"smart" people
I remember growing up and watching jeopardy thru the years and admiring how "smart" some of these eople are.
But now with our technology.....where gameshow questions can be answered from a smartphone or tablet...is memoraization of these facts the signs of "smart "people?
Today if someone knows the answer to the question ?who wrote "Silas Marner"...is it "smart"...or is it as trivial as some who can answer "what was the name of the second episode of Star Trek". Is memorization of knowledge as important in this day and age as it was 20 years ago.
20 years ago, if you didnt know who wrote Silas Marner....you had to go to the library and look it up. If you needed to know this type of info for your work you cant keep going to the library.
What about multiplication and division. Do people really have to know how to do this anymore? A simple solar calculator at walmart costs 2 dollars, and phones and tablets have that capability. Can we blame kids for not memorizing things in school or memorizing and then forgetting because to them this info is easily retreivable.
Do kids wonder why they have to remember points in history and regurgitate it on a test....when they know throughout life they can always look them up at anytime on a smartphone.
Is knowledge about history, literature, Geography etc, the new age "trvia" to our younger generation, like knowledge about sports , tv, and radio shows was trivia to my generation.
I dont know the answer to this....just posing the question.
Quote: LarrySThe other thread on IQ got me thinking.
I remember growing up and watching jeopardy thru the years and admiring how "smart" some of these eople are.
But now with our technology.....where gameshow questions can be answered from a smartphone or tablet...is memoraization of these facts the signs of "smart "people?
Today if someone knows the answer to the question ?who wrote "Silas Marner"...is it "smart"...or is it as trivial as some who can answer "what was the name of the second episode of Star Trek". Is memorization of knowledge as important in this day and age as it was 20 years ago.
20 years ago, if you didnt know who wrote Silas Marner....you had to go to the library and look it up. If you needed to know this type of info for your work you cant keep going to the library.
What about multiplication and division. Do people really have to know how to do this anymore? A simple solar calculator at walmart costs 2 dollars, and phones and tablets have that capability. Can we blame kids for not memorizing things in school or memorizing and then forgetting because to them this info is easily retreivable.
Do kids wonder why they have to remember points in history and regurgitate it on a test....when they know throughout life they can always look them up at anytime on a smartphone.
Is knowledge about history, literature, Geography etc, the new age "trvia" to our younger generation, like knowledge about sports , tv, and radio shows was trivia to my generation.
I dont know the answer to this....just posing the question.
I think almost every profession is moving towards specialization, whether medicine, law, finance, manufacturing, whatever. The corollary to that trend would be, for most people, a lessening in knowledge of other areas. There's simply not time to be a generalist if your profession requires a huge commitment to continuing proficiency in all details of your specialty. I saw it a lot in my industry (air traffic control) which had a dozen or more sub-specialties and very few crossover generalists of any skill. There's a specialist fallacy just like a gambler's fallacy, not restricted to my profession, but often demonstrated there; the arrogance of the learned, who genuinely do know what they're talking about when the subject is their specialty, often make the fallacious assumption that their expertise translates into a greater intelligence or field of knowledge than they possess.
The trick to trivia (as a former trivia-room moderator of several years) is not so much a wealth of facts; it's being able to associate and recall facts with groups of key words filed in your brain for easy and fast retrieval. It's an exercise in time as well as knowledge base in almost every iteration.
The key to intelligent thought is not so much memorization of facts, but again goes back to keyword and keyfact grouping; from that basis, association of ideas, trend identification, extrapolation of logical but unknown data, hypothesis formation, and advancement of understanding all can progress. Some day, Google in the nth generation may acquire enough associative synapses that it approaches the human brain in learning, then intelligent and unique thought, if it is able to move beyond simple associative algorithms to abstract and self-improving adaptive behavior. I don't think we're all that far from that, but there's a cognitive breakthrough in programming that will have to happen first.
In other words, if you can figure a way to chop ten logs in the time it took to chop one, someone else figures out how to give you eleven logs.
Quote: rxwineWhen I first saw computers show up at work (years ago obviously), some people talked about the eventual efficiency and perhaps less work or mental effort. In fact, I think the lesson may be that once you have more efficient tools they (in the general sense of "they") find ways to increase your workload.
In other words, if you can figure a way to chop ten logs in the time it took to chop one, someone else figures out how to give you eleven logs.
Well, a lot of jobs have been eliminated. You no longer have to pay someone to file, for example.
I agreeQuote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't think that knowledge of trivia is a particularly good substitute for intelligence. Certainly "knowledge" and "intelligence" are different things (although being intelligent probably makes it easier to gather large amounts of knowledge, all else being equal, so there is probably some correlation between knowledgeability and intelligence people)
Please, continue with the thread. :)
I have generally thought of it as a human is like a computer. The performance of said computer is loosely based on 3 things: Memory (the D drive), RAM and processor, and the OS/programs installed.
*RAM/processor: this is"smarts," it is raw thinking power that a person can turn onto a given problem
*OS/programs installed: this knowing how to solve various problems (interacting with others, pattern recognition, etc.)
*Memory (the D drive): This s all of the "facts" someone knows.
For example: Pi.
1) I know Pi is about 3.14159 (Memory)
2) I know how to build methods for deriving the value of Pi (OS/programs installed)
3) The speed I can execute 2 (RAM/processor)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't think that knowledge of trivia is a particularly good substitute for intelligence. Certainly "knowledge" and "intelligence" are different things (although being intelligent probably makes it easier to gather large amounts of knowledge, all else being equal, so there is probably some correlation between knowledgeability and intelligence)
I separated out trivia knowledge from intelligence to differentiate them, not to suggest one was a definitive indication of the other (assuming you're addressing my post). In fact, I meant to make the opposite case, in likening trivia knowledge to any other specialty; while there are similarities in method and some correlation in individual cases, it's entirely possible to be very good at trivia without exceptional intelligence.
Quote: beachbumbabs...The key to intelligent thought is not so much memorization of facts, but again goes back to keyword and keyfact grouping; from that basis, association of ideas, trend identification, extrapolation of logical but unknown data, hypothesis formation, and advancement of understanding all can progress. Some day, Google in the nth generation may acquire enough associative synapses that it approaches the human brain in learning, then intelligent and unique thought, if it is able to move beyond simple associative algorithms to abstract and self-improving adaptive behavior. I don't think we're all that far from that, but there's a cognitive breakthrough in programming that will have to happen first.
I was reading an article the other day about a new generation of programming. The current programming is more or less about doing specific tasks. This new programing is more about learning what needs to be done, and associating to what has been learned in the past. It is tied to massive amounts of data (the internet). Cognitive Programming.
I think this might be the article, but can't remember.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/08/08/ibm-develops-programming-language-inspired-by-the-human-brain/
Quote: beachbumbabsI think almost every profession is moving towards specialization, whether medicine, law, finance, manufacturing, whatever.
That is actually a very interesting debate in education today. (Or at least it was a few years ago, and I presume it still is)
The idea is that cross trained people are greatly more important than single issue specialists, and not just within a certain field, but amongst vastly different areas of expertise. I had a prof that would drone on for ages about scientists who had also had post grad liberal arts backgrounds, and how in demand and useful they were as opposed to simple scientists. Or people who had post grad work across multiple scientific fields being in incredible demand.
There is a problem with specialization leading to a "can't see the forest through the trees" issue. People who are educated in multiple disciplines are much more useful. The problem is that cross training is very rare and difficult. Education is expensive, and it takes time. Very few people want to delay the possibility of a lucrative career in order to obtain more education that will be of indeterminant or nonexistant economic benefit.
For example a high School english teacher that is teaching Tale of Two Cities, and and The Poems of Robert Frost this semerster, does not have to have an encyclopedic recall of any other literature or authors. In the past it was essential that the teacher would have committed more to memory and was viewed as a walking resource of all english literature. Now its only essential that they be expert in what they are teaching at this moment. All other info and knowledge might be viewed as "trvia" until they need to teach it.
Now with information at our fingertips, being a walking encyclopedia may not be as much of value in many jobs....not all of course...but many.
Like I said, Jeopardy was not viewed as a "trivia show"....it was a show that showed off a general well rounded knowledge. I think now it can be viewed as more of a trivia show.
Trivia used to be viewed as useless knowledge about sports and entertainment. Now history, literature, geography,...even current events......is it trivia to know the name of the prime minister of England.......if you can look it up in 5 seconds?
The feeling of helplessness or potential embarrassment does not exisit like it used to for not knowing a piece of info related to your profession...because that info can be looked up in a jiffy. You no longer run to the library...or have to have a set of encyclopedias at home.
Its amazing how much we no longer need to remember.
Quote: bbbbccccThat is actually a very interesting debate in education today. (Or at least it was a few years ago, and I presume it still is)
The idea is that cross trained people are greatly more important than single issue specialists, and not just within a certain field, but amongst vastly different areas of expertise. I had a prof that would drone on for ages about scientists who had also had post grad liberal arts backgrounds, and how in demand and useful they were as opposed to simple scientists. Or people who had post grad work across multiple scientific fields being in incredible demand.
There is a problem with specialization leading to a "can't see the forest through the trees" issue. People who are educated in multiple disciplines are much more useful. The problem is that cross training is very rare and difficult. Education is expensive, and it takes time. Very few people want to delay the possibility of a lucrative career in order to obtain more education that will be of indeterminant or nonexistant economic benefit.
Yes there is specialazation.....and in many cases thats great.
However like you said there is cross training where knowledge crossing different disciplines are very helpful.
A pharmacist that gets a law degree can write their own ticket in the world of pharmaceutical company legal teams
A pharmacist that goes into law enforcement...can write their own ticket with the DEA , or FBI, or local police teams.
cross training among fields still occurs, as specialization is occuring at the same time
(White men can't jump)
Quote: endermikeHow many fruits do you know which start with the letter q?
(White men can't jump)
Quince...
Quote: onenickelmiracleMemorizing trivia has nothing to do with Jeopardy or intelligence. It's just about quick recall and associating facts so when it counts, you can be depended on.
the thread wasnt inteneded to define IQ or intellegence.
Its just how we view people as "smart". How maybe years ago smart people memorized alot more things....and now they can be "smart" without all the memorization. Maybe they are now "smart" enough to find the info...rather to know the info from memory
Quote: endermikeHow many fruits do you know which start with the letter q?
(White men can't jump)
one i remember at the end of a game show 40 years ago and i still remember
whats the longest word that contains all the vowels including y
Intelligence to me is being able to take those things you've memorized, your "tools", if you will, and use them in the process of thought to solve a problem.
I'm coming off a migraine and blanking on an example, but I'll try...
I'm going racing, and racing is basically kinetic math. It's all physics, all forces. The fact that I know how to measure distance and find angles and calculate weights isn't intelligence. That's just memory. But if I have a problem, say I have terrible understeer entering turn 1, I can probably use those tools in my memory to make adjustments to the car. I can measure the angle of the turn and adjust the camber to maximize my tire's contact patch. I can stiffen up the right rear shocks to resist weight transfer, or soften the fronts to promote it. I can add rear brake bias to free up the rear.
The fact that I know I have just under -1* of camber or a spring rate of 350lbs is just memory. Being able to take that information and use critical thinking to solve a problem, that's intelligence.
IMO, schools focus entirely on what to think, and never teach kids how to think. I think the latter is very, very important.
Quote: LarrySthe thread wasnt inteneded to define IQ or intellegence.
Its just how we view people as "smart". How maybe years ago smart people memorized alot more things....and now they can be "smart" without all the memorization. Maybe they are now "smart" enough to find the info...rather to know the info from memory
Memorization has never made anyone smart. It might have allowed people to trick others into thinking that they were smart.
The people who are smart are the ones who can solve problems that they have never seen before, not the ones who can remember someone else's solutions.
Quote: LarrySone i remember at the end of a game show 40 years ago and i still remember
whats the longest word that contains all the vowels including y
ANTISTREPHORRHYNCHUS
Ken Jennings was very good at Jeopardy. However, he believes in god so perhaps you are right.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMemorization has never made anyone smart. It might have allowed people to trick others into thinking that they were smart.
The people who are smart are the ones who can solve problems that they have never seen before, not the ones who can remember someone else's solutions.
Quote: AxelWolfKen Jennings was very good at Jeopardy. However, he believes in god so perhaps you are right.
Brad Rutter and "Watson" kicked his ass pretty good.
But he does have a sense of humor though:
As a Jeopardy winner, I can tell you it doesn't mean much once you're on the job, but it certainly gets you in the door with interviews/resumes. I'm pretty sure I'm at my current job (mainly?) because of the J! win.Quote: LarryS
Now with information at our fingertips, being a walking encyclopedia may not be as much of value in many jobs....not all of course...but many.
But otherwise, it's useless economically. Here's a funny exchange between me and my dad:
Dad: What are the quad cities?
Me: Davenport, Rock Island, Bettendorf, and Moline.
Dad: Somebody's got to want to pay for that!
Me: Uh, actually, no...
Quote: ontariodealerANTISTREPHORRHYNCHUS
wow, is that a new word in the last 40 years?
the answer 40 years ago waS
UNCOPYWRITABLES
Quote: teddysAs a Jeopardy winner, I can tell you it doesn't mean much once you're on the job, but it certainly gets you in the door with interviews/resumes. I'm pretty sure I'm at my current job (mainly?) because of the J! win.
But otherwise, it's useless economically. Here's a funny exchange between me and my dad:
Dad: What are the quad cities?
Me: Davenport, Rock Island, Bettendorf, and Moline.
Dad: Somebody's got to want to pay for that!
Me: Uh, actually, no...
FUNNY
but there was a time not too long ago where if you needed that answer ...you needed to have an encyclopedia at hand, a library, or abook store.
in another time, if you wentinto a large store and asked a worker where the clothespins were...they had memorized the aisle. Now customers and workers can have an app on their phone that gives them the answer.
in another time not too long ago..1985 and beofre......there were no computers in pharmacies. Just typewriters and paper charts where rxs were entered in pen. When a new rx came in, you would pull the paper chart, look at it and decipher the handwriting, and figure out by memory if there are any interactions. Now this is all done by computer. The memorizaton of interactions is not required. And after a while, after giving that up to a computer...the ability to recall the memorized facts become less and less.//if you dont use it...you lose it.
now someone can say, that now I have room to memorize other things...but thats not true. Its not like my brain is being used 100 percent..and i needed to lose some memory in order to gain other memory. Its just like the old saying....if you dont use it...you lose it. That goes for things like language as well.
It seems to be, people need to retain things less and less....and let computers do that retention for them.
Is that a good thing? Is it weakening the brain? making us mentally lazy...mentally less sharp as a society in general? I dont know the answer to that.
Does being able to multiply and divide large numbers by hand or in your head, stimulate the brain to be able to do other things, or make complex decisions.
Does being able to do those arithmetic tasks by desk calculator or smart phone hurt people in day to day life? I mean they CAN get by not being able to multiply 4 or 5 digit numbers or divide them...leaving it to the computer. But does a portion of the brain become less stimulated, and atrophy?....leading to a domino effect of not being able to solve other problems well?
Are we heading to a Homer Simposn type society...where we can put a total dope in front of a large computer ....A mental dullard that only needs to deal with what the computer says.
Are you sure your memory does not fill up? I once seen an episode of Married with children where Kelly Bundy's memories fill up while cramming for a sports trivia contest. She gets most of the questions correct, but it turns out, she ends up remembering one to many questions this ends up pushing the most important answer from her head. How many touchdowns did Al Bundy score in a single game at Polk high school?Quote: LarrySFUNNY
but there was a time not too long ago where if you needed that answer ...you needed to have an encyclopedia at hand, a library, or abook store.
in another time, if you wentinto a large store and asked a worker where the clothespins were...they had memorized the aisle. Now customers and workers can have an app on their phone that gives them the answer.
in another time not too long ago..1985 and beofre......there were no computers in pharmacies. Just typewriters and paper charts where rxs were entered in pen. When a new rx came in, you would pull the paper chart, look at it and decipher the handwriting, and figure out by memory if there are any interactions. Now this is all done by computer. The memorizaton of interactions is not required. And after a while, after giving that up to a computer...the ability to recall the memorized facts become less and less.//if you dont use it...you lose it.
now someone can say, that now I have room to memorize other things...but thats not true. Its not like my brain is being used 100 percent..and i needed to lose some memory in order to gain other memory. Its just like the old saying....if you dont use it...you lose it. That goes for things like language as well.
It seems to be, people need to retain things less and less....and let computers do that retention for them.
Is that a good thing? Is it weakening the brain? making us mentally lazy...mentally less sharp as a society in general? I dont know the answer to that.
Its hard to believe that show is anything but factual.
Quote: AxelWolfAre you sure your memory does not fill up? I once seen an episode of Married with children where Kelly Bundy's memories fill up while cramming for a sports trivia contest. She gets most of the questions correct, but it turns out, she ends up remembering one to many questions this ends up pushing the most important answer from her head. How many touchdowns did Al Bundy score in a single game at Polk high school?
Its hard to believe that show is anything but factual.
that kills my theory that computers could be softening our brains....that show was popular before the home computer age too hold.
Quote: LarryS
Are we heading to a Homer Simposn type society...where we can put a total dope in front of a large computer ....A mental dullard that only needs to deal with what the computer says.
Possibly, however there was story in the news this last week of a robot that replaced workers, and was being used to sort plastic, work called "the most boring job in the factory" by the people there. So, a worker doesn't have do something that will help turn his mind to Jell-O.
Don't worry It's a fact been discussed for quite some time. There was an interesting episode of Star Gate where the people had no memory of their own and were hooked up to the internet for instant recall. If the information was changed even to something contradictory, they wouldn't even have known because they had no memory of their own to notice.Quote: LarrySthat kills my theory that computers could be softening our brains....that show was popular before the home computer age too hold.
I'm sure there's a limit to our memories. I know I don't remember much of day to day life from 30 years ago and would if there weren't limitations.
Quote: rxwinePossibly, however there was story in the news this last week of a robot that replaced workers, and was being used to sort plastic, work called "the most boring job in the factory" by the people there. So, a worker doesn't have do something that will help turn his mind to Jell-O.
Sitting home on unemployment might turn his brain to "jell-o"
or if they are only qualified to do a mindless job...they will move on to the next mindless job that doesnt challenge their mind.
jobs have been replaced by machines and computers for decades and whether its a gas chain saw that replaces many men that used an ax to cut down trees, or machines that replace "ditch diggers" or trains that replaced stage coach drivers....all jobs that could be termed "boring". I guess the question is did the ax men, the ditch diggers, and stagecoach drivers that lost their jobs...move into more mentally challenging jobs?.....or did they move into the next open mindless job.
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's some pretty compelling evidence that mind skills and memory are "use it or lose it" abilities. So I would say it's worth making people continue to memorize, process, associate, whatever, through trivia contests, puzzling, agility activities, and the rest. And we probably will test stupider from here on out through relying on computers for math answers, historical data, rote memorization items. You can't learn how to think with no data and no basic analytical skills.
I tend to agree and think of this example growing up.
In the 70's I ran a cash register and had to figure out the change by myself. If the total was 1.63, I had to know how to count back 37 cents on a 2 dollar payment.
And if someone by chance handed me 2.13...I had to know there was 50 cents going back.
Now if you hand someone 2 dollars, they enter that amount in the register and it tells them to return 37cents (or even counts it out for you)....but if they punch in 2 dollars and you say "hey let me give you the 13 cents"....they would give you a blank stare. They wouldnt have a clue what to do.
There was no scanning, so I had to punch in the cost of goods.
I was more mentally engaged back then then people are today and I think it shows. People at registers seem more brain dead than they did 40 years ago. At least to me they dont seem to be as mentally sharp. Thier brains really arent used......even for the simple math that I was required to do I think that made a difference.
Quote: LarrySI tend to agree and think of this example growing up.
In the 70's I ran a cash register and had to figure out the change by myself. If the total was 1.63, I had to know how to count back 37 cents on a 2 dollar payment.
And if someone by chance handed me 2.13...I had to know there was 50 cents going back.
Now if you hand someone 2 dollars, they enter that amount in the register and it tells them to return 37cents (or even counts it out for you)....but if they punch in 2 dollars and you say "hey let me give you the 13 cents"....they would give you a blank stare. They wouldnt have a clue what to do.
There was no scanning, so I had to punch in the cost of goods.
I was more mentally engaged back then then people are today and I think it shows. People at registers seem more brain dead than they did 40 years ago. At least to me they dont seem to be as mentally sharp. Thier brains really arent used......even for the simple math that I was required to do I think that made a difference.
I had this happen just last night. Went through a drive-in where the bill was 18.62. Handed him 20.12. He gave me back 49c. Geez, really? (Fixed it politely)
And someone else figures out a marketing slogan of "hand hewn"...but you work just as hard doing that chopping and reap no benefits from increased sales but the company adopts a computer program that allocates even more logs to you.Quote: rxwineIn other words, if you can figure a way to chop ten logs in the time it took to chop one, someone else figures out how to give you eleven logs.
Of course they are brain dead. The average retail clerk at the register is no different those animated characters that stand outside a pizza place in the hot sun waving at passerby vehicles. There is no need for brains and no reward for using them. The clerk may be working two jobs and therefore be tired or may be reading Tolstoy or something, but it makes no difference. Mid level managers that used to plan the shipment of pizza ingredients have been replaced by computers.Quote: LarrySPeople at registers seem more brain dead than they did 40 years ago. At least to me they dont seem to be as mentally sharp. Thier brains really arent used......even for the simple math that I was required to do I think that made a difference.
Quote: FleaStiffOf course they are brain dead. The average retail clerk at the register is no different those animated characters that stand outside a pizza place in the hot sun waving at passerby vehicles. There is no need for brains and no reward for using them. The clerk may be working two jobs and therefore be tired or may be reading Tolstoy or something, but it makes no difference. Mid level managers that used to plan the shipment of pizza ingredients have been replaced by computers.
this might be a little over your head. This thread isnt about pizza managers or reading tolstoy. The comment I made was an agreement with a poster that using the brain keeps it sharp and allows it to be used in other things going foward.
The fact that computerized registers impede the use of the brain, a dull brain can be developed during an 8 hour shift of little stimulation. Just the act of punching in prices and calculating change could be enough to maintain an alert brain..at least for awhile.
I am sorry about your cheese ordering carreer.
Quote: LarrySthis might be a little over your head. This thread isnt about pizza managers or reading tolstoy. The comment I made was an agreement with a poster that using the brain keeps it sharp and allows it to be used in other things going foward.
The fact that computerized registers impede the use of the brain, a dull brain can be developed during an 8 hour shift of little stimulation. Just the act of punching in prices and calculating change could be enough to maintain an alert brain..at least for awhile.
I am sorry about your cheese ordering carreer.
Larry,
er...kind of condescending for a post that's not only on point and adding to it but agreeing with both you and I in content, no? lol... I take Flea's meaning to be that jobs previously requiring some basic math or logistic skills have, by the near-universal introduction of computers, been dumbed down in skills needed to fill them to the level of sign-wavers. So, companies fill them with sign-waver mentalities, whether by lack of ambition or lack of brains. Kind of a chicken-or-egg discussion coming to the same conclusion.
And in the next 20 years or so when everything is done on phones and computers (or whatever)and you're trying to pay for something with some new fancy device. Yet you cant even turn it on, you will have to tun to the 6 year old kid who is patiently waiting behind you, and have to ask him how to use it.Quote: LarrySI tend to agree and think of this example growing up.
In the 70's I ran a cash register and had to figure out the change by myself. If the total was 1.63, I had to know how to count back 37 cents on a 2 dollar payment.
And if someone by chance handed me 2.13...I had to know there was 50 cents going back.
Now if you hand someone 2 dollars, they enter that amount in the register and it tells them to return 37cents (or even counts it out for you)....but if they punch in 2 dollars and you say "hey let me give you the 13 cents"....they would give you a blank stare. They wouldnt have a clue what to do.
There was no scanning, so I had to punch in the cost of goods.
I was more mentally engaged back then then people are today and I think it shows. People at registers seem more brain dead than they did 40 years ago. At least to me they dont seem to be as mentally sharp. Thier brains really arent used......even for the simple math that I was required to do I think that made a difference.
would someone from the past who was using an abacus, have the right to say since we now use calculators we must be really dumb.
Skills just transfer to other things, We may make things easier to do, but we add more things to what you are doing. That 6 year old might be able to multitask far better then you.
Quote: AxelWolfAnd in the next 20 years or so when everything is done on phones and computers (or whatever)and you're trying to pay for something with some new fancy device. Yet you cant even turn it on, you will have to tun to the 6 year old kid who is patiently waiting behind you, and have to ask him how to use it.
would someone from the past who was using an abacus, have the right to say since we now use calculators we must be really dumb.
Skills just transfer to other things, We may make things easier to do, but we add more things to what you are doing. That 6 year old might be able to multitask far better then you.
That's funny. I'm a regular at Tim Horton's (coffee and "bank shop") -- a big deal here in Canada - there's 4000+ outlets. Anyway, they have a pilot program in Niagara where you can use your phone to pay for your order instead of the "TimCard". So, I downloaded the app. The first time I used it I had my 16 year-old daughter in the car, and I said "Look, aren't I hip?", and she looked at me like I was from Mars.
But I knew that she thought I was cool. ;)
Quote: AxelWolfAnd in the next 20 years or so when everything is done on phones and computers (or whatever)and you're trying to pay for something with some new fancy device. Yet you cant even turn it on, you will have to tun to the 6 year old kid who is patiently waiting behind you, and have to ask him how to use it.
would someone from the past who was using an abacus, have the right to say since we now use calculators we must be really dumb.
Skills just transfer to other things, We may make things easier to do, but we add more things to what you are doing. That 6 year old might be able to multitask far better then you.
It reminds me of a visit to Staples with a co-worker a couple years ago. There was a 25 dollar item, and we needed to buy 16 of them. She asked me lets sew how much thats gonna be, so she pulls out her smart phone....I say 400...figuring it out pretty easily in my head. Not by doing the long multiplication but by reasoning and grouping 25 into 4 groups to equal100.00 and then realizing that there are 4 groups of 4 in 16. She pulls up the calculator and multiplies it out and says "how did u do that?". So some will say that because she could pull out the phone, pull; up the calculator, and multiply faster than I could have done it...she is as mentally sharp. Maybe. I have no idea. I agree ..I am more clumsy on the smart phone..she could beat me hands down pulling up info. I dont see how being able to pull up a caluclator and punch in numbers quickly increases mental sharpness. But maybe it does. I am no expert on brain function.
I am not bragging that my calculaton was brilliant....its very basic...the kind of thing I had to do over the years when there were no handheld calculators....when in fact you were lucky to have a bulky adding machine at work or home. with no l.e.d readout....just plenty of rolls of paper. I am able to solve problems like that in my head. People growing up with calculators and smartphones cant...and dont need to. Does that make me mentally sharper??? Who knows. But as our performace in testing scores deteriorate as a conuntry....I wonder besides the schools, the parenting....what does on the spot internet access have to do with it as well.
This started when I was in college. As I learned "real math" I somehow lost the ability to do simple arithmetic.
It's not just me, either. Out of my group of friends in college (almost all math majors) there was only one of us who was any good at quickly figuring out how much of a split restaurant bill everyone owed, after tax and tip. The rest of us lost that ability somewhere along the way.
Quote: thecesspitI have a very smart friend of mine, really good at coding. Often brings out a calculator to add two small numbers together... I always double take when I see him struggle with simple arithmetic. Stuff that's just in my head, and as simple as opening a fridge door or yale lock.
So I guess the question remains, is the 6 year old that knows how to push buttons on a smart phone just as smart as an adult that is technology challenged....or even smarter as some people would crow.
Pushing buttons on a smartphone, or on a calculator does not show off intellegence.
The bigger question that I of course dont have the answer to..is ////as children are now born with a handheld computer in his hands...when they are able to pull things up on the computer, find things, look things up, play games.....does being able to do those things make them "smart". Make then"intellegent"??
Or does being able to do those things make them mentally lazy in not feeling like they need to memorize anything, or calculate anything on their own
Does it make the brain less likely to be able to solve problems later in life without artificial help....being able to "think on your feet", "make quick logical decisions based on analysis of the facts at hand in your mind"
Moving forward the vast majority of people will be judged based on how they can interact with certain machines to achieve a desired outcome. In many fields we have reached the limit of human capabilities and are now only still pushing the boundaries by incorporating more and more technology. Here are some examples:
-Farming, at one time a human labor intensive job. Now it is mainly focused on science creating better crops and fertilizers. Also weather forecasts and the use of mechanical devices to do the labor
-Surgery, is a great example of this both historically and currently
-Math, at one time mainly based on what could be done with paper and pencil. Now the vast majority of math is done by people on computers. However, this example also shows that there will likely always be a place for those who are stronger on the "standard intelligence" (until the AI singularity, should that ever happen)
