OT: Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

[cjf]

19 minutes ago, wgscott said:

I only just got a cell phone, and hardly use it, but if I am standing around a car dealership wasting time (happened a lot in this last week, fwiw), I will take the thing out and check my email or ConsumerReports ratings or something like that, or to check the location of whomever is picking me up.

Heh...that's how it all starts. Before you know it you will be installing one of those phone holders for you handlebars

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, cjf said:

Heh...that's how it all starts. Before you know it you will be installing one of those phone holders for you handlebars

 

Waze app

[NOMBEDES]

 

References:

a. The Agony of Eros, Byung-Chul Han

b. The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom

c,  Is Modern Love Endangered?  The Weekly Standard, Tim Markatos

d. Allan Bloom's Souls Without Longing, All Grown up.  Public Discourse, The Witherspoon Institute, Peter Augustine Lawler

 

Our techno overlords at Facebook, Google, Apple et al, are, as described by Bloom are " [souls] racked with longing and hunger for something they know not how to name."  Love and by extension music are alien to them.  As Peter Augustine Lawler comments in the"souls without longing" article, Not only is love alien to them but  "any form of heart-enlarging experience that would threaten one's independence and survival.  They are, deep down, social solitaries."

 

Some of these references go back to 1987!    

 

Music + Love are endangered!

 

 

 

 

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

 Reply to this topic...

GO TO TOPIC LISTINGGeneral Forum

 

[master]

FWIW, I think we'll be fine.

 

Every generation goes through this and we feel the skies are falling and the world is coming to an end.

 

And I'm agreement with @wgscott, I'd be happy too if my kids (when I have them, still in my 30s) were abstaining from sex, driving, etc. There is nothing wrong with staying at home you know... peer pressure is still such a huge thing to take up smoking, drinking, vandalism, sex, etc. so stay at home kids is a good thing too.

 

I was one huge nerd, played games all day long, surfed the net, watched a ton of movies, etc. and it was all before the birth of smartphones - but you know once I got to college and then started working, socializing became the the thing. Consequently I've developed an appreciation for wine, whiskey, gourmet food, cars, etc.

 

Life is a cycle that everybody goes through, and we all turned out fine, nevermind how much off we were as teenagers and kids. I was pretty "off"... never watched any TV, never went to church, blasted loud music all day long, played games for hours at a stretch, never did socialize much, etc.

[TubeLover]

While there are certainly other elements of smart phones that can cause concern, I agree that texting is the most serious issue. It is indeed reducing a generation to mindlessly limited communication skills and endangering even basic human interaction. It's all around you, so if you don't see it, your're simply not paying attention. I have a friend who teaches at the high school level. You would not believe the incredible drop off in writing skills that she sees. She teaches in a very highly rated school system and they routinely have to provide special help to senior students who are incapable of even writing a coherent paper for their college applications! 

 

And if you needed any more anti-smart phone ammunition, in an interview that I heard on the radio a couple years back, a  highly respected former military intelligence expert  who liased with anti terror departments in the United States and Europe, stated that 70% of world wide terrorism could be eliminated if smart phones no longer existed! That is the degree to which terrorists utilize them for coordination, and even triggering bombs. 

 

JC

[Jud]

For those worried about the current generation’s communication skills: In my work over the past couple of decades, I have read a fair number of written communications from the “greatest generation.”  To put it simply, we aren’t witnessing a deterioration today, just a continuation of the same old thing.

[Allan F]

16 hours ago, Jud said:

For those worried about the current generation’s communication skills: In my work over the past couple of decades, I have read a fair number of written communications from the “greatest generation.”  To put it simply, we aren’t witnessing a deterioration today, just a continuation of the same old thing.

 

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. If what we are witnessing is "just" a continuation, IMO it is one with a rapidly accelerating rate of decline, i.e. by definition, a deterioration.

[christopher3393]

I think some historical perspective might be helpful here regarding communication skills and education, so I've cobbled together something to provide context:

 

Quote

In 1892, in response to many competing academic philosophies being promoted at the time, a working group of educators, known as the "Committee of Ten" was established by the National Education Association. It recommended twelve years of instruction, consisting of eight years of elementary education followed by four years of high school.

 

At the turn of the 20th Century, it was common for high schools to have entrance examinations which restricted entrance to fewer than 5 percent of the population in preparation for college.

 

Between 1910 and 1940 the "high school movement" resulted in rapidly increasing founding of public high schools… The shift from theoretical to a more practical approach in curriculum also resulted in an increase of skilled blue-collar workers. The open enrollment nature and relatively relaxed standards, such as ease of repeating a grade, also contributed to the boom in secondary schooling. There was an increase in educational attainment, primarily from the grass-roots movement of building and staffing public high schools.

 

By mid-century, comprehensive high schools became common, which were designed to give a free education to any student who chose to stay in school for 12 years to get a diploma with a minimal grade point average.

 

By 1955, the enrollment rates of secondary schools in the United States were around 80%, higher than enrollment rates in most or all European countries.[10] The goal became to minimize the number who exited at the mandatory attendance age, which varies by state between 14 and 18 years of age, and become considered to be dropouts, at risk of economic failure.

 

After 1980, the growth in educational attainment decreased.

 

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform is the 1983 report that touched off a wave of concern about education in the U.S., addressing concerns about primary, secondary and undergraduate education. Quotes from opening pages: "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people" and "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

 

The report surveys various studies which point to academic underachievement on national and international scales. For example, the report notes that average SAT scores dropped "over 50 points" in the verbal section and "nearly 40 points" in the mathematics section during the period 1963-1980. Nearly forty percent of 17-year-olds tested could not successfully "draw inferences from written material," and "only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps." Referencing tests conducted in the 1970s, the study points to unfavorable comparisons with students outside the United States: on "19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven times."

 

[Jud]

10 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. If what we are witnessing is "just" a continuation, IMO it is one with a rapidly accelerating rate of decline, i.e. by definition, a deterioration.

 

I don't think it is. 

 

We speak and write English very differently than we did in Chaucer's time, and why is that?  Due to some fiat or command?  No, it's due in great part to mistakes so widespread they were incorporated into the fabric of the language.  The spoken and written English of Shakespeare's time differed tremendously from Chaucer's, and ours again as much from Shakespeare's.  What this tells us is that people have *always* "misused" the received spoken and written language of their times.

[Ralf11]

We speak and write English very differently than we did before the invention of computers, the typewriter, and the printing press.  People who have studied this (historical linguists) attribute those technologies as the main determinants of language changes.  It is thus very likely that twitting and texting strongly affect language use,not to mention language ability.

 

When Jefferson and Madison sat down with ink wells and quill pens, they likely thought for a while before setting ink onto the paper.  Not so today.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

When Jefferson and Madison sat down with ink wells and quill pens, they likely thought for a while before setting ink onto the paper.  Not so today.

 

Apparently, plagiarism takes much thought. 

 

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don't think it is. 

 

We speak and write English very differently than we did in Chaucer's time, and why is that?  Due to some fiat or command?  No, it's due in great part to mistakes so widespread they were incorporated into the fabric of the language.  The spoken and written English of Shakespeare's time differed tremendously from Chaucer's, and ours again as much from Shakespeare's.  What this tells us is that people have *always* "misused" the received spoken and written language of their times.

 

I respectfully disagree. I do not believe that it is a valid to compare the changes in language over lengthy periods of time to the deterioration of language skills in young people due to the  introduction of technology over a very contracted period of time.

[Jud]

42 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

I respectfully disagree. I do not believe that it is a valid to compare the changes in language over lengthy periods of time to the deterioration of language skills in young people due to the  introduction of technology over a very contracted period of time.

 

They probably tweeted the same about Gutenberg.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

They probably tweeted the same about Gutenberg.

 

Glib, but incorrect!

 

It's quite the contrary. Gutenberg's contribution made the written word available to the masses. The only thing that deteriorated as a result of his technology was ignorance.

[Jud]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Glib, but incorrect!

 

It's quite the contrary. Gutenberg's contribution made the written word available to the masses. The only thing that deteriorated as a result of his technology was ignorance.

 

Around the world, how many people now have phone service and access to the Internet who didn’t before?

 

That’s an aspect of cell phones (and solar power) in developing nations, as well as poorer and more rural areas in the developed world, that people may not consider: the need for much less infrastructure, and thus the democratization of knowledge and (electric and other) power.

 

There are also undoubtedly negative aspects, as the article linked in the OP helps to point out.

[Allan F]

12 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Around the world, how many people now have phone service and access to the Internet who didn’t before?

 

That’s an aspect of cell phones (and solar power) in developing nations, as well as poorer and more rural areas in the developed world, that people may not consider: the need for much less infrastructure, and thus the democratization of knowledge and (electric and other) power.

 

There are also undoubtedly negative aspects, as the article linked in the OP helps to point out.

 

Wireless technology has provided economical access to telephone service and the internet in areas that previously lacked the infrastructure for them. However, those benefits were available without the mind numbing enslavement introduced by smartphones.

 

[petaluma]

Ya know folks its a pretty basic summary statement. Human beings, especially those in their development stages, are social creatures that need FACE to FACE interactions. Technology has again out paced our ability to adapt. Natural selection takes a much longer timeframe to achieve it's goals than Apple developing another smart phone app. But then again maybe the kids committing suicide are a form of natural selection...... Its pretty fucked up any way you look at it.

[Ralf11]

Ha - that's nothing - you want fucked up?

 

I got your fucked up right here:

 

We all know that monkeys should not be allowed to play with matches

Now, imagine that monkeys evolved the ability to make their own matches...

 

 

or nukes...

[petaluma]

Ya lets blame it on the monolith, that will work out nicely for everbody. :-)

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Ha - that's nothing - you want fucked up?

 

I got your fucked up right here:

 

We all know that monkeys should not be allowed to play with matches

Now, imagine that monkeys evolved the ability to make their own matches...

 

 

or nukes...

I bet it wouldn't take much to teach a few monkeys to play with matches.  And I bet those monkeys would teach others.  And it would spread relatively quickly.  Then if you dropped millions of matches to monkey filled areas look at the chaos that could create.  No reason to worry about GMO animals.  Properly applied plenty of those animals could be problematic as it is. 

[Ralf11]

48 minutes ago, petaluma said:

Ya lets blame it on the monolith, that will work out nicely for everbody. :-)

 

Indeed.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/31294-giant-black-things-in-my-living-room/?tab=comments#comment-645086