The Internet Makes You Dumb...Permanently

Magnus said:
Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Try using a library for something other than internet access. The majority of recorded knowledge is NOT online nor, is it even referenced. The idiotic idea that everything anyone needs is online is the single greatest fallacy of the modern age.
Click to expand...

Majority of the informations people need are online and are a good, quality informations.

Yeah, you probably won't find a "How to operate brain cancer for dummies" or "Quantum physics in 24 hours" there, but as i already pointed out, majority of people don't need in-depth informations for most topics in their whole life. I was 12 years in school, probably one third of the time we spent there was learning about all the kings/presidents/warlords/writers/painters and what they did/who they killed/who they fought war with/what they wrote/paint and when, the date of their birth and death. Sure, if you are interested in literature it is a important thing for you, but why do i need to know everything about every one of them ? I was pretty sure i want to do my living as a programmer since ~10-12 years old, so why did i need to know all this useless informations ?

And how about the things did you learn in school (unless you are a teacher) ? Can you actually write a letter using handwriting ? Can you do the simple multiplication and division years after you left the school ?

Hell, even most of the finance is simple mathematics on the level of the 4 basic operators.
 
Phoenix333 said:
He may have a point. There are plenty of idiots on the internet, and every year the dumb ones seem to get even dumber. The younger they are the worse they seem to be as well. Just play an M-rated video game on a server populated with 12-year old kids and you'll see it in action.
Click to expand...

Younger usually means dumber just because of maturity. They'll think the same stuff about their kids when they're all million year old fossils like the people on [H] and they'll also ponder why children seem dumber than before.
 
faugusztin said:
Majority of the informations people need are online and are a good, quality informations.

Yeah, you probably won't find a "How to operate brain cancer for dummies" or "Quantum physics in 24 hours" there, but as i already pointed out, majority of people don't need in-depth informations for most topics in their whole life. I was 12 years in school, probably one third of the time we spent there was learning about all the kings/presidents/warlords/writers/painters and what they did/who they killed/who they fought war with/what they wrote/paint and when, the date of their birth and death. Sure, if you are interested in literature it is a important thing for you, but why do i need to know everything about every one of them ? I was pretty sure i want to do my living as a programmer since ~10-12 years old, so why did i need to know all this useless informations ?

And how about the things did you learn in school (unless you are a teacher) ? Can you actually write a letter using handwriting ? Can you do the simple multiplication and division years after you left the school ?

Hell, even most of the finance is simple mathematics on the level of the 4 basic operators.
Click to expand...

The purpose of gaining knowledge is to broaden perspective. Yes I can hand write a letter. Yes I do have multiplication tables memorized as well as a few other useful numbers like pi, e, etc. Yes I can appreciate art and tell the difference between the different schools and movements. Yes I can cook for myself and others. Yes I can work on my car. Yes I do know the basics of plumbing, electricity and construction. Yes I can play an instrument.

Programmers by nature tend to be isolationists who don't readily see the advantage to collaborating with others. However, the idea that programming is somehow unique and can't benefit from knowledge beyond programming is foolish, arrogant and, glorifies ignorance.
 
Topweasel said:
But its the same thing as learning something Norman style from your dad. Or a teacher teaching from an outdated, or horribly one sided text book.

There are always faults in learning. Different sources have different versions of events and truths. The internet actually increases the likelihood of someone getting the closest to truthful information because it has access to almost all of the sources. Besides most people remember stuff wrong all the time.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree
 
Magnus said:
The purpose of gaining knowledge is to broaden perspective. Yes I can hand write a letter. Yes I do have multiplication tables memorized as well as a few other useful numbers like pi, e, etc. Yes I can appreciate art and tell the difference between the different schools and movements. Yes I can cook for myself and others. Yes I can work on my car. Yes I do know the basics of plumbing, electricity and construction. Yes I can play an instrument.
Click to expand...

And now tell me what of those skills would be affected by using laptops in schools instead of books ? Which of those things aren't described thousand times on the internet (yes, including plumping, electricity and construction) ? What will make you "more stupid", when you learn cooking food XY from a real cookbook/TV cooking show vs a webpage or a youtube video ?

When talking about art/history - does the plumber guy who works 12 hours per day really need to know the name and birth/death dates of every writer and contents of their books from every era of literature ? Most of the time in school was wasted on memorizing this database of informations, instead of correctly learning people grammar - because 80% of the time we were bothering with history and literature instead of the grammar in the language school hours. Most of the literature could be done in 1 year, by quickly running over the characteristics of the specific eras, naming the main authors - and if you are interested, learn about them on your own or in extra classes. Why did kids need to learn about every major poet in every era in school, when you can get that from any encyclopedia, including wikipedia ?

When i was talking about math, i wasn't talking about basic multiplication tables which most people know. I was talking about multiplying and dividing 4-5 digit numbers by hand on paper - do kids really need in this age to learn this for 2-3 years and does the use of tools make them "more stupid" ? Sure, there is a possibility that all calculators and computer will dissapear/stop working, but i guess basic math will be your last problem after a nuclear war. When did you actually need higher math (logarithms, derivation, irrational numbers etc) in real life ?

Pretty much anything kids learn in first 8-10 years of their school education is covered million times over the internet and often in even bigger detail than you will ever learn in school. Yeah, you probably won't find complete works of every author you learned in schools in your local language on the internet, but you have a high chance for that. And yes, you can go to a library in other cases - if your local library is worth anything (i would be surprised if library in my city actually bought more than few dozen books in last years).
 
faugusztin said:
And now tell me what of those skills would be affected by using laptops in schools instead of books ? Which of those things aren't described thousand times on the internet (yes, including plumping, electricity and construction) ? What will make you "more stupid", when you learn cooking food XY from a real cookbook/TV cooking show vs a webpage or a youtube video ?
I don't necessarily agree with the article although, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support it. I just disagree with your categorization that the "Majority of the informations people need are online and are a good, quality informations."

When talking about art/history - does the plumber guy who works 12 hours per day really need to know the name and birth/death dates of every writer and contents of their books from every era of literature ?
No but, knowing something art/history, not to be confused with literature :D, might provide inspiration for solving a problem or, at least, provide something more interesting to think about.
Most of the time in school was wasted on memorizing this database of informations, instead of correctly learning people grammar
OK, I've got to stop right there. "Information" does not come with an "s" as a suffix ever. I guess you were absent that year.
- because 80% of the time we were bothering with history and literature instead of the grammar in the language school hours. Most of the literature could be done in 1 year, by quickly running over the characteristics of the specific eras, naming the main authors - and if you are interested, learn about them on your own or in extra classes. Why did kids need to learn about every major poet in every era in school, when you can get that from any encyclopedia, including wikipedia ?
You seem to be hung up on names and dates. I'm sorry if that's all your school taught. However, knowing something about literature, which includes much more than just poets, gives insight into the way people thought, lived and, created. The value in learning history SHOULD be self evident.

When i was talking about math, i wasn't talking about basic multiplication tables which most people know. I was talking about multiplying and dividing 4-5 digit numbers by hand on paper - do kids really need in this age to learn this for 2-3 years and does the use of tools make them "more stupid" ? Sure, there is a possibility that all calculators and computer will dissapear/stop working, but i guess basic math will be your last problem after a nuclear war. When did you actually need higher math (logarithms, derivation, irrational numbers etc) in real life ?
Yes, it is an important skill. All math serves to make better estimations. Being able to accurately estimate is an invaluable skill.

Pretty much anything kids learn in first 8-10 years of their school education is covered million times over the internet and often in even bigger detail than you will ever learn in school. Yeah, you probably won't find complete works of every author you learned in schools in your local language on the internet, but you have a high chance for that. And yes, you can go to a library in other cases - if your local library is worth anything (i would be surprised if library in my city actually bought more than few dozen books in last years).
Click to expand...
You seem to be making a case that online learning is somehow superior to learning in classrooms. I do not agree. Most people, even programmers, learn better through direction, interaction and, the ability to ask questions. I

Finally, I recommend you actually go to the library and find out what you've been missing. Librarians are specialized educators who can open entire new worlds to you. Here's one small tip of the iceberg, do you know what a government depository is? Our government collects vast amounts of information and statistics on every conceivable business, occupation, buying habits, demographics, you name it. That government information is almost nonexistent online. It is categorized and held in a separate collection in specific libraries, often university ones, that require specific knowledge to use efficiently.
 
And his assertion is proven by most of the comments in this thread. Most of you didn't get to the second sentence.

"In his first book, he warned parents of the very real dangers of letting their children spend too much time in front of the TV. "
Click to expand...

followed by
Now, in a second book called Digitale Demenz [Digital Dementia], he’s telling them that teaching young kids finger-counting games is much better for them than letting them explore on a laptop.
Click to expand...

Its well known that very young children's brains are in a stage of hyper adaption and growth, which is why very young children who are abused often never recover or develop normally. These kids need less TV and computer games and more human interaction. That's his point, if any of you can get your finger out of your nose and off the mouse button long enough to think about it.
 
1 + 1 =

hold up. lemme count my fingers. 1...... wait, someone just updated their twitter.


really though, the internet can make you smart. It all depends what you spend your time reading.
duh. Even if you only read wikipedia, you'd be smarter than 95% of people out there.
 
SkribbelKat said:
Younger usually means dumber just because of maturity. They'll think the same stuff about their kids when they're all million year old fossils like the people on [H] and they'll also ponder why children seem dumber than before.
Click to expand...

Says the 155 year old. :rolleyes:
Well now we know the reason SkribbelKat is the way he is. The Internet.
 
Red Falcon said:
Says the 155 year old. :rolleyes:
Well now we know the reason SkribbelKat is the way he is. The Internet.
Click to expand...

You're just being silly now because you wanna figure out this whole Skribbel thing. I was a dumb-head a million years ago when the iPhone 3s was still cool!
 
SkribbelKat said:
You're just being silly now because you wanna figure out this whole Skribbel thing. I was a dumb-head a million years ago when the iPhone 3s was still cool!
Click to expand...

Only my gf is allowed to tell me that I'm silly. ;)
However, my cell phone from 1994 would say otherwise about you and your iPhone 3S!!!

iphone-3gs-468b.jpg
dokuro-chan_laugh.gif
 
Ducman69 said:
BS, you're simply learning different skills.

It is far more important later in life to know how to use a scientific calculator or mathcad than it is to be able to quickly multiply 7x21 in your head.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's why you can't get correct change so often at fast-food restaurants/grocery stores/etc anymore. :rolleyes:

They say 3.85, and you hand them 4.10 and they have a mental meltdown. Even more so if they've already cashed it out on the machine as exact, as they're in a rush to get on to the next customer. (And for those too stupid to do basic math, yes, I'm fully expecting a quarter in change.)*

We're not talking about those who're gonna become engineers architects etc. We're talking about Joe Public. Yes different skills are good. But it's quite a sad statement to think that basics are not nearly as important as you seem to imply "far more important".
If they can't do basic math, how the HELL do you expect them to have even half a clue what to punch into a scientific calculator.

If people can't do the basics (for having gotten lazy or) being trained to rely on a machine to do it for them -which is worse IMO... then how do you expect to have a larger pool of candidates to hire for a "tech saavy" job.


*Yes, I hate carrying a lot of change. lol :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top