Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AX2

Negative effects of technology on kids -

Recommended Posts

Scaring document. Thanks for sharing .... though  ;)

 

AA_Engadin

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't buy into the fear mongering.

 

Of course you have to be a responsible parent and not let the TV or computer babysit your kids, but this kind of technology scare is just as stupid as the fear of the negative influence of radio on children was in the 1930s.

 

The advancement of human technology is the only reason half of those children were even alive to have their picture taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first recorded whine that technology was ruining the kids was penned by Plato at about 425 BCE. The technology in question was written language.  It was killing kids memory.  That being said, Cell phones are a work of the Devil and should be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first recorded whine that technology was ruining the kids was penned by Plato at about 425 BCE. The technology in question was written language.  It was killing kids memory.  That being said, Cell phones are a work of the Devil and should be banned.

to be fair to plato, he was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he was right. New technologies that make our lives simpler by doing certain tasks for us will always enevitably leave the majority of us unable to perform that task. We've long since passed that point where most humans would be able to survive on a significantly lower level of technology.

Every new significant technological advance changes our culture and norms and leaves us less fit to make do without it. Why is that all of a sudden a bad thing, when the last 10,000 years of development wasn't?

There are too many people with a nostalgia for "the good old days", which for the last generation has been some kind of mythical image of the US middle class in the 1950s and early '60s, where they imagine that everything was purer, cleaner, healthier and more fulfilling.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Plato allegedly said: It was detrimental to peoples ability to remember stuff. Why bother to actually memorize an entire epic poem (as was done at the time of Homer) if you can just read it aloud? And why bother to actually learn a speech you are to give, if you can just write it down and read from a parchment?

 

In 100 years people will have a hard time comprehending, how anyone could have seen the invention of GPS as something bad, because people will have forgotten what it was like to actually find your way on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 It is all about the perspective. Me as an individual use the technology as I see fit, not that I am a slave of it. Same applies to my kid, teaching him the responsible way of using technology. Why the fuzz, because technology is also a good thing making life funnier, more comfortable and whatnot. To an extent.

Edited by LLv34_Flanker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just baffles me, that with the current speed of technological development, we still have a hard time accepting, that it changes our culture and our way of life.

 

Technological innovation will always have its victims, those that become slaves of it, those that get polluted by it and those who get left behind by it. That's almost enevitable, but the ill effects can be reduced, if we tackle the problems rather than simply blaming the technology.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it's even true, that he said it (which I kinda doubt, I couldn't find a scource for this) writing was of course by no means a new invention at the time. It's posible, but I'm just speculating here, that he was lamenting that so many more young people became litterate in his time (which is true) and started writing things down instead of just memorizing them.

 

Back then it was considered a mark of honor and a sign of intelligence to be able to memorize large amounts of information and being able to recite epics, poems and dialogues from memory. It was not always seen as good form to write things down - Socrates was illiterate and so was Homer, we don't have a single word from their own hands, everything was written by others, sometimes half a generation later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think people appreciate just how important the ability to memorize is to illerate people.

 

In some ways we still live in the aftermath of the cultural shock it was, when regular people started to become litterate with the first public schools. There are a lot of teachers and (especially) politicians, who still think that it's important for students to be able to name the capital of Botswana in a world, where everyone can easily go look it up, and very few people actually need to know that. 

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Technological innovation will always have its victims, those that become slaves of it, those that get polluted by it and those who get left behind by it. That's almost enevitable, but the ill effects can be reduced, if we tackle the problems rather than simply blaming the technology.

 

I think that was the point of the video. As a point of interest, one of the most popular elementary schools in Silicone Valley is one of these;

 

 http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/

 

Many executives of Google and similar technology companies in the area send their kids there.  Guess what it hasn't got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it really surprising that these intelligent people couldn't see that the ability to document ideas, and send them vast distances and even into the future far outweighs any perceived ill-effects.

 

Oh I definately think they could. Some of the earliest Sumeric texts are definately meant for the ages and others are either mathematical text books (transmitting your knowledge to others) or letters (sending information over distances)

 

But there will always be some people who insist on clinging to the negatives. I personally don't understand, why some people rail against smartphones, claiming that they destroy not only the manners of young people but their concentration and their social skills as well (all of which is propably true to some degree) I just think that it's obvious, that making it posible to carry the Internet (and thereby a sizeable portion of mankinds collective knowledge along with countless lines of communication) around in your pocket is such a tremendous benefit, that it far outweighs the potential downsides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you need to learn to learn before you start learning things that you know will be useful to you... or before you even know what are you going to use and what not. Much of early (pre-college, really) education is useless in itself, but  valuable as exercise in patience, persistence, abstract thinking, spatial orientation and ability to later memorise things you'll need. Like handwriting. Ability to look things up does not help you recognize details you can't afford to overlook; looking things up helps once you've unlearned things you don't need but remember what they are. Like the joge says, studnet should know everything, P.h.D student should know most of it, post-doc should know in which books to look it up, untenured professor needs to know where to find these books and tenured prof needs only to know where to find untenured one :biggrin: . 

 

However, with all the other, vast number of benefits that writing provides...
Surely someone with Plato's intellect... :)

Plato was student of Socrates who refused to write, believing that it only leads to misinterpretation and that only way lo learn from a man is through two-sided direct discussion with him, no shortcuts, no half-measures. Therefore, all we know of his philosophy is second-hand, written by Plato after his death. So Plato is writing down his teachers reservations about writing things down; either he was hypocrite or he understood both positives and negatives of technology he's been using.. 

 

Edited by Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how having a good memory can be a good indicator of mental capacity, but I feel there are far better indicators.

 

Oh dear Extreme_One.  You seem to be questioning the whole basis of our examination-led British education system! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current GCSE system gives a lot of credence to course work, it's not only about the final exam.

 

 

 

 

 I agree with you.  However my boss - a certain Mr. Michael Gove - does not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I don't buy into the fear mongering.

 

Of course you have to be a responsible parent and not let the TV or computer babysit your kids, but this kind of technology scare is just as stupid as the fear of the negative influence of radio on children was in the 1930s.

 

The advancement of human technology is the only reason half of those children were even alive to have their picture taken.

I thought the thrust of the argument was actually a criticism of people who aren't responsible and allow their children to become obsessed with this stuff. They do it because they can't be arsed and I agree that people like that would destroy their children by neglect whether there was technology or not. It's more acceptable to say that technology is ruining people than that some people are crap parents.

Edited by sallee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your boss is a total moron BTW.

 

 

 

 I've met him. He is intelligent, articulate, approachable and informed.  Unfortunately, he is also a very ambitious politician.  Everything he says and does is calculated to further his chances of becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

 

I've never really been into television, kids television for that matter (I'm 18 so I kinda fall under the scope of this video). 

 

Perhaps I partly agree with this person's summations as I don't own a phone and rarely watch television.

 

I've been exposed to computer games etc since I was about 3 (back with FS 95) and in all honesty, they've done me more good than harm. Sure, the video's right that I'm not particularly social and often have a low self esteem, on the other hand, thanks to computer games I've become pretty good (if I say so myself) with subjects such as history and the like.

 

I think the creator of this video should have taken a bit perspective and looked at what was happening 100 years ago where children's interests in books were being bemoaned and there were fears about how good old fashioned games and the like were going out of style.

 

It strikes me that people who want kids to get outside and the like ignore many realities about how mean spirited and bullying children can be (so much for the innocence of children). Kids (including yours truly back then) would rather not have to face that sort of thing and it strikes me as a lot safer to go inside, rather than be outside where the bigger, stronger kids can hit on you. Which of the above is more likely to hurt your self esteem more?

 

I'm listening to "goodbye to all that" (admittedly whilst using technology) by Robert Graves and he says that his recollections of his boarding school past brings him pain even to think of it 20-30 years later (this from a man who went through much of the Great War). And of course, that's a time where there was no technology and everyone (especially at a boarding school) is outside playing games... 

 

Perspective... perspective... perspective... 

 

Anyway as a guy who's grown up with this technology constantly evolving around me, I think it's done more good than harm, all things considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread! On a related note, notice how you emotionally respond when you first read this true statement:

 

Some schools in the U.S. have stopped teaching children how to write in cursive (aka "handwriting").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread! On a related note, notice how you emotionally respond when you first read this true statement:

Some schools in the U.S. have stopped teaching children how to write in cursive (aka "handwriting").

"Some" schools? Here public schools stopped teaching cursive some 15 years ago and switched to teaching teaching keyboards from the first grade. Me and my fellow pupils were some of the last to submit essays in cursive back in the late '90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 2045 'The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans,' And That Could Be A Problem

Dylan Love

Jul. 5, 2014, 8:33 AM

 

"Today there's no legislation regarding how much intelligence a machine can have, how interconnected it can be. If that continues, look at the exponential trend. We will reach the singularity in the timeframe most experts predict. From that point on you're going to see that the top species will no longer be humans, but machines."

 

These are the words of Louis Del Monte, physicist, entrepreneur, and author of "The Artificial Intelligence Revolution." Del Monte spoke to us over the phone about his thoughts surrounding artificial intelligence and the singularity, an indeterminate point in the future when machine intelligence will outmatch not only your own intelligence, but the world's combined human intelligence too.

 

The average estimate for when this will happen is 2040, though Del Monte says it might be as late as 2045. Either way, it's a timeframe of within three decades.

 

"It won't be the 'Terminator' scenario, not a war," said Del Monte. "In the early part of the post-singularity world, one scenario is that the machines will seek to turn humans into cyborgs. This is nearly happening now, replacing faulty limbs with artificial parts. We'll see the machines as a useful tool. Productivity in business based on automation will be increased dramatically in various countries. In China it doubled, just based on GDP per employee due to use of machines."

 

"By the end of this century," he continued, "most of the human race will have become cyborgs [part human, part tech or machine]. The allure will be immortality. Machines will make breakthroughs in medical technology, most of the human race will have more leisure time, and we'll think we've never had it better. The concern I'm raising is that the machines will view us as an unpredictable and dangerous species."

 

Del Monte believes machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves. They "might view us the same way we view harmful insects." Humans are a species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses." Hardly an appealing roommate.

 

He wrote the book as "a warning." Artificial intelligence is becoming more and more capable, and we're adopting it as quickly as it appears. A pacemaker operation is "quite routine," he said, but "it uses sensors and AI to regulate your heart."

 

A 2009 experiment showed that robots can develop the ability to lie to each other. Run at the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems in the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale of Lausanne, Switzerland, the experiment had robots designed to cooperate in finding beneficial resources like energy and avoiding the hazardous ones. Shockingly, the robots learned to lie to each other in an attempt to hoard the beneficial resources for themselves.

 

"The implication is that they're also learning self-preservation," Del Monte told us. "Whether or not they're conscious is a moot point."

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/louis-del-monte-interview-on-the-singularity-2014-7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most animals are more intelligent than humans

 

"it" is not in the intelligence

 

 

selling meat of animals whose had a hppy life its the only way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 3+ decades of exposure to technology myself, and inducing my offspring to it I must say the outcome is positive by a large margin.

 

For once the learning of a foreign language. We had it @ school of course, but having to use it daily in a activity that gave me pleasure surely enhanced the capability of absorbing knowledge.

 

Second, games always entice out-of-game interests. History, story telling, fiction writing, architecture and a multitude of activities correlated to the stimulus provided by a simple game. Where I was interested by history since very early, the acquisition of a computer with all its wonders gave even more playground to experiment and discover. Say you buy a game, and then you buy 10 new books maybe because of that game subject.

 

My offspring lady is so much into her fashion and house building stuff that she goes hard into drawing a lot her stuff. Actually, and this is the most interesting of it all, she gets frustrated that technology cannot encompass with her ideas and often says it is fun but way too limited.

 

The bad ? Sure, there is a lot. Primarily the games without any background concept - the pure shoot'em'ups for example. But on the other hand the brain training it provides can be useful at a future moment - mind you, IT CAN, and not, IT WILL. 

 

The only really bad thing about technology on youngsters ( and even adults ) is the nervous breakdowns I see many new generations suffering. The competitive nature of multiplayer gaming transforms these "fun seeking babies" into "raging monsters" more often than not. And this is the primary factor a parent must survey - The real life achievement loses value in face of a triumphant abstract 1st place on a ladder.

 

Balance is all. If your kid likes planes games, take him out to air festivals and museums as well.

If she likes fashion and house building, take her to workshops and buy LEGO a lot.

 

Back in the day Pen and Paper RPGs had some nasty fingers pointed and the technology is simple enough - pen, paper and human imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw talking of robots i think the key for them to become ensouled is quite simple, give them a true random number generator to chose

 

the power of boom

 

i love peace and silence so im trying to convince the world at the slightest sound the world can go boom in the bigbang, just a lucky coincincidence it hasnt yet, but have you got clue on how many tries have gone by by now?

 

if robots had a true random generator then they could make it go boom as weel at any sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...