one said it's mentally like having to deal with thousands of index cards of a few lines which are hard to manage and manipulate when one short and concise notebook would be better. He couldn't write that book and so he struggles. Again this isn't always the case but it is observed to be an increasing issue. Shorter attention spans.

Why? Neither I nor anyone else has the whole picture but looking at answers to questions demonstrates something is changed and for the worse. I've touched on neurology and changes which correspond to neuroplasticity, but why?

Is this an interplay between technology and biology coupled with societal responses? So why?


Then with anything that involves the mind and how it responds and relates to stimulates is almost impossible to define beyond general observation. So why are people having difficulty when measured against past performance? Why is it that no neurological/behavioral dysfunction or impediment is seen early ages but develops later and at some point not correctable by any means we know?

That's the issue and educators are discussing among themselves how to provide a method which gives results that we used to take for granted with people who process in ways such that smart people fail. What can be done? That's another question and ultimately perhaps the most important.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think the first thing we can do is drop dependence on the federal government for education.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I want to know is where the idea that 'Neanderthal brains were larger than human brains because they didn't have writing' came from. I'm afraid to check that on the internet. But where I grew up the Neanderthals were long long long gone before the invention of writing. I thought they died out because their noses were so big to warm air before it hit their lungs that the human cold virus did them in.

 

[Jaskalas]

I submit the following as it possibly relates.
IQ scores are falling and have been for decades
For all we know pollution is responsible for this adverse effect.

@Hayabusa Rider , did they account for screen time in front of a device to prove it was this activity as the definitive cause of cognitive decline? I imagine use of computers is not 100% ubiquitous throughout our entire population.

 

[1prophet]

I do think there is a need for actual factual information that google doesn't provide.. so maybe there is an opening for a search engine that does!

There always was, you know these things called public libraries that even rural deplorable America still has, long before the internet, but that means one has to get off the internet, make some time to get out of their house and/or their safe space/comfort zone, you will find the mind works better when it has to be challenged not just with conflicting ideas but an effort to research them that goes beyond mouse clicks or smartphone/tablet finger gymnastics, and god forbid, you might actually socialize with someone interesting there too.

And here is your search engine

And you do your research here after your manual search.

 

[Indus]

There always was, you know these things called public libraries that even rural deplorable America still has, long before the internet, but that means one has to get off the internet, make some time to get out of their house and/or their safe space/comfort zone, you will find the mind works better when it has to be challenged not just with conflicting ideas but an effort to research them that goes beyond mouse clicks or smartphone/tablet finger gymnastics, and god forbid, you might actually socialize with someone interesting there too.

And here is your search engine

And you do your research here after your manual search.

True enough but in Rural America they've been replaced by corrected revised books that favor conservaterrorists. Just look at Texas textbooks for students.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

People also need to come to grips with the fact that the majority of human knowledge does not exist on the web.

 

[Jaskalas]

People also need to come to grips with the fact that the majority of human knowledge does not exist on the web.

As opposed to the handful of textbooks I was given each year as a student?
Right....

Wikipedia alone is likely several orders of magnitude larger and more diverse than all the books an average student has read in their life, combined.

Besides, size, scope, and scale aren't the issue here. Focus people, the OP's article repeatedly referenced the disruptive effects of cell phone delivered social media.

“The bombardment of stimuli via the Internet, and the resultant divided attention commonly experienced, presents a range of concerns,” said Professor Sarris.​

​

“I believe that this, along with the increasing #Instagramification of society, has the ability to alter both the structure and functioning of the brain, while potentially also altering our social fabric.​

​

“To minimise the potential adverse effects of high-intensity multi-tasking Internet usage, I would suggest mindfulness and focus practice, along with use of ‘Internet hygiene’ techniques (e.g. reducing online multitasking, ritualistic ‘checking’ behaviours, and evening online activity, while engaging in more in-person interactions),” said Professor Sarris.​

The problem is not the internet. It is how you use it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

As opposed to the handful of textbooks I was given each year as a student?
Right....

Wikipedia alone is likely several orders of magnitude larger and more diverse than all the books an average student has read in their life, combined.

Besides, size, scope, and scale aren't the issue here. Focus people, the OP's article repeatedly referenced the disruptive effects of cell phone delivered social media.

“The bombardment of stimuli via the Internet, and the resultant divided attention commonly experienced, presents a range of concerns,” said Professor Sarris.​

​

“I believe that this, along with the increasing #Instagramification of society, has the ability to alter both the structure and functioning of the brain, while potentially also altering our social fabric.​

​

“To minimise the potential adverse effects of high-intensity multi-tasking Internet usage, I would suggest mindfulness and focus practice, along with use of ‘Internet hygiene’ techniques (e.g. reducing online multitasking, ritualistic ‘checking’ behaviours, and evening online activity, while engaging in more in-person interactions),” said Professor Sarris.​

The problem is not the internet. It is how you use it.

Cat videos do not count as content. If the web is your sole source of info, you are throwing away the majority of human knowledge. If you limit your thinking to the "handful of textbooks" you were given, you're lost anyway. The point I'm trying to make is, the web will not teach you to be a critical thinker and problem solver. Even if that were possible, you would be stymied by it's lack of content and depth. Not having a broader perspective would doom us to reinventing the wheel at best and stagnation at worst.

 

[Muse]

But at the same time, I've never even owned a smartphone (resent the need for any kind of cellphone, in fact) and feel quite "luddite" about things like music-streaming and ebooks (and I know that's not what the historicl Luddites were all about!). Relying on streaming and 'the cloud' and so on gives me a weird fear that we're turning into the Borg. I don't want to be always connected and have to consult the internet for everything. And, yes, you probably are right that if you don't have loads of information organised in your own head, you aren't going to make insightful connections in the same way.

I try not to feel tethered to anything that isn't essential. Air is number one, water number two. Then there's food.

I have a smart phone but as often as not I don't take it with me when I leave the house. I check my email plenty, but can go a day or two without doing so and not give a damn. I read the newspaper but can skip a day and not care. I can go a week without turning on the TV, so what?

I have a Kindle but can go weeks without turning it on.

I watch movies but can go weeks without watching one. Other times, I might watch 3 a week.

I try not to be addicted to anything. However, I am committed to staying healthy and go to the gym 3x/week. Of course, I try to eat healthy, but at the same time not be a slave to a regimen.

 

[Muse]

Hehe, we have orchids and Shaker furniture as common loves it seems. Many moons ago I lived in an appartment with a small dining nook and with a saw and a drill and a screw driver, some dowels and paper, and after studying Shaker designs, made a small kitchen table out of pine. It sits behind me as I type. Once in a while the wedges that tighten the cross member between the two posts that Y to make the legs work loose and need to be hit with a meat tenderizing mallet. I think it has more character now than I do.

With tools and whatnot I have made or repaired or adapted too many things to recall. It's still a great source of pride and inspiration that really is infinite and is part and parcel of my life.

One current project is to replace the batteries in both of my Braun Oral-B Vitality toothbrushes, version 3907. One has a Ni-CD, the other a NMHD battery. I bought the replacement batteries and they arrived a few days ago. I wouldn't know how to do this without Youtube videos (I watched a 3 minute one before ordering the batteries). I don't reflexively go to Youtube when I want to do something crafty. But if I'm uncertain, the idea often comes to me.

 

[Jaskalas]

The point I'm trying to make is, the web will not teach you to be a critical thinker and problem solver.

The internet has made text books obsolete. It has also created new forms of communication and entertainment. That is all. If people could not learn to critically think before the internet, I posit that the internet alone has not changed that. Moreover, one would imagine critical thinking is the purpose of school, yet all my experience has taught me that schooling consists of mere rote memorization. Which brings me back to textbooks. One could read ahead, learn the facts, and wonder WTF the teacher or school system was even present for. But I digress.

If people could learn to critically think before, but fail to do so today, my argument is that it is social media enabled by cell phones that is negatively impacting one's capacity to focus, pay attention, and properly learn. The problem is not that information is readily available now, it is our poor habits and misuse of that information. We need to teach people HOW to learn. And I posit that this study demonstrates that no one is actually doing that.

 

[Moonbeam]

With tools and whatnot I have made or repaired or adapted too many things to recall. It's still a great source of pride and inspiration that really is infinite and is part and parcel of my life.

One current project is to replace the batteries in both of my Braun Oral-B Vitality toothbrushes, version 3907. One has a Ni-CD, the other a NMHD battery. I bought the replacement batteries and they arrived a few days ago. I wouldn't know how to do this without Youtube videos (I watched a 3 minute one before ordering the batteries). I don't reflexively go to Youtube when I want to do something crafty. But if I'm uncertain, the idea often comes to me.

Hehe, I think the operative words are, Monkey see, monkey do. In fact I watched a video on how to catch monkeys just last night, but decided it was basically faked. The monkey was totally relaxed when the boy who caught him came to collect him in his new cage. Many more moons before I made my table, on a field trip to a medical research center, I wondered off by myself to explore by myself and entered a door into a room filled with a thousand monkeys in cages. Everyone of them hit their own cage doors as if set off by a timer and screamed and hooted at me. Doubtless the most impressive entrance I've ever made in my life. Incidentally, and particularly directed at you, one could look at what I experienced in that moment an affirmation that bound to the life force within us is an instinctive sense of the injustice when we are deprived of our freedom.

I think you express that same idea when you spoke just now of the joy of creativity. To live is to be.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Cat videos do not count as content. If the web is your sole source of info, you are throwing away the majority of human knowledge. If you limit your thinking to the "handful of textbooks" you were given, you're lost anyway. The point I'm trying to make is, the web will not teach you to be a critical thinker and problem solver. Even if that were possible, you would be stymied by it's lack of content and depth. Not having a broader perspective would doom us to reinventing the wheel at best and stagnation at worst.

What world do you live in these days where 'broader perspective' is acceptable? I would say it is greatly frowned upon.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The internet has made text books obsolete. It has also created new forms of communication and entertainment. That is all. If people could not learn to critically think before the internet, I posit that the internet alone has not changed that. Moreover, one would imagine critical thinking is the purpose of school, yet all my experience has taught me that schooling consists of mere rote memorization. Which brings me back to textbooks. One could read ahead, learn the facts, and wonder WTF the teacher or school system was even present for. But I digress.

If people could learn to critically think before, but fail to do so today, my argument is that it is social media enabled by cell phones that is negatively impacting one's capacity to focus, pay attention, and properly learn. The problem is not that information is readily available now, it is our poor habits and misuse of that information. We need to teach people HOW to learn. And I posit that this study demonstrates that no one is actuandally doing that.

I agree. However the intarwebs, aren't merely a new source of information and entertainment but, the catalyst for the decay of problem solving and creativity.