Do You Think Its True That The Current Generation is Tech Savvy but Knowledge Poor?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I don't know. I have the impression that there were plenty of people back in the day who didn't do much besides drink beer and watch TV on their free time. 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Blue Tiger said:

If you were treated with disrespect and your ideas and posts and essays were diminished and judged not basing on their quality and value, but basing on the author's (in this case mine) age, wouldn't you get a bit annoyed when you see the same generalising and stereotypical claims again? 

But, I bear you no ill will, and I believe that you bear no ill will towards me, or anyone else. 

So, sorry if my post sounded like an attack on your and your thread. It seems  you've started a great and fascinating discussion. And that's good.

 

No worries  Blue Tiger.

And Thanks.

 

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

The title of this  topic starts with the Words Do You Think  its True?  Also I did use the words in the   one gets the impression .    

And I answered.  I don't have that impression and think that those that do aren't doing a thorough job of analyzing their own generation.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

I can only speak from anecdotal evidence, but if one looks at some older (say early 20th century) school or reading material for elementary school, I think there are indications that not only rote learning but also understanding of fairly complicated texts was valued higher. Of course without any actual research I have no clue how many of the students back then were hopelessly overtaxed by the material.

Overall, I am as wary about the millenia-old complaint about the useless youth (although I have unfortunately entered an age where I tend to share the impression) as about a "generalised Flynn Effect" or similar claim that we are so much smarter than all or most former generations because of technology.

I don't think you can say any of that, and you might want to look a little deeper at your anecdotal evidence to see if it's truly telling the things you think it is, or if it's bias that's coloring your view.  The most common jobs required little to no education in the early 20th century.  Even by the mid to late 20th century all that was needed was a high school diploma.  1910 had an 8.8% high school graduation rate.  Most people didn't even graduate high school until the mid 40's, and we didn't crack 75% until the mid 60's.  And even with those numbers you have to assume the average; that there's a top 10-20% who do extremely well and is interested in the things in the OP, a bottom that doesn't graduate or barely graduates, and 60-80% who don't know and don't care no matter which generation they happened to be born in.

I'm of the opinion that we are more generationally alike than different, and it's those that are older who see the worst in themselves that complain the loudest about the younger generation.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

There's a really interesting book that looks at this subject, not from a generational stand point, but more generally speaking. It's called the Knowledge Illusion. It's a breakdown of how at this point in time we know more than any other people at any other time, yet we don't understand how any of it works. It's definitely worth checking out. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'm patiently waiting for green tiger and turquoise tiger to chime in.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm patiently waiting for green tiger and turquoise tiger to chime in.

Don't forget about crouching and Tony.

[maarsen]

A good knowledge of trivia is a sign of a wasted youth. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, maarsen said:

A good knowledge of trivia is a sign of a wasted youth. 

Sad but true.

[Jo498]

10 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

I don't know. I have the impression that there were plenty of people back in the day who didn't do much besides drink beer and watch TV on their free time. 

This generation (at least in Europe) is still mostly alive (so "current" in some sense) because TV was not widespread before the early/mid 1960s. The "good old days" (if they existed) were obviously before TV (cf. Neil Postman).

[Starkess]

What do you even mean by the "current generation"? Someone upthread mentioned Millenials, but although they often are the topic of opinion pieces and whatnot, they're not the only generation out there. The entire concept of named generations is unscientific and the assigned ranges are not actually defined. However, common usage seems to indicate Baby Boomers (born ~1946-1964, current age ~53-71), Gen X (born ~1965-1982, current age ~35-52), Millenials (born ~1983-1999, current age ~18-34), and the iGeneration (lots of names still floating out there for them, born ~2000-2017, current age ~0-17).

So do you mean kids these days (iGen)? Or do you mean anyone younger than your generation (variable)? Or just people who use Google a lot (basically everyone)?

In any case, I do not think that there is anything significantly new about being "knowledge poor" among any of these generations. Yes, having access to the internet changes the way we think (literally). But is that a bad thing? I don't necessarily think so and I don't think the science has shown it to be so far. What it does show is that, if its available, our brains will shunt memory tasks to the internet/books/other sources. To me, that seems to be an opportunity for our minds to do the sorts of tasks that they are good at, the sort of critical thinking and pattern recognition that the internet/technology (so far) cannot completely replicate. Of course, people could just as likely spend their extra brainpower on the Real Housewives of Wherever, but I have not seen any evidence that this is a new phenomenon in any way. Bread and circuses vs pizza and reality TV.

[Bluetiger]

21 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I'm patiently waiting for green tiger and turquoise tiger to chime in.

You forgot about the amethyst tiger, bloodstone tiger, white tiger, black tiger, golden tiger and strawberry tiger.

[maarsen]

14 hours ago, Jo498 said:

This generation (at least in Europe) is still mostly alive (so "current" in some sense) because TV was not widespread before the early/mid 1960s. The "good old days" (if they existed) were obviously before TV (cf. Neil Postman).

And even then we got a total of 3 channels. And walked 20 miles to school, uphill both ways. 

[James Arryn]

22 hours ago, maarsen said:

A good knowledge of trivia is a sign of a wasted youth. 

God, I'm fucked.

 

For example, trivia comes from the Roman practice of publishing local news at any location where 3 roads...tri via...met.

[Larry of the Lawn]

...a wasted youth that could pay off bigtime when you come up with the question to Alex Trebek's answers and defeat your two opponents in furious combat!

[Shryke]

On 8/14/2017 at 2:48 PM, GAROVORKIN said:

 

What would you do if Google and the internet and the phones suddenly all just stopped ?  Would you start to be a bit concerned then? Just asking.

What if every book in the world self-immolated? Would it be concerning that we hadn't memorized all our information?

It's not like leaning on hard copies is a new thing for humans.

[maarsen]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

What if every book in the world self-immolated? Would it be concerning that we hadn't memorized all our information?

It's not like leaning on hard copies is a new thing for humans.

I would then be... useful and no longer have a wasted youth.

[ThinkerX]

I have a hazy recollection of an interview of Steve Jobs, the guy behind Apple.

Reporter made the comment that Jobs kids must be thrilled at getting first crack at all the wondrous new tech gadgets.

Job told the reporter 'no, such devices were kept very tightly restricted in his home.'

When the reporter asked 'why?' Jobs response was that reliance on tech made people (like his kids) less adept at problem solving on their own. 

That is what I see these days:

a ever growing number of people across a range of ages who cannot solve problems without their smart phone handy.  Worse, most of these problems are not that difficult.  A sort of 'dumbing down.'  Unassisted problem solving skills are falling by the wayside.  The long term results, of course, are catastrophic - potentially enough to cripple civilization.

 

(I have a PC and a basic flip cell phone.  The PC requires me to go to a specific location to use the internet.  The phone was required as part of the contract I work under.  It gets used maybe four or five times a month.)

[Starkess]

5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I have a hazy recollection of an interview of Steve Jobs, the guy behind Apple.

Reporter made the comment that Jobs kids must be thrilled at getting first crack at all the wondrous new tech gadgets.

Job told the reporter 'no, such devices were kept very tightly restricted in his home.'

When the reporter asked 'why?' Jobs response was that reliance on tech made people (like his kids) less adept at problem solving on their own. 

That is what I see these days:

a ever growing number of people across a range of ages who cannot solve problems without their smart phone handy.  Worse, most of these problems are not that difficult.  A sort of 'dumbing down.'  Unassisted problem solving skills are falling by the wayside.  The long term results, of course, are catastrophic - potentially enough to cripple civilization.

 

(I have a PC and a basic flip cell phone.  The PC requires me to go to a specific location to use the internet.  The phone was required as part of the contract I work under.  It gets used maybe four or five times a month.)

How so? That's a mighty sweeping proclamation to make as if it is self-evident.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I have a hazy recollection of an interview of Steve Jobs, the guy behind Apple.

Reporter made the comment that Jobs kids must be thrilled at getting first crack at all the wondrous new tech gadgets.

Job told the reporter 'no, such devices were kept very tightly restricted in his home.'

When the reporter asked 'why?' Jobs response was that reliance on tech made people (like his kids) less adept at problem solving on their own. 

That is what I see these days:

a ever growing number of people across a range of ages who cannot solve problems without their smart phone handy.  Worse, most of these problems are not that difficult.  A sort of 'dumbing down.'  Unassisted problem solving skills are falling by the wayside.  The long term results, of course, are catastrophic - potentially enough to cripple civilization.

 

(I have a PC and a basic flip cell phone.  The PC requires me to go to a specific location to use the internet.  The phone was required as part of the contract I work under.  It gets used maybe four or five times a month.)

Really solid podcast I listened to a few weeks ago that goes into even much greater detail than you are going into here. Fascinating stuff. We are rewiring are brains in some really freaky ways with this shit. Jobs was smart in more ways than one. "Don't get high on your own supply" I believe is the pertinent quote here.

 

 

 Check it out if you're interested in this topic. This Tristan Harris guy is really well spoken and it seems he's done his homework

[ThinkerX]

10 minutes ago, Starkess said:

How so? That's a mighty sweeping proclamation to make as if it is self-evident.

I have also glanced at articles similar to these:

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201706/are-smartphones-making-us-stupid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/11811986/Butterfly-brain-why-smartphones-are-making-us-stupid.html