A reminder to take our face out of our screens occasionally.

[Superfluous J]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

No, they're rude. My friends don't do that.

Not to defend Dman's friends but I suspect their age group and our age group are different age groups. Perhaps with an age group or two in between.

[Talavar]

32 minutes ago, regex said:

This thread is hilarious. Go into any deli or restaurant or visit a bus stop fifty years ago and there'd be people reading newspapers or books, and trying to avoid contact with others. Nothing has really changed.

Does this actually happen or is it just the scare tactic of the video? I'd like some proof of this happening, and not just some anecdote of a person face-planting on a skateboard while their buddies were filming an expected jump or something.

We have more information nowadays than we know what to do with. Before, we had no or severely delayed information from which to work with. Both result in people ignoring or not knowing that the world is falling down around them. Fifty years ago the DAPL protests wouldn't even be in my local newspaper, or would be a page sixteen footnote, much less on national television.

No, they're rude. My friends don't do that.

1: I grew up in the 80's, Yes people had news-papers, but they were much more receptive to conversation.. People would randomly talk to each other, and interact with the people sitting around them, and people had a tendency to know the people in their area... Now alot of people don't even know who their neighbors are.
2: Of course it happens. Just take a trip across youtube to see thousands of examples. ALso, some really bad excrements on worldstar hiphop that should have been stopped. Yet they just sat there and recorded saying "World Star!! world star!!"
3: There is a reason they would be on page sixteen as a foot note... something happening on the other side of the world, or on the other side of a nation is not usually something that directly effects you. A newspaper would keep you informed of local news that actually effects your way of living. If it was near you, it would be front page news.. Also, Our news is becoming less of "news" and more of an opinion piece, so there are problems there as well, and misinformation tends to run rampant on the internet, since anyone and their brother can basically write any bogus thing they want, and since social media is so accessible to everyone, that misinformation gets spread very quickly. Just a few things to consider.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Talavar

[Elthy]

17 minutes ago, regex said:

Does this actually happen or is it just the scare tactic of the video?

I for sure dont know any statistics, but in germany a new law was made because people argessively tried to make photos/videos of accident victims. The law now allows police to confiscate their phones and fine them. I also know there is one german website with a popular "NotSafeForLive" section, where pictures of dead people are posted for likes. The worst pictures get the most likes, thus motivating their memebers to go even futher for a longer digital appendix vermicularis.

If i ever happen to find someone doing such a picture in real life (and there is no way to help the victim) ill make sure his next selfie will score high there...

[Dman979]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

This thread is hilarious. Go into any deli or restaurant or visit a bus stop fifty years ago and there'd be people reading newspapers or books, and trying to avoid contact with others. Nothing has really changed.

Well, yeah. I still like reading newspapers and books. But I don't take out a book in the middle of a conversation and start reading it.

And you wouldn't see a group of friends out for lunch all reading their own personal book and ignoring each other.

18 minutes ago, regex said:

No, they're rude. My friends don't do that.

My point was that they were not rude people, just being rude. No disagreements.

11 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not to defend Dman's friends but I suspect their age group and our age group are different age groups. Perhaps with an age group or two in between.

Probably.

 

My favorite part of this thread is how we've gone 29 posts on a controversial topic and it's still civil. I like these forums.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not to defend Dman's friends but I suspect their age group and our age group are different age groups. Perhaps with an age group or two in between.

That may very well be true but there's a difference between a quick glance at the FB or answering a text during a lull in conversation and outright ignoring everyone at the table. The first is nothing new, only the means of access have changed. The second is straight up rude.

7 minutes ago, Talavar said:

1: I grew up in the 80's, Yes people had news-papers, but they were much more receptive to conversation.. People would randomly talk to each other, and interact with the people sitting around them, and people had a tendency to know the people in their area... Now alot of people don't even know who their neighbors are.

There are a lot more people in the world and neighborhoods are much different things now than in the '80's. Social norms are bound to change.

14 minutes ago, Elthy said:

I for sure dont know any statistics, but in germany a new law was made because people argessively tried to make photos/videos of accident victims. The law now allows police to confiscate their phones and fine them. I also know there is one german website with a popular "NotSafeForLive" section, where pictures of dead people are posted for likes. The worst pictures get the most likes, thus motivating their memebers to go even futher for a longer digital appendix vermicularis.

That sounds pretty sensational and I haven't witnessed such a thing personally, but Oregon (U.S.) is a different place than Germany. I, for one, am quite happy with the number of cameras around considering all of the police corruption being brought to light in the U.S. Different situations, I guess. I view the smartphone and the camera as a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or evil; I don't think the world has changed much in that regard.

[Dman979]

1 minute ago, regex said:

That may very well be true but there's a difference between a quick glance at the FB or answering a text during a lull in conversation and outright ignoring everyone at the table. The first is nothing new, only the means of access have changed. The second is straight up rude.

Of course. But the difference is how each generation reacts to it, and how often they do it. And quite often, the "quick glance at the FB" turns into a browsing session.

3 minutes ago, regex said:

I view the smartphone and the camera as a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or evil; I don't think the world has changed much in that regard.

Absolutely.

[Guest]

Just now, Dman979 said:

Of course. But the difference is how each generation reacts to it, and how often they do it. And quite often, the "quick glance at the FB" turns into a browsing session.

I disagree here on the "generational" aspect, I think it's more to do with who raised you and how. But then, playing the generational blame game was never my style.

[Dman979]

Just now, regex said:

I disagree here on the "generational" aspect, I think it's more to do with who raised you and how.

Isn't that almost the epitome of generational? Spankings were common when my parents grew up, but not now.

[razark]

As someone without a smartphone, I find it odd that people are so engrossed with them.  (Of course, if I had one, I'd use it for important stuff, not the dreck everyone else uses theirs for.)

 

The generation before mine is too old-fashioned.

The generation after mine is weird and does things the wrong way.

 

[Elthy]

This is a very, very interessting read about this topic:

https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3

Its about the methods e.g. social networks use to get you to spend time on their site (and seeing their ads).

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Isn't that almost the epitome of generational? Spankings were common when my parents grew up, but not now.

Not really, style of punishment is only one aspect of raising a child. There are many different ways of, and commonalities in, raising a decent, compassionate human being.

[Dman979]

Just now, razark said:

As someone without a smartphone, I find it odd that people are so engrossed with them.  (Of course, if I had one, I'd use it for important stuff, not the dreck everyone else uses theirs for.)

I have a flip phone. My favorite thing to do with smartphone people is challenge them to a "drop contest:" arms length, and then drop both phones, and see which survives. It's worked- once.

And I think I'll get the last laugh, because Apple just patented the design for a folding phone. Full circle!

But I digress.

Just now, regex said:

Not really, style of punishment is only one aspect of raising a child. There are many different ways of, and commonalities in, raising a decent, compassionate human being.

Yeah, but parents don't do all of that. Society has as much influence, too- it takes a village- and that changes with each generation.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

I have a flip phone. My favorite thing to do with smartphone people is challenge them to a "drop contest:" arms length, and then drop both phones, and see which survives. It's worked- once.

I've beaten your record with my current S6 on many occasions because I'm clumsy and therefore wrap it in an Otterbox.

3 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

Yeah, but parents don't do all of that. Society has as much influence, too- it takes a village- and that changes with each generation.

vOv I just don't find it constructive to lump behaviors on a generation, it's a form of ageism. You can form certain trends but those are also common to the society and within that how certain people were raised. It's like when people go off about a certain generation being "soft" for not fighting in WWII or getting some participation trophies, or being self-centered, etc... Those trends are just a means to bludgeon people with guilt or to shift blame for whatever thing on to others. I mean, I'm a member of the U.S. Gen-X (1975) and that generation encompasses a lot of different people and ideas, my friends in the same generation are very different, as are all the examples of Millennials (for instance) that I work with.

As far as the video in the OP, it's just a bleak, apocalyptic vision of the world making it seem like one single thing is responsible for an uncaring world; those are literally a dime a dozen.

[razark]

25 minutes ago, Dman979 said:

I have a flip phone.

That's what I have.  It makes calls and text messages.  If I'm not out and about, it's sitting on my desk next to my computer, or on the nightstand as an alarm clock.

 

I spend my workday in front of a computer.  At home, I spend a lot (too much?) time in front of a computer.  I fear what would happen if I had a readily-available, pocket-sized computer at all times.  I've come to the conclusion that any benefit it might have would be outweighed by the negative effect.  If I know I'm going to end up sitting around waiting somewhere, I just bring a book with me.  Besides, I don't use much in the way of social media aside from a couple of forums, and I rarely use my email outside of work.

Edited November 28, 2016 by razark

[Talavar]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

those are literally a dime a dozen.

 Yep, and most of them are dead on.

[ZooNamedGames]

17 hours ago, 7499275 said:

So, I can't watch the video you posted due to being on my phones mobile hotspot with no high speed data left. However going off the title... 

I hate going into a store or restaurant and every one is on their phone or tablet. I'm looking at it from the point if you're out on a date with a smoking hot chick, show more attention to her than farmville or you're never going to be getting... Well you get the idea. I would rather spend quality time face to face with someone instead of being on my phone. Hell, I can be on my phone any point of the day I want. Really grinds my gears in todays society.  

Yeah. The only girl I dated basically did that to me every time I went out with her... true story...

I'm definitely guilty of this but considering I have social anxiety and am so socially awkward and occasionally insulting of it, let's just leave it that way for me.

[Dman979]

1 minute ago, regex said:

I've beaten your record with my current S6 on many occasions because I'm clumsy and therefore wrap it in an Otterbox.

That's cheating!

Quote

vOv I just don't find it constructive to lump behaviors on a generation, it's a form of ageism. You can form certain trends but those are also common to the society and within that how certain people were raised. It's like when people go off about a certain generation being "soft" for not fighting in WWII or getting some participation trophies, or being self-centered, etc... Those trends are just a means to bludgeon people with guilt or to shift blame for whatever thing on to others. I mean, I'm a member of the U.S. Gen-X (1975) and that generation encompasses a lot of different people and ideas, my friends in the same generation are very different, as are all the examples of Millennials (for instance) that I work with.

I agree.

8 hours ago, Dman979 said:

It's a pretty broad assumption to say that most members of a particular age group are rude people.

But I think my overall point still stands- we have a societal problem with smartphones.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, razark said:

Besides, I don't use much in the way of social media aside from a couple of forums, and I rarely use my email outside of work.

I find it amusing that you (and others, apparently) think social media is all a smartphone is good for. I use mine for navigation, for reading news and books (when my Kindle isn't around, eInk display FTW) and history articles and forums, for keeping in touch with friends I don't see very often (and who aren't on social media), for looking up whether changing brake pads on an '02 Dodge Caliber is significantly different than doing the same on a '78 Volvo 242 (pro-tip: not really), listening to music, taking pictures and video of my child when we hike up the local butte, figuring delta-V for KSP (I actually paid for a good calculator app), paying bills, online banking, and (of course) social media and email. It's basically like having a pocket computer. Like anything else you can let it take over your life or you can use it to enrich your life (which is really why I think the video in the OP is so dumb).

Edited November 28, 2016 by regex

[razark]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

I find it amusing that you think social media is all a smartphone is good for.

Oddly, I don't recall stating that.  My meaning with that statement was that I don't have a need to be constantly in contact with everyone at all times.  If I need to communicate with someone, I can call or text.

I'm aware of what a smartphone can be used for.  I said I don't have one.  That doesn't mean I am unaware of what they are or what they are capable of.  I'd be hard put to name someone I know that doesn't have one.  I also have tools for every one of those things you mentioned, except for an e-reader.  I've tried that, and I find that I much prefer reading paper to any of the devices I've tried.

 

8 minutes ago, regex said:

It's basically like having a pocket computer.

Oddly, I do remember saying that.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, razark said:

Oddly, I don't recall stating that.

It's a common trope and I didn't feel like your post necessarily disabuses it. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Bill Phil]

9 hours ago, Camacha said:

The difference is that people do not tend to be absorbed in books when you try to spend some quality time. Some people seem to be unable to not touch their phone for an hour. Comparing phones to books is not really working.

Yes. That's why I used the past tense. People were just as terrified of books in the past, when they started to show up more often around the industrial revolution. Many people just read books instead of trying to spend quality time. Quite comparable. Heck, some would get absorbed for days.

Or, to put it in another way: The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bill Phil

[Dman979]

5 hours ago, Elthy said:

This is a very, very interessting read about this topic:

https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3

Its about the methods e.g. social networks use to get you to spend time on their site (and seeing their ads).

Very interesting article.

10 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Heck, some would get absorbed for days.

Now we call them academics.

But in all seriousness, books don't change every time you open the cover. It's not a variable ratio reward system when you read a book; you know what you're getting (roughly speaking). When you check your phone, you don't know what will happen. Will you have a an unread text? A FB notification? A KSP forums quote notification? Or, more likely, nothing?

It's just like a slot machine, which I just learned is the most addicting gambling mechanism in the US.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Dman979

[Bill Phil]

Just now, Dman979 said:

Now we call them academics.

But in all seriousness, books' don't change every time you open the cover. It's not a variable ratio reward system when you read a book; you know what you're getting (roughly speaking). When you check your phone, you don't know what will happen. Will you have a an unread text? A FB notification? A KSP forums quote notification? Or, more likely, nothing?

It's just like a slot machine, which I just learned is the most addicting gambling mechanism in the US.

 

True. But one could argue the same of books. Turn to the next page and all of a sudden a twist happens. Then a series of twist. You never know what the next page brings, and even if you do, you might find something new. When you're done, you grab another one. Eventually, after you forgot what some of the older ones were about, you re-read. If the books are good, and there's really nothing else to do, you could easily get absorbed for quite some time. Of course, I'm referring to much older times. Farther back than any of us can remember.

[Dman979]

Just now, Bill Phil said:

True. But one could argue the same of books. Turn to the next page and all of a sudden a twist happens. Then a series of twist. You never know what the next page brings, and even if you do, you might find something new. When you're done, you grab another one. Eventually, after you forgot what some of the older ones were about, you re-read. If the books are good, and there's really nothing else to do, you could easily get absorbed for quite some time. Of course, I'm referring to much older times. Farther back than any of us can remember.

That's only the good books, the ones you can't put down. How many of those do you think you read each year? 5? 10? It's far more common to have a mediocre book, because that's how averages work. And which is more likely to happen- interrupting a book to check your phone, or interrupting your phone to read a book?

Smartphones offer infinite knowledge, just like the Sirens.

 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, Dman979 said:

That's only the good books, the ones you can't put down. How many of those do you think you read each year? 5? 10? It's far more common to have a mediocre book, because that's how averages work. And which is more likely to happen- interrupting a book to check your phone, or interrupting your phone to read a book?

Smartphones offer infinite knowledge, just like the Sirens.

 

Smartphones didn't exist a hundred plus years ago.

I'm not talking about now. I'm saying that all this has happened before. And that all this will happen again.

Books offered infinite knowledge. Back then, at least.