Constant Technology Use May Hamper Kids' Ability To Learn 163
hessian writes "Scholars who study the role of media in society say no long-term studies have been done that adequately show how and if student attention span has changed because of the use of digital technology. But there is mounting indirect evidence that constant use of technology can affect behavior, particularly in developing brains, because of heavy stimulation and rapid shifts in attention."
MIT found something different (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MIT found something different (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it says the same thing.
Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child, per day
The study was looking at student attention spans and brain development, not specifically if those changes hamper learning (right from the summary, ignoring the trolling /. headline). Using all those different apps means they're switching attention that much more often and they only have ONE piece of technology. Constant technology use includes being surrounded by TV, ads designed to grab your attention, cell phones with direct connections to constantly changing media feeds (you don't want to miss anything), laptops, tablets, eBook readers, hand held games, warning systems, etc...
Oh and by running that experiment, MIT is destroying that tribe's culture and they plan to mess with more just to see what happens. Research/Trying to play god like that should be outlawed.
Re: (Score:3)
If we have leaned nothing else from seven seasons of TNG and seven seasons of Voyager, it's that the Prime Directive never makes it clear what course of action is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
He said age of consent. That is normally, depending on jurisdiction 14-16. Seriously, grooming a <14 girl/boy for sex is totally fucked up. On the other hand "seduction of a minor", what you are talking about is really broken, especially in the 18/17 case.
Back to the topic... The prime directive makes sense for evolving cultures. Most of the "development aid" in the last half decade made many things worse then better...
Re: (Score:2)
What? Those useless "for the children" laws where an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old can get charged with rape just by having sex with someone who is legally considered a minor? You expect me to believe that a 13-17 year old can't much such a decision?
Why 13-17? They are just arbitrary limits too. Why not 10 which is the age of criminal responsibility (in the UK)?
The point is that most people would agree that you have to have some sort of legal cut off point, and by definition it is not going to apply equally. One girl may enter puberty at 10 while for her brother it's not until 15.
It seems to be mainly the US where sex with a minor is automatically rape, here in the UK where the age of consent is 16, if a boy aged 16 and 1 day had sex with a gi
Re:MIT found something different (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh and by running that experiment, MIT is destroying that tribe's culture and they plan to mess with more just to see what happens. Research/Trying to play god like that should be outlawed."
Now I'm not an expert on geography, but I'm pretty certain most Ethiopians aren't ileterate due to choice or even religious reasons, it's because Ethiopia is a poor country where success is often just living to 20 without starving to death. As far as I know MIT didn't force the laptops into the villiage, or teach the kids to hide them from their parents (which IMO I still wouldn't oppose, hiding information from children to me for fear of compromised "Culture" or "Religion", is no different than binding a childs legs and throwing him in a wheelchair, which would be considered child abuse in most countries). Were all the scientists of america and europe's past destroying our culture. Did the work of Franklin, Telsa and Eddison ruin the culture of the world by making us more civilized. I mean it could be said that our old culture gathered around fires and candles, and those guys ruined it for us!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What's your reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Did the work of Franklin, Telsa and Eddison ruin the culture of the world by making us more civilized.
There is a fairly obvious difference those three improving their own, and current day geeks interfering in someone else's civilisation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Because a culture of illiterate people, unable to produce, never mind compete, in the modern world is morally superior to a literate, educated culture?
Either way we are choosing to "play god". Withholding technology from these people is just as much of a choice as providing it. Just because it's the default posi
Re: (Score:2)
" Constant technology use includes being surrounded by TV, ads designed to grab your attention, cell phones with direct connections to constantly changing media feeds (you don't want to miss anything), laptops, tablets, eBook readers, hand held games, warning systems, etc..."
I have read about study after study purporting that these devices change our brains and maybe even personalities, I haven't seen one -- not a single one -- demonstrating that those "changes" are still present when the technology is not. Nor have I seen any evidence -- even a little -- that these claimed "changes", even if retained, are harmful. The people claiming these things are strong on implication, but pretty short on evidence.
Re: those "changes" are still present (Score:2)
To use that word everyone loved in the 1990's, it's a Paradigm Shift. The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever. You can do or not-do something on the internet, but it's now a choice that needs to be made every hour of the day forever. Try reading old literature sometime, with the perspective of looking for when characters were really rather bored with nothing to do - "kick the can" for 3 hours and the
Re: (Score:2)
In the modern world, we don't just burn multiple hours doing nothing anymore.
Sure we do. It's called Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
"The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever."
Um, no. Once you grok that I was talking about what happens when you are out in the woods and there is no such technology available, your life will change for a few seconds.
"I only managed to sit in the dark for an hour before I reached for my CD player, stash of AA batteries, flashlight, and a book."
But there are 2 very visible reasons for that: (1) you were bored because with the power out in a modern home or apartment there usually isn't much to do, and (2) because you could. You had the player, you had the flashlight, you had the book.
Your argument does not impress me. My question was: how would you cope or adapt without those
Re: In the dark (Score:2)
I wasn't coping. The key part of my note was "only able to take an hour of nothing". I had barely managed to think ahead and have my freshly purchased flashlight (I hadn't had one for years), my scavenged old AA's from the Big Box o' Stuff I dumped on the floor, and one of the 5 CD players from six years ago I hadn't needed. But I had all that because I am a pack-rat. I basically got lucky. If I hadn't had all of that I would have gone mildly crazy basically tossing and turning in bed until the power came b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever.
No, it doesn't. Winning ten million on the lottery changes your life forever. The internet just makes a lot of things easier to do.
You can do or not-do something on the internet, but it's now a choice that needs to be made every hour of the day forever. Try reading old literature sometime, with the perspective of looking for when characters were really rather bored with nothing to do - "kick the can" for 3 hours and then dinner - really?! Or the farmers sitting around the parlor when Ma didn't feel like playing the piano, so they all just sat there kinda listless. Eew.
You seem to think that simply having access to all the stuff you can consume on the internet means you are doing something. You're not, any more than if you're watching TV mindlessly.
Stupid people have always got bored easily, and they still do if you give them a TV or internet connection. In "old literature" they probably engaged themselves with an actual book.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you missed every single line of my point. A huge part of the internet is "talking to people out there" and getting answers back. You disagreed with me but your reply is there, which is precisely what I meant. Having lots of "old literature" on my shelves, the amount of time they spend in the stories actually reading is a bit grim. Much more of it is spent pining away at various things.
Meanwhile, with an internet connection, you can post notes and go to chat rooms and talk to people at all hours o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed WW2, Korea & 'Nam. That's how.
Scary. (Score:1)
This is almost as bad as rock & roll music.
Re:Scary. (Score:4, Insightful)
I was just going to say that. From TFA:
“What we’re labeling as ‘distraction,’ some see as a failure of adults to see how these kids process information,” Ms. Purcell said. “They’re not saying distraction is good but that the label of ‘distraction’ is a judgment of this generation.”
also
The surveys include some findings that appear contradictory. In the Common Sense report, for instance, some teachers said that even as they saw attention spans wane, students were improving in subjects like math, science and reading.
I don't usually bag on teachers, but may be this is a sign that your methods are becoming--shock--outdated?
Re: (Score:3)
I was just going to say that. From TFA:
“What we’re labeling as ‘distraction,’ some see as a failure of adults to see how these kids process information,” Ms. Purcell said. “They’re not saying distraction is good but that the label of ‘distraction’ is a judgment of this generation.”
also
The surveys include some findings that appear contradictory. In the Common Sense report, for instance, some teachers said that even as they saw attention spans wane, students were improving in subjects like math, science and reading.
I don't usually bag on teachers, but may be this is a sign that your methods are becoming--shock--outdated?
Traditional school is was pretty horrible in my mind. Most kids were lost or bored in math and science. Geography, history, etc, were just fact cramming: a free grade for those who could only learn by rote, pointless data for others. God forbid you picked a promising, but inappropriate book from the library: you were stuck with it for an hour or a day. Talk about a low information environment.
Bring on the internet, I say. It can't be any worse that the old system. It's already revolutionized work (I used to
Re: (Score:3)
Geography, history, etc, were just fact cramming
I actually noticed the same thing with math, and oftentimes, even science. Just memorize these equations and look for the patterns I showed you to figure out when you should used them on the test! Oh, and it's okay to forget them after that; your math teacher next year will have you memorize them again...
Re: (Score:3)
And this is a completely separate and much more important problem -- students do not understand the material, and have nothing but superficial similarities to guide them in application of those thoughtlessly memorized methods. They have fake knowledge that is applied in cargo-cult fashion, and provides nothing for future learning or improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring on the internet, I say. It can't be any worse that the old system.
yes, let's just let kids surf 4Chan all day. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is almost as bad as rock & roll music.
It's as bad as sock-hops, Elvis Presley's dancing, VCR's, Atari games, color television, and carbonated sodas - each of which nearly "destroyed America's youth" at some point in the past 70 years.
Re: (Score:2)
This is almost as bad as rock & roll music.
It's as bad as sock-hops, Elvis Presley's dancing, VCR's, Atari games, color television, and carbonated sodas - each of which nearly "destroyed America's youth" at some point in the past 70 years.
But, of course, not quite as bad as Dungeons and Dragons and books about Hobbits. NOTHING could be THAT dangerous to America's youth.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess your favorite character is Smeagol/Gollum?
behavior, like constantly checking your phone? (Score:5, Insightful)
while out?
seems to be generational but my younger friends (20's) are always checking their phones, even while I'm talking to them at dinner or a social event!
what the hell. since when was that good manners?
since never. but few seem to care.
additionally, look at the younger crowd as they walk on the public streets. if there isn't a pair of white wires coming out of their ears and their stand perma-pointed downward, then they are the odd one out.
this is directly related to attention span and constantly 'needing' to be connected.
time will tell, but I don't think this is a foward step.
Re:behavior, like constantly checking your phone? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can these kids stand that rock n' roll music? Kids these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You comparing the love of music to playing with an appliance? Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comparing your dope smoking, rebellious music to my taste in jazz that actually has class? Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Just tell them to keep off your lawn.
Seriously though, manners are out of fashion. And they'll continue to be out of fashion until Hollywood and the rest of the pop culture crowd becomes irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing manners and etiquette, but then a lot of ignorant fuckers do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
while out?
seems to be generational but my younger friends (20's) are always checking their phones, even while I'm talking to them at dinner or a social event!
what the hell. since when was that good manners?
since never. but few seem to care.
I "belong" to this generation. If there isn't a pause in the conversation for them to read some inane text saying "whats up gurlll", or I'm actively talking and they pull out their windows phone (just kidding) I'll snap my fingers to get their attention. If they have the attention span of a three year old and do it again they're wasting my time and I'll leave them to their angry birds.
If you're a dick I have no problems being a dick right back. They might not like having their faults pointed out and I do
Re: (Score:2)
The listener doesn't really need to look the speaker in the face from the listener's perspective. The listener knows he's listening. This is something the listener has to do for the benefit of the speaker.
The speaker doesn't have the inner perspective of the listener. He doesn't know if the listener is paying attention. The speaker needs the listener to respond or at least make eye contact so he'll know if he needs to repeat something or continue speaking at all.
If you, as a listener, care about what the sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
while out?
seems to be generational but my younger friends (20's) are always checking their phones, even while I'm talking to them at dinner or a social event!
what the hell. since when was that good manners?
since never. but few seem to care.
additionally, look at the younger crowd as they walk on the public streets. if there isn't a pair of white wires coming out of their ears and their stand perma-pointed downward, then they are the odd one out.
this is directly related to attention span and constantly 'needing' to be connected.
time will tell, but I don't think this is a foward step.
If I get a text message while talking to you, I'll pull out my phone and check it. Same way that I would check my phone for a call if one came in while we were takling. Is it rude? I don't think so. Will I respond to the message, or even do more than glance at it? Not likely. Would it be good manners for me to be upset if you checked your phone during a social event? What if your wife was calling and it was an emergency? Who the hell am I to judge you? Now if you spent the entire conversation texting a
Re: (Score:2)
If I get a text message while talking to you, I'll pull out my phone and check it. Same way that I would check my phone for a call if one came in while we were takling. Is it rude? I don't think so.
It's rude if you don't say "excuse me, I have to take this" or something. Just whipping your phone out and scanning the text messsage with no comment while someone is talking is incredibly fucking rude, whether you are prepared to admit it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
May be it's a hint that you're not enganging them...it's kind of like doodling only now you have a smartphone.
And in the same way, doodling while someone's talking is considered rude too, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
May be it's a hint that you're not enganging them...it's kind of like doodling only now you have a smartphone.
And in the same way, doodling while someone's talking is considered rude too, I guess.
You guess? You fucking guess?
If someone's not "enganging" you, then politely end the conversation, don't start digitally doodling or tapping your fingers on the table.
I'd love to see you checking your texts if you were talking to some of the people I've had as bosses. You'd be shitting pieces of smartphone for the next week where they forced it deep up your arse before throwing you out the nearest window.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you think so or not, it is rude.
Whether you think so or not, thinking it is rude is rude.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly the problem is not taking time out to "smell the roses". No, you don't smell flowers necessarily, but if you don't just sit or take a walk or a bike ride and think, you don't work out issues you may be having. You won't get that spark of inspiration from watching a bird fly or a swarm of bees or just working out something in your head.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
You bet it will be a problem when interests not aligned with them impact their 'entertainment' in some way.. of course by then america will be no different than somalia.. Seriously, this 'need' to be 'connected' is just a massive case of insecurity brought on by a society that increasingly does not tolerate individual empowerment and achievement.
Re: (Score:2)
So the younger generation has a problem because they choose being entertained over not being entertained? Interesting logic
Yes, that is a problem. If you hadn't noticed, we don't live in a world with unlimited resources available for everybody, where everyone spends their time engaged purely in exciting game playing and the consumption and creation of entertainment. Most people have to work for a living, something which is a bit difficult if you've got your iPhone blaring out music into your ears so you can't hear when I ask you a fucking question.
Re: (Score:2)
Constantly checking a phone when in the presence of company not only shows impatience and addiction, but is fucking rude. It's like telling everybody in your presence that they're boring and not worth listening to.
As somebody a little older than the rest of the shithead kids he's in college with, I see it all the time - grown-ass young adults rocking back and forth in their seats, fidgeting, totally unfit for social interaction. If those kids were in grade school when I was, they would have been labeled retarded and put in a special classroom with padded walls. Young punk kids, in their faggotty androgynous skinny jeans, who now get medals just for showing up to the event, have been proven hopeless at courtship due to their incessant masturbating to a grossly cartoonish idea of what real women should look like.
Real life is going to eat you fuckers alive, and I'm gonna point and laugh at each and every one of you.
-- Ethanol-fueled
I tried to read your whole rant, but honestly it was so boring I kept messing with my coolio Samsung Android phone instead. It's probably because I'm only in my 40's and haven't learned to control my attention yet - maybe when I hit my 50's.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you haven't.. It's entirely possible, actually. This trend started with your/our generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that the phones back then weren't available all the time and the advent of the answering machine meant you no longer had to answer a loud ringing device that was interrupting your life.
Attention span and situational awareness are most definitely affected by the constant use of these devices. There are many news accounts of idiots walking along with their face buried in their phones instead of being aware of their surroundings. Everything from walking out in front of cars to walking out
Re: (Score:2)
Also, saying that people have walked out in front of cars while using a phone while pretending that the same thing didn't happen with books is deceitful.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not answering the phone is considered rude to the person who is calling. Not that they notice, but the people you are with will and will interpolate it to them. But not asking polity to call back and talk on the phone for a long time is rude to your guests. It is not that clear cut, anything that interrupts is ok, but not making it short is rude. The ideal being, if you can put it off to later and sill do it, that is rude.
Looking at your phone all the time is like interrupting your conversation to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. It seems to me that when I was a child in the 70's, every single time the telephone rang, an adult in the house would answer it, even if they had guests. They seemed unable to disconnect themselves even for a few hours.
Back then most people (with the exception of teenagers) didn't spend hours talking to each other for no purpose. You used to ring people up for a reason, so it was almost always worth answering the phone. You didn't really get unsolicited sales calls either, as far as I remember.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because its not really prejudice at all when there's some truth in the 'prejudicial' statement. It's just that the term is misused by people as a passive aggressive label to deflate legitimacy of truth they don't like. A lot of kids today ARE androgynistic and flighty. They have no spine and no balls. They don't stand up for themselves because their parents and society have taught them that the opposite is what's acceptable. Not hurting feelings is more important than understanding/acting on the truth o
Re: (Score:2)
That's from all the Prozac, Vicodin, and other meds their parents have been feeding them all their lives... Mother's little helper.
Here in the UK we don't have (quite) the US prescription drug addiction problems, and the little cunts still act like that.
Re: (Score:2)
If your willful attempt to ignore someone who is telling you something important that affects you, and you choose to ignore it, that's your business. However, when your ignorance affects him negatively, your behavior does become his concern. Grabbing your phone in the MIDDLE of such a conversation is bullshit. You deserve to have it crammed down your throat or up your ass..or at the very least have it smashed on the ground, should the situation be dire enough.. You can't walk around through life (or driv
Re: (Score:2)
The amusing thing is that in twenty years time, you'll be the ones with the rude, ungrateful children bemoaning their lack of manners and saying how much better the music was back when you had Lady Gaga and PSY, and how the modern internet isn't as good as 4chan..
It's apparently true... (Score:1)
I lost my attention span with the "Page Not Found".
Maybe a link check is in order?
So the news is... (Score:5, Insightful)
there may or may not be a problem. Please update us every hour. Thanks.
Or just actually play with your kids (Score:2)
Instead of parking them in front of your TV or your smartphone & Netflix, why not interact with them? Read them a story? Make pictures with glue and macaroni? DO SOMETHING.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there an app for that?
Re:Or just actually play with your kids (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so sure (Score:4, Insightful)
The only time my son seems to focus is when he is in minecraft and that is because he likes minecraft.
Re: (Score:2)
I could mod you up, but I think posting a "heck yeah" is better.
Heck yeah!
My daughter loves minecraft. I love that she loves minecraft. She's learning to memorize and mentally navigate a 3d environment. She's learning how to deconstruct tasks into subtasks and gather the resources necessary to accomplish those subtasks. She's constructing virtual houses. She just turned five.
So we've been playing minecraft on ipads. The PC version is more complex, and she just discovered that, so now she wants a lapto
Re: (Score:2)
Just take care as she gets older. Minecraft has a chat feature which will expose the kids to all sorts of language as soon as they visit a public server. I run a private server and initially it was open. My son (ten years old) invited his friends then friends of friends, their older brothers... It turned into Lord Of The Flies at an exponential rate. So now we whitelist it. My son asked me casually if he could whitelist users if they spoke to him on skype first. I said when did you get skype? He says oh I m
Re: (Score:2)
The only time my son seems to focus is when he is in minecraft and that is because he likes minecraft.
Unfortunately, you can't design education around just giving kids what they like.
I know slashdotters will all have kids who are programming games, writing chamber music and publishing e-books by the time they're 6, but in the rest of reality you'd just end up with a generation of kids watching Disney teen sit-coms with canned laughter and bolted-on merchandising opportunities, and playing shitty K-Pop videos unironically on YouTube.
Bollocks (Score:5, Funny)
I use technology the whole time and my attention span is
Re: (Score:3)
Or it could be the exact opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
Constant technology? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or medication? I would blame the drug pushing pharmaceutical companies selling promises that the kid will behave if he just takes a pill...
Sounds familiar (Score:3)
I remember reading similar concerns when PBS came out with a radical new TV program called "Sesame Street." ;^)
It is much easier asking these questions than doing actual research and coming up with some answers. I think a lot depends on what they are doing with technology: if they are reading and learning or just goofing around and wasting time.
I taught college classes for a number of years. Eventually, it became very common for students to bring their laptops with them to class. Some of them followed my lecture notes and tried sample problems. Others read email, web sites, or played games with the sound turned off. As long as they weren't disruptive, I didn't try to stop them.
Of course, K-12 is very different than college, but when I was in high school, I carried a book with me to read when a class got boring. These days I carry several books on my phone in case I get some extra time. My grades were pretty good, so I didn't seem to suffer from not paying attention.
Essentially, the question seems to be: "Does the teacher have to keep the students entertained?" Perhaps it should be phrased: "Does the teacher have to keep the students involved?" Teachers that drone on endlessly, sometimes reading their lecture notes, will have problems. Those that interact with their students and have activities that involve the students will do much better. As always, anything that changes the current situation is suspect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder what those same people think about Shakespear's witches, why the lack of petitions to ban the Bard?
They probably have never read anything by Shakespeare, and just assume he's some safe Dead Guy.
Re: (Score:3)
Television! That's what started the whole thing. Kids don't sit around reading books any more.
And the phonograph! Families don't sit around the piano singing songs any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Critical thinking? Let's try critical thinking. (Score:2)
Has anything else changed at the same time that might affect students?
Do the changes, if any, hurt or help their ability to learn in our current environment of constant torrents of information?
There's a claim about "ability to persevere in the face of challenging tasks". Do electronic games present challenging tasks that require perseverance? (Sorry, rhetorical question).
Kids not doing homework or paying attention?!?! (Score:3)
too busy... (Score:3)
It has certainly hampered my ability to take out the garbage or rake leaves in the backyard, as my wife will gladly tell you.
SO? (Score:3)
So does sitting in a near silent classroom listening to a teacher drone on and on and on, with little or no regard to if anyone is paying attention for hours a day, most of the year, 12+ years in a row.
Re: (Score:3)
I sat in an 'interactive' classroom for five year olds. Basically a 'smartboard' which was a projector and touchscreen.
When it was 'story time', the teacher presented the story similarly to any Powerpoint presentation. Except after every page, rather than moving on, the children would have to approach the board and 'find' various elements, singing birds, growing flowers etc.
I was thinking that the kids in China could have read six books in the time it took this class to get through one. It was totally uncle
Re: (Score:2)
So does sitting in a near silent classroom listening to a teacher drone on and on and on, with little or no regard to if anyone is paying attention for hours a day, most of the year, 12+ years in a row.
You had bad teachers, which is a shame.. The solution is to employ good teachers, not just to say "fuck it, go and watch YouTube for six hours a day instead".
Re: (Score:2)
well if its that simple...
Article (Score:3)
It worse than that . . . (Score:2)
Same Old Same Old (Score:2)
I'm sure they said the same thing about the technology miracle of post-WW2 that would revolutionize eductaion: the overhead projector.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they said the same thing about the technology miracle of post-WW2 that would revolutionize eductaion: the overhead projector.
Growing up as a kid in the UK in the 60s/70s I never saw an overhead projector (or computer) til I got to University.
ADHD (Score:2)
No wonder too many people have been misdiagnosed with ADHD. Maybe ADHD is not a bad thing after all.
In fact, in highly dynamic environments, such as Wall Street traders, having hyperactivity actually helps, couple with the use of anti-depressants and crack cocaine, (Yes, there are major drug abuse problems in the heart of the American economy.)
Re:paywalled (Score:5, Informative)
Re:paywalled (Score:5, Funny)
awesome link.
Don't worry, in ten seconds, you'll click to a link to a completely different topic that will catch your eye and you'll forget this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
your computer should already be on. Will you never learn?
Re: (Score:2)
When I wanted to apply information, I had to actually learn it, because there wasnt a browser in front of me to go get the information the instant I needed it. These days I can apply information without learning it.... I just need to cut, paste, and reformat it.
Re: (Score:2)
These days I can apply information without learning it.... I just need to cut, paste, and reformat it.
That seems to be what they teach kids in school now. They are utterly wrong. The internet has a vast amount of data, but you certainly can't assume it's all of equal information value.
Re: (Score:2)
I learned problem solving from working with computers.
There is a big difference between assembling your own computer or coding your own software and sitting looking at YouTube, although technically they're all "working with computers".
Re: (Score:2)
Constant technology use makes my brain produces a level of gamma waves -- those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory, or vagina -- never before reported in neuroscience!
That attempted new meme's a bit long to remember for kids today.