The author of scientific articles Clive Thompson does not think that technology makes us sillier.
The article attracted primarily as a carrier of an alternative opinion. I do not know how right anyone is in this matter, but it was interesting to get acquainted with his point of view. - approx. translator
Clive Thompson thinks that using, for example, Google is unlikely to have such a detrimental effect on our memory, as is commonly believed in our time.
Mr. Thompson is a scientific and technological writer, the author of the book “Smarter than you think: how technologies change our mind for the better.” He also writes for the New York Times sometimes.
Based on science, in the book Thompson argues that the current transformation of society into digital makes us smarter, not vice versa.
Under the cut is an edited version of an interview with Clive.
Q. Do you really think technology makes us smarter?
Oh yeah. I think we need to think more socially. I'm talking about the possibility of taking our thoughts out of our heads and comparing them with the thoughts of other people, and to do it in public, this is really cool for the average person.
Q. In the book you talk a lot about memory. Do we supplement our memory with the help of computers or replace it?
A. I would say that we are expanding it. When I first started writing a book, I was really worried about losing the ability to memorize while working with Google. But the more I studied the mechanisms of our memory, the more I understood how much we already rely on other external sources - books, notes, etc., as well as on other people. We are social thinkers, and we also remember socially, we use our colleagues, partners and friends to help us with things that they remember better than us. And they also turn to us on other issues. Memory has always been social. Now we use search engines and computers to complement our knowledge as well.
')
Q. You also wrote about "environmental awareness." (Ambient awareness - I don’t know whether this term already has an established translation into Russian. Sociologists use this term to designate a new form of social awareness (person and information surrounding it in social networks, etc.) - comment of the translator. What does this really mean?
A. Ambient awareness is the knowledge of what is happening in the lives of other people — what they think they are doing. All this is achieved by analyzing the small messages left by people online. Now we are able to bring together the details and connections of all that happens in the lives of other people.
Q. But critics say that all this is just information noise. This is not true?
A. Often this is really wrong, because critics point out minor tweets and talk about how trivial and stupid they are. But the surrounding awareness is a generalization of all the activities of people in the network, when you follow a person for a year or two. And then these minor tweets start to matter. We use this toolkit for a long time and as a result we develop a feeling similar to extrasensory permits, allowing us to evaluate the intellectual and emotional aspects of the life of people who are interesting to us.
Q. You married Emily Nasbaum, a television critic from The New Yorker. Is your home a dump of iPads and smartphones?
A. Most likely no more than in any other family. A small feature may be that we are avid e-mail lovers. There are frequent cases when I work upstairs, and she, for example, watches TV below. And we can correspond so, being in one house, within several hours.
Q. How do you control the amount of time children spend looking at the screen?
A. I usually say that everything should be in moderation. This advice has not changed since ancient times. Children can spend time behind the computer screens is amazing, if the lesson is to match their age. But this does not mean that they should spend all their time staring at the screen. Similarly, for adults, there is nothing good about spending all your time sitting in front of a computer. I'm talking about the cognitive variety of books, for example. If you are talking about the benefits of new technologies, this does not mean that the old things, such as reading, walking, writing with a pen on paper, become useless.
Q. You talk about the “problem at the tip of the tongue” in your book. (tip-of-the-tongue syndrome - formed from the expression "It's on the tip of my tongue", which corresponds to our "Turns on the tip of the tongue" - approx. translator). What is it and how does technology affect it?
A. The problem at the tip of the tongue is when people remember something, but they need a computer or something else to find it. The problem is that our brains tend to do poorly in memorizing details. We are good at remembering the meaning, but not the details. One of the ways this problem was resolved is through the help of other people. Now we have devices that also help to remember the details.
Q. You are quite fanatical in terms of technology. If you could take only one technological thing on a desert island - what would it be?
A. Most likely I would take an e-book with a billion books downloaded. (Of course, if I could charge it from the sun.) I, frankly, am very pleased that modern technologies allow us to read so many different books in this way. What was the dream of HG Wells and other science fiction writers, so that all knowledge could exist in one device - as, in principle, it is now. But if I cannot charge electronics on my island, then I probably would have taken penicillin.
Clive Thompson thinks that using, for example, Google is unlikely to have such a detrimental effect on our memory, as is commonly believed in our time.
Mr. Thompson is a scientific and technological writer, the author of the book “Smarter than you think: how technologies change our mind for the better.” He also writes for the New York Times sometimes.
Based on science, in the book Thompson argues that the current transformation of society into digital makes us smarter, not vice versa.
Under the cut is an edited version of an interview with Clive.
Q. Do you really think technology makes us smarter?
Oh yeah. I think we need to think more socially. I'm talking about the possibility of taking our thoughts out of our heads and comparing them with the thoughts of other people, and to do it in public, this is really cool for the average person.
Q. In the book you talk a lot about memory. Do we supplement our memory with the help of computers or replace it?
A. I would say that we are expanding it. When I first started writing a book, I was really worried about losing the ability to memorize while working with Google. But the more I studied the mechanisms of our memory, the more I understood how much we already rely on other external sources - books, notes, etc., as well as on other people. We are social thinkers, and we also remember socially, we use our colleagues, partners and friends to help us with things that they remember better than us. And they also turn to us on other issues. Memory has always been social. Now we use search engines and computers to complement our knowledge as well.
')
Q. You also wrote about "environmental awareness." (Ambient awareness - I don’t know whether this term already has an established translation into Russian. Sociologists use this term to designate a new form of social awareness (person and information surrounding it in social networks, etc.) - comment of the translator. What does this really mean?
A. Ambient awareness is the knowledge of what is happening in the lives of other people — what they think they are doing. All this is achieved by analyzing the small messages left by people online. Now we are able to bring together the details and connections of all that happens in the lives of other people.
Q. But critics say that all this is just information noise. This is not true?
A. Often this is really wrong, because critics point out minor tweets and talk about how trivial and stupid they are. But the surrounding awareness is a generalization of all the activities of people in the network, when you follow a person for a year or two. And then these minor tweets start to matter. We use this toolkit for a long time and as a result we develop a feeling similar to extrasensory permits, allowing us to evaluate the intellectual and emotional aspects of the life of people who are interesting to us.
Q. You married Emily Nasbaum, a television critic from The New Yorker. Is your home a dump of iPads and smartphones?
A. Most likely no more than in any other family. A small feature may be that we are avid e-mail lovers. There are frequent cases when I work upstairs, and she, for example, watches TV below. And we can correspond so, being in one house, within several hours.
Q. How do you control the amount of time children spend looking at the screen?
A. I usually say that everything should be in moderation. This advice has not changed since ancient times. Children can spend time behind the computer screens is amazing, if the lesson is to match their age. But this does not mean that they should spend all their time staring at the screen. Similarly, for adults, there is nothing good about spending all your time sitting in front of a computer. I'm talking about the cognitive variety of books, for example. If you are talking about the benefits of new technologies, this does not mean that the old things, such as reading, walking, writing with a pen on paper, become useless.
Q. You talk about the “problem at the tip of the tongue” in your book. (tip-of-the-tongue syndrome - formed from the expression "It's on the tip of my tongue", which corresponds to our "Turns on the tip of the tongue" - approx. translator). What is it and how does technology affect it?
A. The problem at the tip of the tongue is when people remember something, but they need a computer or something else to find it. The problem is that our brains tend to do poorly in memorizing details. We are good at remembering the meaning, but not the details. One of the ways this problem was resolved is through the help of other people. Now we have devices that also help to remember the details.
Q. You are quite fanatical in terms of technology. If you could take only one technological thing on a desert island - what would it be?
A. Most likely I would take an e-book with a billion books downloaded. (Of course, if I could charge it from the sun.) I, frankly, am very pleased that modern technologies allow us to read so many different books in this way. What was the dream of HG Wells and other science fiction writers, so that all knowledge could exist in one device - as, in principle, it is now. But if I cannot charge electronics on my island, then I probably would have taken penicillin.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/195584/
All Articles