Diageo

Ooh, very slight pec jiggle physics.

Yeah, definite practice effect should be helpful.

My young cousins play a lot of free games online. League of Legends, Terraria, Minecraft and the sort. They have a DS each but didn't play it much when I was around.

Customer service type job in a bank. Don't know what the aptitude test contains but I've done one before for another bank as part of a placement application and it was very IQ-testy.

Got a call to do an aptitude test for a job. Hopefully I'll do well. Anyone any experience with this have any advice?

That's a very tiny facet of the whole conversation that you're focusing on. All I said was that an online relationship, good or not, is still a relationship. It may eventually turn into a physical relationship, it may not. This point was me just being pedantic about what you call a relationship. But let's say you a homosexual living in a country where they'll kill you for being physical with another homosexual. All they can do then is have an online relationship. It might not be the optimal but it's the best they've got and they still get support and affection, it's still a relationship. Do you think I'm saying that people should only have online relationships because if so, you're clearly not reading what I'm saying.

Well that's correlational study, which doesn't show that television causes less success, just that families that tend not to watch television during meals also tend to be more successful. But you could say it's because the family was close in the first place, that they didn't feel the need to watch tv. The TV is a symptom and not the cause. Doesn't have to be at home, if they go to a theatre to watch a play, they're not expected to talk, both because of other people but also because they're watching a form of entertainment. TV watching is also a form of entertainment, doesn't mean they have to talk during it. And yes KAV I do believe what I'm saying. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion. Here's the main thing I have a problem with. People are saying that families aren't interacting because of technology, that people aren't interacting with their friends because of technology. But you can't say that. If you don't get on well with your parents and don't want to talk to them already, you might play a lot of video games. If your parents don't try to engage with their child's interests but instead talk about Mary down the road, then the child will want to watch TV instead of talk. It's not necessary that technology is causing people to be anti social, but people are using technology because it's more engaging than the social interaction they would have. The other problem I have is that people are saying that seeing couples on their phone, or friends on their phone, is a bad thing. But that's not necessarily true. While on this occasion those people aren't having enough of what you call meaningful interaction, it doesn't mean that they don't get enough meaningful interaction in their day to day life. People don't need to be having only meaningful interactions wit their friends, as long as they have an amount that satisfies them it's fine. Also relationships are just emotional associations between people. People can have emotional associations through video calls, and they might even meet once in a while. But even if they don't, who are you to say their connection isn't real, their relationship isn't real just because there's no physical contact. Relationships aren't just about physical contact. It might not be the best relationship but it's still a relationship.

I think you can have interactions with other people that you can find meaningful without many or all of those things. It's all dependent on where a person finds meaning and importance. You can't say that is important for everyone. Just because you get more information doesn't mean it's more meaningful, it makes it richer in information and quicker in the exchange of information, doesn't make it more meaningful unless that is specifically where you find meaning. And are you saying if someone gives you a line of text very eloquently describing their thoughts and feelings, and then you saw a tape of them saying those things on mute, you would get more from the tape? Because while it can be the case sometimes, it won't be all the time. Sure those are great things, but you can still partake in healthy and engaging activities that make you feel alive through video calls and such. If they want to interact with just technology, that's their choice. Maybe they have a very good reason to, maybe they don't. Doesn't make them unhealthy. Also whether it's natural or not means nothing. What about when families sat around just watching TV and not talking to each other, or when they all sat around reading books without talking to each other, or when they watched a play without talking to each other. Family interaction is the problem, not the fact they have technology. Parents could use the technology to engage and interact with their children, but they don't. The problem is with the people not trying to interact with each other, which they could both online and offline. A family could be just as strong if they posted what happened to them in a forum, commented regularly and supported each other. It's an interaction problem not a technology problem. It's doing the opposite because of the way they interact with it. We need to teach people how to use technology appropriately and positively. Not say technology is the problem. The problem is not that we have too much technology, it's that people either don't know how to use it positively or get enjoyment out of using it negatively. Does posting selfies make us less connected. You really need to cite something to make a statement like this. I don't care if you think it's common sense. Humans have been vain all their lives, technology just makes it easier to see those people. You may not think so, but when you make these sweeping generalisations that people are worse off in so many ways because of their habits with technology then yes you do. What if a study said that people in online relationships have fewer disputes, and were happier as a whole? Would you just discount it because your anecdotal evidence says otherwise? If you're gonna say that something is detrimental to society as a whole, you'll need something to back that up. Sure some people overuse technology in a detrimental way, everything falls on a bell curve. Too much meaningful social interaction can be bad too. People sometimes say you shouldn't live with your friends because you'll get sick of them from seeing them too much. I agree that not interacting with other people is detrimental. I agree that overuse of technology is detrimental. What I don't agree with is for you to say that all people should interact more and that technology is used too much overall. Those statements need a lot of references to be said to be true. I also disagree with the opinion that seeing individuals interacting with technology instead of each other on one occasion is detrimental to the people involved. Just because they don't interact with their family at dinner because they are on their phone doesn't mean they don't interact with their family at all or don't get enough human interaction. Especially amongst teenagers, not wanting to hang out with parents has occurred well before the dawn of smartphones and computers.

What's a meaningful interaction, what makes it meaningful and should all interactions be meaningful? People can't be in a relationship without ever meeting? While uncommon, why do they have to have physical contact for a relationship. Can they not enjoy each other's personality and conversations through Skype calls and text conversations? So what if couples are texting in a restaurant? They're both assumedly enjoying themselves (as opposed to willfully ignoring each other) and still having company there. They're getting a nice meal. They've chosen to do this? Who are you to say this is wrong? If families want to tap on their devices while in the living room, is that wrong? Why do they have to talk to each other, what's so important about talking that everyone has to be doing it every moment of every day and where they can't enjoy being around each other without talking to each other. Source? While some people become addicted, people become addicted to many things and we don't blame the thing. There's a lack of self control within the person not within the technology. Why are people better off? All people should talk more? Why is being behind a screen hiding? What if they're learning about social issues or new academic concepts, why is that hiding? Sure spending 24 hours a day behind a screen is detrimental but that's obvious, just as spending 24 hours a day talking to people is also detrimental.

I've recently had a friend who was texting this guy over and over while we were at dinner. I got annoyed at him because he was spending long periods of time not talking (to text) and not listening to what I was saying. It wasn't technology's fault though, it was him being a dick. He gave some reason about South Koreans needing instant replies or they feel offended or something, I dunno.

I agree. I love when there is new technology and new avenues of communication. This aversion to change that people seem to have towards technology-based communication is both baffling and annoying to me.

Yeah.... ¬¬

Well what do you propose to do? If a few million people want them in power they'll have the power of that few million people unless I incapacitate them.

They have the right to do whatever they want. I will question them and probably no longer be friends with them, wouldn't hire them etc. But they have the right to be as racist as they want. I'd like them to be educated into changing their ways and if they harmed anyone else it would be grounds for arrest. I also would try to keep them from positions of power and would generally not trust their judgement.

I kinda didn't want

You're right, I misread that. I don't like my characters blank. With Tales of Symphonia I liked that Lloyd had a personality and didn't feel distanced because of that. Whereas in things like Elder Scrolls were you're just whatever you make yourself I'm not a big fan of. There's different rpgs for everyone. I get how some people want to believe that the character is them though.

That post made it look like you thought photos were taking away from appreciation. I'm not saying there's a right answer. I'm saying that people shouldn't be moaning about seeing kids talk to other kids over text when standing next to each other or complaining about families talking from different rooms using technology. It's their lives and it's how they want to communicate. There's nothing wrong with not having face to face interaction and there's nothing inherently better about face to face interaction. But I agree with most your points. There is no right answer. It's all up to the individual. It was what I was trying to say in the first place and I guess we got tangled somehow.

I don't think that holding a kickstaster would count as forcing it upon you. Also representation in the media is very important for minorities and just as you said you feel a little distanced from some characters, minorities feel distanced from most characters because of little representation. I think it's cool she's making a transgender character in an RPG.

Well you may think that makes memories more precious, others might say that if memory is so fallible, logging it digitally is the best way to keep memories precious, and more true to reality. What if people are going around disney land or whatever but don't necessarily want to remember everything they see there. What if they prefer the conversations and emotions connected to showing the picture to other people and socialising over that? It's not for you to say that because they are taking pictures, they are losing something important. They are choosing what they find important and focusing on that.

You're right. I trusted a person without researching it. So what if you don't remember their names? If anything, that's a good thing? Imagine all the times you forgot one number and couldn't call them or the time you had to spend learning it or even checking it over and over again until you remembered it. This way is much easier. This pattern has been ongoing for years. Writing things down will ruin our memory. Googling things will ruin our memory. Phones are ruining our memory. You could still learn your friend's numbers, you could still live your life without writing things down. But you don't, because it's easier. Technology is developing to augment our capacity to remember. We are outsourcing our memory which allows us to spend our time doing something else. And if you don't want to outsource it, then don't do it.

Well one chunk of the population already has more voting power, they just have to have majority. At least in this way, the majority vote goes to educated people who know what they are voting on and the effects of their decisions. An example is how equal marriage is not legal in some countries because the majority population don't like it, and so you can get elected by giving more benefits to heterosexuals than homosexuals. I would imagine that educated people who don't get voted based on popularity contests would be able to rationally choose benefits to the country and all population types. You're right about this one, it would be difficult to accomplish, especially with the government we have now. I would prefer a committee of experts in several areas to make the decisions, which would allow for consultation as they are in the committee themselves. Not just Computer Engineers, but all other relevant disciplines for a law involving the internet. Gender is different to sex. Sex is biologically determined by genetics, gender is a social constructs of how certain sexes should act. Therefore, if a man wants to wear a dress and make up, high heels and work in fashion. He's allowed to do so. If he wants to be called a she, he can do that. Why couldn't he have the right to that? Because not everyone wants to have an operation. Also, there are a number of operations, and not everyone wants to have all of them. A woman may want to get her chest changes but still wants to have a vagina and is perfectly happy with it. Cisgender and cissexual are just individuals that aren't trans. It's not that hard. Militant anger against innocent misuse is not OK of course, but that's a different issue. Well there are plenty of people that disagree with them and argue with them, so I wouldn't say they are spouting this stuff unchallenged.

Finding a place to sit and biting my nails/fingers.

Well if she doesn't really want to talk to you then why are you trying to force her?

Well the act of taking a photo makes you remember something more easily than if you didn't take a photo, even if you never look at it. And who knows, you may look at it in 40 years.

Well if we agreed to both do that then nothing. You're insinuating in this situation that I would either not have agreed or not have expected such an outcome which would be a different story altogether. Sometimes it's fun to do individual things while having company.