![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Digital Overload?
Aug. 25th, 2010 04:19 pmA lot of people are talking about yesterday's NPR's "Fresh Air" episode about digital overload. I've just listened to the program a second time and found it even more annoying than the first.
To me, Matt Richtel's discussion seems to come from a mildly bitter those-young-whippersnappers-are-doing-things-I-didn't-when-I-was-young-so-they-must-be-stopped school of thought.
Statements that people consume "three times the amount of information they consumed in 1960," without context drive me nuts. What does this even mean? What kind of information were we exposed to in 1960? What kind today? Data comes in more than one flavour. It should be plainly obvious that written text is typically more mentally demanding than say audio information which is in turn more demanding than a visual presentation. A hand-written grocery list requires a different mental process than reading a scientific paper. A photograph of an artistic landscape uses different thinking than a photograph of family members. Data isn't a monolithic concept.
Richtel goes through much hand-waving about how the tidal wave of information around us distracts us from other things and how much it impairs our minds and cognition. I call bogus on that.
2,800 years ago, Homer ranted how even the invention of writing was because it destroyed our ability to memorize information. Much later, cities were decried as destroying our connection to nature and much later still, suburbs were blamed for destroying cities. Telephones were denounced for their disruption to the art of letter writing and visits. Typewriters are blamed for the decay of penmanship. Television is perennially blamed for the lack of family socializing and for societal violence. We're reminded constantly that video games and the Internet are totally to blame for the breakdown of community.
Yes, computers and personal gadgets have changed the way we operate. I resist the notion however that because we've changed that we're intrinsically worse off. We don't know less or are less intelligent than we were a generation ago: we just know different things and think differently than we used to. Being different isn't intrinsically bad.
It is true that the creation of writing allowed us to live without developing incredibly power memories but does anyone really believe we're better off without writing? We didn't become dumber: we let weaken a useful skill in favor of a new skill. Did we let go of memorization entirely? No. Can we practice and regain the power memorization skills of ancient days? Yes, if we want. We're not worse than we were, just different.
I agree human brains need downtime to reinforce memorization and learning. The demonizing of portable electronics as keeping us overly stimulated is patently nuts: it's not the equipment that's at fault, it's the interruption to our mental rest time. But interruptions are not new --ask any parent. Humans have been dealing with interruptions for millenia. Some people are more vulnerable than others, but it has always been so. Everyone adapts to their environment their own way, some better than others. That's not a fault of technology, that's life.
Much of Richtel's series of articles could have been written 200 years ago about the dawning of the industrial age, 150 years ago with steam engines, 130 years ago about telegraphs, 70 years ago with commercial air travel. Our lives were accelerated, changed. Is this news to anyone? And in the end, we'll adapt with new outlooks and new skills. Is that so shocking?
Let's make a deal: the next time you feel overwhelmed by your email, stop looking at it. If your telephone interrupts you too frequently, turn it off. If you're being driven nuts by your computer, step away from it. And if you've decided to turn over control of your life to inanimate objects, will you please at least admit it's you and your choices that are at issue, not the objects?
To me, Matt Richtel's discussion seems to come from a mildly bitter those-young-whippersnappers-are-doing-things-I-didn't-when-I-was-young-so-they-must-be-stopped school of thought.
Statements that people consume "three times the amount of information they consumed in 1960," without context drive me nuts. What does this even mean? What kind of information were we exposed to in 1960? What kind today? Data comes in more than one flavour. It should be plainly obvious that written text is typically more mentally demanding than say audio information which is in turn more demanding than a visual presentation. A hand-written grocery list requires a different mental process than reading a scientific paper. A photograph of an artistic landscape uses different thinking than a photograph of family members. Data isn't a monolithic concept.
Richtel goes through much hand-waving about how the tidal wave of information around us distracts us from other things and how much it impairs our minds and cognition. I call bogus on that.
2,800 years ago, Homer ranted how even the invention of writing was because it destroyed our ability to memorize information. Much later, cities were decried as destroying our connection to nature and much later still, suburbs were blamed for destroying cities. Telephones were denounced for their disruption to the art of letter writing and visits. Typewriters are blamed for the decay of penmanship. Television is perennially blamed for the lack of family socializing and for societal violence. We're reminded constantly that video games and the Internet are totally to blame for the breakdown of community.
Yes, computers and personal gadgets have changed the way we operate. I resist the notion however that because we've changed that we're intrinsically worse off. We don't know less or are less intelligent than we were a generation ago: we just know different things and think differently than we used to. Being different isn't intrinsically bad.
It is true that the creation of writing allowed us to live without developing incredibly power memories but does anyone really believe we're better off without writing? We didn't become dumber: we let weaken a useful skill in favor of a new skill. Did we let go of memorization entirely? No. Can we practice and regain the power memorization skills of ancient days? Yes, if we want. We're not worse than we were, just different.
I agree human brains need downtime to reinforce memorization and learning. The demonizing of portable electronics as keeping us overly stimulated is patently nuts: it's not the equipment that's at fault, it's the interruption to our mental rest time. But interruptions are not new --ask any parent. Humans have been dealing with interruptions for millenia. Some people are more vulnerable than others, but it has always been so. Everyone adapts to their environment their own way, some better than others. That's not a fault of technology, that's life.
Much of Richtel's series of articles could have been written 200 years ago about the dawning of the industrial age, 150 years ago with steam engines, 130 years ago about telegraphs, 70 years ago with commercial air travel. Our lives were accelerated, changed. Is this news to anyone? And in the end, we'll adapt with new outlooks and new skills. Is that so shocking?
Let's make a deal: the next time you feel overwhelmed by your email, stop looking at it. If your telephone interrupts you too frequently, turn it off. If you're being driven nuts by your computer, step away from it. And if you've decided to turn over control of your life to inanimate objects, will you please at least admit it's you and your choices that are at issue, not the objects?
