When did it become so normal to use so much technology?

[Diageo]

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

[Sméagol]

Don´t care much for the discussion, but I saw this on Engadget just now, it´s a new Banksy piece:

 

[Daft]

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.

 

Does it, though? In fact evidence points to the contrary.

 

"When people rely on technology to remember for them - counting on the camera to record the event and thus not needing to attend to it fully themselves - it can have a negative impact on how well they remember their experiences."

 

Source

 

Now I'm not saying photography is bad per se (In fact, check out Moments, Magic and Memories:

Photographing Tourists, Tourist Photographs and Making Worlds for a lot of reasoning behind the act, specifically the section on Materiality and Memory.), however with photos being so easy to take and so easy to share I think a problem comes about. So while I have no problem with the technology (I love taking photos), I do think problems can arise from just how much it has worked its way into our daily lives.

 

As a kind of parallel, I use to remember all my friend's phone numbers and then I got a mobile phone and I didn't need to remember them. I can't recall a single number now.

[Diageo]

Does it, though? In fact evidence points to the contrary.

 

Source

You're right. I trusted a person without researching it.

Now I'm not saying photography is bad per se (In fact, check out Moments, Magic and Memories:

Photographing Tourists, Tourist Photographs and Making Worlds for a lot of reasoning behind the act, specifically the section on Materiality and Memory.), however with photos being so easy to take and so easy to share I think a problem comes about. So while I have no problem with the technology (I love taking photos), I do think problems can arise from just how much it has worked its way into our daily lives.

 

As a kind of parallel, I use to remember all my friend's phone numbers and then I got a mobile phone and I didn't need to remember them. I can't recall a single number now.

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.

[Daft]

The phone number example was just an example I used to demonstrate what relying on technology can do to memory. I have no problem abdicating that memory to my phone since that information is completely abstract. A phone number requires no interpretation, it is a means to an end. Photography isn't though, it's subjective.

 

Photography is open to myriad different factors; interpretation, notions of the gaze, embodiment, identity and memory formation (and much more). However memory is not precise; it requires thought and effort; your brain decides what is memorable, your camera does not. Your memories survive the rigours of time whereas your photos, once taken, are for all intents and purposes, permanent. This tends to mean memories are generally more precious and more personal since they are more fallible than something material such as a photograph.

 

It's not a matter of 'if you don't like it, don't do it'; these technologies are only comparable to how we process the world, they are NOT the same thing.

[Diageo]

The phone number example was just an example I used to demonstrate what relying on technology can do to memory. I have no problem abdicating that memory to my phone since that information is completely abstract. A phone number requires no interpretation, it is a means to an end. Photography isn't though, it's subjective.

 

Photography is open to myriad different factors; interpretation, notions of the gaze, embodiment, identity and memory formation (and much more). However memory is not precise; it requires thought and effort; your brain decides what is memorable, your camera does not. Your memories survive the rigours of time whereas your photos, once taken, are for all intents and purposes, permanent. This tends to mean memories are generally more precious and more personal since they are more fallible than something material such as a photograph.

 

It's not a matter of 'if you don't like it, don't do it'; these technologies are only comparable to how we process the world, they are NOT the same thing.

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.

[dazzybee]

Since moving to Paris, I haven't got a French phone and turned my data off, so I'm using it only in wifi areas. Not using it as much as I used to which is kind of nice I guess, though in all honesty it can be frustrating when I need it and can't access it... I think, obviously, it's all down to self control, I know people who can't help themseleves, almost an addiction to keep checking their phone and facebook etc. I'm pretty good, if I'm with someone I'm with them, I personally do find it really rude if I'm with someone and they keep checking their phone. Even replying to loads of texts I find pretty rude, but depends how excessive it is.

 

As for phones/tech ruining memory and events, what a load of utter paranoid bull, the same paranoia when we could record our writing and didn't need to tell stories, and when the printing press was invented, and photography etc. always fear of ruining our memories and such. Just ridiculous to even contemplate. Just means we use our brains differently, we'll replace that information with something else. Doesn't make our memories worse!

[Daft]

Kind of surprised that there are such strong reactions to this. Technology clearly affects us on more than a superficial level and at no point did I say it was a good thing or a bad thing; just that it happens.

 

It's a pretty well documented phenomenon. If you really like I can dig up more sources and examples but I've already provided to good reads. Not sure what point @dazzybee is trying to make - technology is not 'ruining' but it is changing how our memory works? I've not used the word 'ruin' once (that word implies that there is a 'best' way to experience things and that simply is not true, there are only different ways and they are all down to the individual). So I'm not sure who you're arguing against. (Also the printing press parallel doesn't quite work because the difference between reproducing a scene through the written word and reproducing a scene with a photography is absolutely massive.)

 

And you're right @Diageo - showing photos is a performance that also carries meaning. I never said it wasn't.

 

There is no right or wrong answer to this thread, stop assuming there is.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Daft

[Diageo]

I guess it's the whole 'taking a photo but never actually looking/appreciating' idea.

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.

[dazzybee]

I wasn't comparing the printing press in so literal terms (though at the time the printing press was a huge change for people, it's all relative). Just in that in all advances in technology there is an immediate paranoia it will make us more stupid as we don't need to do as much as stuff - from remembering stories to hunting food, over time life has become more simple thanks to tech. I like to think it just frees us up to be more creative/philosophical etc. now saying you said ruining, but you definitely came across on the more negative side and raised the phone number issue as a problem.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

People have always feared that relying on technology would affect our skills. Socrates didn't write anything down because he was of the opinion that writing things down would worsen our memory.

 

People find it rude because it insinuates that the other party is disintered, bored or not listening to you.

 

Oh, I know. My point is that I don't understand that assumption.

 

It's got nothing to do with technology, it's just basic manners. If we were talking and I suddenly started reading a book, that would be incredibly rude. This doesn't happen because we're all brought up not to do this, but, for some reason, when it comes to phones people seem to lack these manners.

 

Well, we're not talking about a book, are we? We're talking about a phone. Reading a book requires the entirety of your attention for extended periods of time and thus doesn't allow for social interaction, but checking your messages, sending a text, looking something up etc. can easily be done quickly in the company of others without removing your full attention from the current situation. Of course it's less appropriate in some situations than in others, but I certainly don't see how it's the social faux pas of doom that so many seem to make it out to be. Does the company you're with really always have your full, undivided attention at all times?

 

I'm getting a bit tired of this tendency of animosity towards technology in the context of socialising; it's almost like technology is considered the enemy of socialising, whether it's the use of technology in a social context or for the purpose of socialising itself.

[Diageo]

I'm getting a bit tired of this tendency of animosity towards technology in the context of socialising; it's almost like technology is considered the enemy of socialising, whether it's the use of technology in a social context or for the purpose of socialising itself.

 

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.

[gaggle64]

On a serious note I definitely think there's a lot of people who misuse communication technology. I've lost count of the number of couples walking along with one (usually the dude) or both tapping away on their phones like the other person isn't even there. Not to mention the endless number of people who won't look me in the face while I'm serving them because they're playing Candy Crush or drivers (and cyclists) who still think it's appropriate to talk or text while using the road. However I think a lot of that is bad human nature and overall and the benefits more than outweigh the costs.

 

This past week, on my insistence, me & my mum pitched in to buy my gran a new laptop. Among other features it has a decent hi-def webcam in it. I made sure to show her how to use Skype before I left - there's a newly arrived great-grandchild in the US she hasn't been able to see yet but with this tech she'll be able meet her, easily and for no additional cost, for the first time. It's something we take for granted as a pleasant novelty now but that's a specific instance when these tools become invaluable. If dealing with a bunch of grumpy Facebook-obsessed idiots is the trade-off for that, it's a pretty good deal.

Edited April 16, 2014 by gaggle64

[MoogleViper]

Well, we're not talking about a book, are we? We're talking about a phone. Reading a book requires the entirety of your attention for extended periods of time and thus doesn't allow for social interaction, but checking your messages, sending a text, looking something up etc. can easily be done quickly in the company of others without removing your full attention from the current situation. Of course it's less appropriate in some situations than in others, but I certainly don't see how it's the social faux pas of doom that so many seem to make it out to be. Does the company you're with really always have your full, undivided attention at all times?

 

Well I was thinking more about browsing facebook, playing a game etc. All of which I've seen people do on nights out, meals with friends etc.

 

I wouldn't begrudge somebody checking a text, or verifying a fact. Although I would consider it rude if they were constantly texting somebody, rather than sending out one or two messages.

[Diageo]

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.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well I was thinking more about browsing facebook, playing a game etc. All of which I've seen people do on nights out, meals with friends etc.

 

I wouldn't begrudge somebody checking a text, or verifying a fact. Although I would consider it rude if they were constantly texting somebody, rather than sending out one or two messages.

 

Fair enough, we do agree there; it all depends on the level of attention you're giving the company.

[Zechs Merquise]

People claim that technology makes us more 'connected'. But it actually stops us having meaningful interactions. You see couples out in restaurants texting. People taking pictures of their food for Facebook. Families sat in the same room with the TV on and everyone tapping away on different devices. Rather than meeting people for a coffee people interact over Facebook and Twitter. You even have these bizarre occurrences where people claim to be in relationships with individuals they have never met.

 

Too much technology actually harms positive and meaningful human interactions - cocooning those who immerse themselves in it. People become addicted to social networks - sharing every pointless aspect of their day with a horde of people they've never met, but can barely hold eye contact or have a conversation with another human being in person.

 

People would be better off if they spent more time talking to people, having genuine interactions and getting out. Spending all your time in front of a screen and hiding away from the real world doesn't do you any good.

[MoogleViper]

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.

 

Fair enough, we do agree there; it all depends on the level of attention you're giving the company.

 

I'm not saying it's the technology's fault, it's rude either way. What I'm saying is that with any other medium, people wouldn't even consider doing this. But for some reason a large proportion of people think that this is completely fine when done with a smartphone.

 

It's got nothing to do with technology, it's just basic manners. If we were talking and I suddenly started reading a book, that would be incredibly rude. This doesn't happen because we're all brought up not to do this, but, for some reason, when it comes to phones people seem to lack these manners.

 

Maybe it's because the technology is new, and because people weren't specifically told not to do it with a smartphone it's not registering as rude in their cretinous minds. Clearly extrapolating from one situation to another is far beyond the capabilities of a large chunk of the general populace.

[Shorty]

I just don't have this problem. My friends all have smartphones but 95% of the time they're tucked away in their pockets. Technology doesn't cause unsociable people to act unsociably, it just enables them.

 

Alternative perspective: If you're out with someone and they keep going on their phone, perhaps you're just not engaging enough. Awkward silences? One word answers? Only talking about yourself/not asking any questions about the other person?

 

What I'm saying is, it's either their fault as a person (socially ignorant) or your fault as a person (boring), it's not really technology's fault.

 

* disclaimer: post not aimed at anyone in particular.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I'm not saying it's the technology's fault, it's rude either way. What I'm saying is that with any other medium, people wouldn't even consider doing this. But for some reason a large proportion of people think that this is completely fine when done with a smartphone.

 

And on the flipside, other people have become hysterical about it, coming up with games like this:

 

[MoogleViper]

And on the flipside, other people have become hysterical about it, coming up with games like this:

 

I don't think that's being hysterical. Personally I think it's disgusting that it's come to the point that people have to create a game in order to observe some basic fucking manners.

 

That game wouldn't be created if it was just a few people checking the odd text. It's clearly more than that.

[Sheikah]

I wouldn't say that idea is crazy. It's a drastic measure for people who have gotten to a stage that they can't have a meal without using their phones all the time.

[Diageo]

People claim that technology makes us more 'connected'. But it actually stops us having meaningful interactions. You see couples out in restaurants texting. People taking pictures of their food for Facebook. Families sat in the same room with the TV on and everyone tapping away on different devices. Rather than meeting people for a coffee people interact over Facebook and Twitter. You even have these bizarre occurrences where people claim to be in relationships with individuals they have never met.

 

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.

 

Too much technology actually harms positive and meaningful human interactions - cocooning those who immerse themselves in it. People become addicted to social networks - sharing every pointless aspect of their day with a horde of people they've never met, but can barely hold eye contact or have a conversation with another human being in person.

 

People would be better off if they spent more time talking to people, having genuine interactions and getting out. Spending all your time in front of a screen and hiding away from the real world doesn't do you any good.

 

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.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I don't think that's being hysterical. Personally I think it's disgusting that it's come to the point that people have to create a game in order to observe some basic fucking manners.

 

That game wouldn't be created if it was just a few people checking the odd text. It's clearly more than that.

 

But what bothers me is that this game is symptomatic of and feeds into the opposite issue that I talked about, the issue of people equating technology with bad socialising. I guess for me personally, bad manners are less of an issue than society's attitude towards technology.

[Zechs Merquise]

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.

 

Meaningful interactions are ones with people you care about that involve talking, making eye contact, touching each other, reacting to real stimuli presented from genuine human interaction. These things tell you more about another person, more about what they are genuinely feeling, what they feel for you and allow you to immerse yourself in a real world interaction.

 

I can tell far more about a person's actual feelings by observing their body language, eye movement and facial expressions than I ever could from a line of text on Facebook or in an IM.

 

Physical relationships are meaningful, they complete you. Taking things a step further with someone you love or care for - holding their hand in the park, putting your arm around them when they are sad, cuddling them on a cold day or feeling their lips pressed against yours on a romantic evening.

 

These are all good, healthy and natural things. Things that make you alive. Sat behind a computer you can't have this level of interaction.

 

Some time ago family units were strong. They sat around the dinner table and held conversations. They talked about their day, what they had done, what they achieved. Strong family units are strengthened further by getting to know one another, by learning about what each other goes through and by conversing in a more meaningful form. To suggest that the increasingly 'broken' family unit where a family will all sit together in the same room barely uttering a word to one another is a good thing is nonsense.

 

What is the point of being close to someone if you are actual miles apart - just sat there physically but mentally in your own world?

 

Technology has the power to enrich our lives. But instead for many it is doing the opposite. It is replacing the deep and meaningful interactions that make us feel human with the vain and pointless pursuits of 'social networking', 'selfies' and false personas people adopt on the internet.

 

In turn this makes us less connected and for some less able to connect. It causes a type of withdrawal where people live in their own world or private fantasies that they project to hundreds of 'anonymous' followers.

 

I don't need to cite some great scientific text as a source for this. You see it everywhere. Couples who have to conduct their entire relationships through Facebook as if they are starring in their own subpar version of Hollyoaks. Friends sat in a bar all tapping on phones rather than talking to each other. People who believe they are 'in a relationship' with someone they've never even met but have chatted to online. It's all pathetic and deeply removed from healthy and natural relationships.

 

And on the point of people who claim to have relationships with people online and never meet them - it's difficult enough to know someone properly before you've lived with them. Until you have experienced a relationship on that level its hard to truly know the person properly. But to claim you know someone when your primary mode of contact is 'Twitter' or 'Facebook' is ludicrous.

 

If you wish to pursue this type of lifestyle be my guest. But I wouldn't be surprised if this increasing dependence on technology and the reduction in genuine human interaction it leads to isn't a principle cause of why so many people today are withdrawn, depressed and anxious.

 

I don't think that's being hysterical. Personally I think it's disgusting that it's come to the point that people have to create a game in order to observe some basic fucking manners.

 

That game wouldn't be created if it was just a few people checking the odd text. It's clearly more than that.

 

It's rare I agree with you, but that statement is spot on!