How to Be Less Wrong

[XenoFish]

https://memorise.org/brain-articles/memory-repetition-reinforcement

So unless they are repeatedly absorbing the same or similar information, no matter how much google-kung fu they do. It won't stick. 

[ExpandMyMind]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/technology-changes-memory_n_4414778

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502424/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/13/how-to-avoid-losing-your-memory-in-the-digital-age

You were saying?

What I said still stands. No research has shown that the internet makes people less intelligent. Did you even read the study you linked? Or the articles (I could only access the Guardian and NCBI links)? Neither of them actually state that the internet makes people dumber, or words to that effect. 

Both of them basically are saying that you don't remember things that you Google (or search online) as well as you would remember if you took a trip to the library. But generally you're not taking a trip to the library to search for the capital of Zimbabwe or to read on a whim about the 100 Years War. So, even if you don't retain it as well as if you had researched it traditionally, it is still a net gain in knowledge acquired. And using the internet doesn't make you less able to perform the traditional forms of learning, like school and university, so you aren't any less intelligent. In fact, from that study:

Quote

However, despite the possible adverse effects on regular “offline” memory, the six‐days training did make people more efficient at using the Internet for retrieving information, as participants became faster at the search tasks, with no loss of accuracy51. Search training also produced increases in white matter integrity of the fiber tracts connecting the frontal, occipital, parietal and temporal lobes, significantly more than the non‐search control condition52. In other studies, cognitive offloading via digital devices has also been found to improve people's ability to focus on aspects that are not immediately retrievable, and thus remember these better in the future53.

These findings seem to support the emergent hypotheses that relying on the Internet for factual memory storage may actually produce cognitive benefit in other areas, perhaps by “freeing up” cognitive resources54, and thus enabling us to use our newly available cognitive capacities for more ambitious undertakings than previously possible45. Researchers advocating this view have pointed to multiple domains of collective human endeavor that have already been transformed by the Internet's provision of supernormal transactive memory, such as education, journalism and even academia55. As online technologies continue to advance (particularly with regards to “wearables”), it is conceivable that the performance benefits from the Internet, which are already visible at the societal level, could ultimately become integrated within individuals themselves, enabling new heights of cognitive function

 

[XenoFish]

Why do you think I mentioned repetition? A lot of people google then go. Some people actually use it to research. They read and read and read about a subject. Putting it to memory. The internet is a library. However it is 100% how you use it. A lot of people don't put stuff to memory. That's the problem. The issue is the google genius. If you don't have to remember it, you won't remember it. The lack of using our memory makes it atrophy. Same way our muscle do if they do not get regular activity. 

[ExpandMyMind]

27 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Are Smartphones Making Us Stupid?

The mere presence of your smartphone can reduce cognitive capacity, study finds.

Cognitive capacity and overall brain power are significantly reduced when your smartphone is within glancing distance—even if it’s turned off and face down—according to a recent study. This new report from the University of Texas at Austin, “Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity,” was published in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research.

cont...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201706/are-smartphones-making-us-stupid

'Cognitive capacity' does not mean 'intelligence'. That article specifically refers to attention and the cognitive resources our mind has on hand to take in environmental information, if you had bothered to read any of it.

Quote

The results of experiment 1 indicate that the mere presence of participants’ own smartphones impaired their performance on tasks that are sensitive to the availability of limited-capacity attentional resources.

The second experiment:

Quote

First, we conduct a stronger test of the proposed impairment-without-interruption effect by examining the effects of smartphone salience on both cognitive capacity (WMC) and a behavioral measure of sustained attention. Consistent with both the proposed theoretical framework and participants’ self-reports in experiment 1, we predict that increasing smartphone salience will adversely affect the availability of attentional resources without interrupting sustained attention.

It is specifically about people being distracted by having their phones near them.

[XenoFish]

This is why I hate discussing anything on this forum anymore. We don't discuss. We basically just scream at each other. It's becoming a waste of time.

[ExpandMyMind]

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Why do you think I mentioned repetition? A lot of people google then go. Some people actually use it to research. They read and read and read about a subject. Putting it to memory. The internet is a library. However it is 100% how you use it. A lot of people don't put stuff to memory. That's the problem. The issue is the google genius. If you don't have to remember it, you won't remember it. The lack of using our memory makes it atrophy. Same way our muscle do if they do not get regular activity. 

Why do you think that people who use the internet this way use their memory less, compared to people who would normally just spend their time watching TV or playing football?  And if they're in school then they're using memory in this way on top of learning. 

It's as if you think that people's minds just stop working when they use the internet. Did you even read the quote I provided from the article you linked after a 10 second search without even reading (pretty sure there's some irony in there somewhere)? The mere act of searching on the internet stimulates other cognitive processes:

Quote

These findings seem to support the emergent hypotheses that relying on the Internet for factual memory storage may actually produce cognitive benefit in other areas, perhaps by “freeing up” cognitive resources54, and thus enabling us to use our newly available cognitive capacities for more ambitious undertakings than previously possible45

You definitely have a point about wanting to learn the information having a direct effect on how well you store it, but then this has always been true for traditional forms of learning. If you love science, you'll do well; if you hate computing, you'll do crap. If you Google something you're interested in, you'll remember; if you Google something on a whim, you'll not remember as efficiently.

Edited July 8, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[zep73]

According to this broadcast, only 64% of the so-called 'millennials' are convinced the Earth is a sphere. That leaves 36% doubting a basic fact/axiom!

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by sci-nerd

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

This is why I hate discussing anything on this forum anymore. We don't discuss. We basically just scream at each other. It's becoming a waste of time.

Dude, you didn't even read the links you posted after you started your argument. You posted them after reading headlines, then I had to read the relevant parts for you, show you where you're mistaken, and wait for a reply. But because you didn't even bother reading them, and obviously have no intention of doing so, you can't reply.

Your entire argument has conflated 'being dumber' with 'not remembering spontaneously Googled factoids as efficiently as possible'. 

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

According to this broadcast, only 64% of the so-called 'millennials' are convinced the Earth is a sphere. That leaves 36% doubting a basic fact/axiom!

 

If you aren't making a joke, then it is unbelievable just how completely and utterly you have proved the point I made in the first reply to you. I mean, wow. You just read/heard a thing, believed it outright with zero fact-checking what is so obviously a 'fake' claim (took me literally less than 10 seconds), then post it as though it's Gospel. 

You just annihilated yourself.

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If you aren't making a joke, then it is unbelievable just how completely and utterly you have proved the point I made in the first reply to you. I mean, wow. You just read/heard a thing, believed it outright with zero fact-checking what is so obviously a 'fake' claim (took me literally less than 10 seconds), then post it as though it's Gospel. 

You just annihilated yourself.

Aren't you a charmer! Can you please repeat the first four words in the post you claim annihilated me?

Nevermind, you don't seem like the type to pay that kind of attention. It was: According to this broadcast

So, I did not make a claim or support it. I just referred to a source making one.

[Kismit]

Quote

“If I believe unshakably in the rightness of my own convictions, it follows that those who hold opposing views are denying the truth and luring others into falsehood. From there, it is a short step to thinking that I am morally entitled — or even morally obliged — to silence such people any way I can, including through conversion, coercion, and, if necessary, murder. It is such a short step, in fact, that history is rife with instances where absolute convictions fomented and rationalized violence.”

I found the above part of the article very interesting, because it resonates with my current view of some people’s need of conviction. I am often wrong, it’s why I don’t post often and when I do I often lead with the words I could be wrong but. I don’t really care about getting most things wrong but when I strongly believe in something I will fight for it.

Quote

Most importantly, [good disagreements] are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out. In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”

So it appears that disagreeing with someone is not best done by deliberately poo-pooing an idea, but by understanding an idea and really discussing openly (checking your own bias), examining evidence, asking questions and (here’s the hard bit) listening to answers, until you can actually be sure that an opposing idea is wrong. I f you have not really taken the time to try to understand something you ca never really be sure if it is wrong or right.

Thank you for the article @macqdor it was well worth the read.

[ExpandMyMind]

7 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Aren't you a charmer! Can you please repeat the first four words in the post you claim annihilated me?

Nevermind, you don't seem like the type to pay that kind of attention. It was: According to this broadcast

So, I did not make a claim or support it. I just referred to a source making one.

Yeah, you put that little disclaimer there, but you used the unsubstantiated claim to further a point you had been trying to make about 'so-called' Millennials.

All it would have taken to confirm the validity of the claim was 10 seconds, but you didn't do so.

[spartan max2]

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

If you aren't making a joke, then it is unbelievable just how completely and utterly you have proved the point I made in the first reply to you. I mean, wow. You just read/heard a thing, believed it outright with zero fact-checking what is so obviously a 'fake' claim (took me literally less than 10 seconds), then post it as though it's Gospel. 

You just annihilated yourself.

From the fact check source.

it does show that 34 percent of the 18-24 age are not 100 percent convinced the world is round lol (assuming this survey is accurate which is probably not IMO)

but at the same time that is the age when people are most prone to conspiracy theories. It's the age everyone becomes and adult and starts questioning things. 

So the generational debate aside it makes sense.

[zep73]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Yeah, you put that little disclaimer there, but you used the unsubstantiated claim to further a point you had been trying to make about 'so-called' Millennials.

All it would have taken to confirm the validity of the claim was 10 seconds, but you didn't do so.

Your source says 34% is more or less not sure the Earth is a sphere. My source is only 2 percent points off. I admit that is an error, but it's a minor error.

[Kismit]

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

From the fact check source.

it does show that 34 percent of the 18-24 age are not 100 percent convinced the world is round lol (assuming this survey is accurate which is probably not IMO)

but at the same time that is the age when people are most prone to conspiracy theories. It's the age everyone becomes and adult and starts questioning things. 

So the generational debate aside it makes sense.

It’s also the age that wishes to stir the pot a little more and is more likely to misrepresent their actual beliefs for a laugh. And one small group study is not really enough to base the discussion on accurately. I am not really a Joe Rohan fan though. So that is my bias in this

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, Kismit said:

It’s also the age that wishes to stir the pot a little more and is more likely to misrepresent their actual beliefs for a laugh. And one small group study is not really enough to base the discussion on accurately. I am not really a Joe Rohan fan though. So that is my bias in this

I totally agree, thought I am a fan of joe Rogan lol.

The only reason I pointed it out was because of, what I felt, was the uncalled for hostility sci was getting. 

[ExpandMyMind]

38 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

From the fact check source.

it does show that 34 percent of the 18-24 age are not 100 percent convinced the world is round lol (assuming this survey is accurate which is probably not IMO)

but at the same time that is the age when people are most prone to conspiracy theories. It's the age everyone becomes and adult and starts questioning things. 

So the generational debate aside it makes sense.

Only 4% stated they were flat earthers. That's not how it was presented.

Considering it's a Yougov poll that makes the rounds on the Clickworkers type services (completing polls online for money) it has about as much weight as a sheet of graphene.

Not to mention it groups Millennials into an age group of 6 years, conveniently missing out the 25-37 year range, of which they are a part.

Edited July 8, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[Michelle]

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I totally agree, thought I am a fan of joe Rogan lol.

The only reason I pointed it out was because of, what I felt, was the uncalled for hostility sci was getting. 

Like I said, you seem much wiser than your years.

[zep73]

7 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Only 4% stated they were flat earthers. That's not how it was presented.

I presented it as convinced people. My source was off by 2%, according to yours, only.

Quote

Not to mention it groups Millennials into an age group of 6 years, conveniently missing out the 25-37 year range, of which they are a part.

We can always discuss the definition of 'millennials'. In this case it's those born close to the year 2,000.

Edited July 8, 2019 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

9 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The only reason I pointed it out was because of, what I felt, was the uncalled for hostility sci was getting. 

I am grateful that anyone would stick up for me. Thank you. Not used to it.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

I presented it as convinced people. My source was off by 2%, according to yours, only.

We can always discuss the definition of 'millennials'. In this case it's those born close to the year 2,000.

Millennials were born in the 80s to 90s, Gen Z were next.

I apologise if I was harsh, but I'm passed fed up with older generations (especially Baby Boomers who had everything and have left scraps for the rest of us) claiming that the younger ones are dumber, more violent and generally of less worth than their generation, all based on the 'insight' of older people looking in rose tinted rear view mirrors.

[Michelle]

14 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

(especially Baby Boomers who had everything and have left scraps for the rest of us)

You'd fit right in with BB...you have bitterness down already.

Now get off my lawn! 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Michelle

[zep73]

14 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Millennials were born in the 80s to 90s, Gen Z were next.

I apologise if I was harsh, but I'm passed fed up with older generations (especially Baby Boomers who had everything and have left scraps for the rest of us) claiming that the younger ones are dumber, more violent and generally of less worth than their generation, all based on the 'insight' of older people looking in rose tinted rear view mirrors.

Let's agree that statistics and surveys make poor facts.

[XenoFish]

*

Edited July 8, 2019 by XenoFish

[zep73]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I apologise if I was harsh

Apology accepted. I apologise if I came up biased against the young. I'm not. Only against my own younger self.