Cane Thumping

[YourGrandpa]

Hey ding dong, you keep arguing in absolutes. Do you understand that?

I NEVER said EVERYONE was affected the same way by the internet/social media. Not EVERYONE is having a positive experience (NONE of you can prove that). I am saying that there are a lot of people (increasingly more present in younger generations) that are being negatively affected by the lack of physical human interaction.

You do understand that "mingling" via social media is EXTREMELY different than actually having a face to face conversation, right?

[Eraser]

Hey ding dong, you keep arguing in absolutes

There is a generation of people with that mindset.

It's generational.

The young people today are far worse, sorry.

[Κracus]

Eraser, do you have kids? If so, how old?

I have a teenager and I can tell you there is a distinct difference in the way kids/teens socialize now compared to as recent as 10 years ago. They don't want to go out and hang with their friends. They don't want drivers licenses and the associated freedoms. They don't want a job to earn their own money. They are happy being lost in their telephones, Netflix or gaming console. They'd rather "Snap" photos and text over actual conversations. It's this kind of self segregation that is rendering our youth incapable of dealing with challenges or even thinking they have to.

The young people today are far worse, sorry.

Seems like that's exactly what you're saying Gwamps, so which is it? First it was all young people can't deal with it then it was not everyone etc...

Like I said, it isn't technology that's the problem, it's the people. You are clearly blaming phones, netflix and gaming consoles in that quote but not the parents or education which is where I think the problem lies.

[YourGrandpa]

Hey ding dong, you keep arguing in absolutes

There is a generation of people with that mindset.

It's generational.

The young people today are far worse, sorry.

generation of people = some people in that generation
generational = some people in that generation
young people = some young people

Never once did I say the entire generation or all young people. That is statistically impossible and shouldn't need additional qualification. However, the adverse argument has been completely dismissive and descriptively absolute.

[Κracus]

So how do you know, SOME, people are being affected negatively? How do you know that there's any more than before phones, netflix and video games?

[Eraser]

Come on now Gramps, you're just doing semantic nitpicking here and you know it. But I can play that game too. When I said "an entire generation" I obviously referred to the traits that defined a generation. Not each and every individual that made that generation.

But so far you're doing a nice sidestep to avoid the discussion at hand. You still claim there's an obvious change in social skills in youth but fail to provide any substantian, non-subjective proof for it.

[YourGrandpa]

Seems like that's exactly what you're saying Gwamps, so which is it? First it was all young people can't deal with it then it was not everyone etc...

Like I said, it isn't technology that's the problem, it's the people. You are clearly blaming phones, netflix and gaming consoles in that quote but not the parents or education which is where I think the problem lies.

I guess it "seems" that way because you need your hand held though a conversation. You clearly don't understand that generalizations can't possibly apply to everyone and need that clarified in every discussion. You're also having a difficult time understanding that I'm saying smart phones, netflix and gaming consoles are contributing factors and not completely responsible.

I'm sorry you're having such a tough time.

[YourGrandpa]

So how do you know, SOME, people are being affected negatively? How do you know that there's any more than before phones, netflix and video games?

And you know otherwise, how?

[YourGrandpa]

Come on now Gramps, you're just doing semantic nitpicking here and you know it. But I can play that game too. When I said "an entire generation" I obviously referred to the traits that defined a generation. Not each and every individual that made that generation.

But so far you're doing a nice sidestep to avoid the discussion at hand. You still claim there's an obvious change in social skills in youth but fail to provide any substantian, non-subjective proof for it.

It's not semantics or side steps. I'm offering a generalized opinion on a social problem that I've personally witnessed and what I believe is the cause. So it is happening. Your argument has been completely dismissive and has come with zero "proof" as well. So who's wrong here? I'm going to say no one.

[Κracus]

So how do you know, SOME, people are being affected negatively? How do you know that there's any more than before phones, netflix and video games?

And you know otherwise, how?

That's some pretty sketchy logic there bud. Might as well try proving god doesn't exist rather than trying to prove he does but I reckon you probably think that's a great argument.

[YourGrandpa]

But I've never seen god and I have seen examples of the social issues I've mentioned. So your analogy is ridiculous.

[Eraser]

It's not semantics or side steps. I'm offering a generalized opinion on a social problem that I've personally witnessed and what I believe is the cause.

Yes. You're offering a generalized opinion on a social problem that you've personally witnessed in your own social circles and you've come up with a cause for that. Sure. You are entitled to your own opinions based on your own observations and again, I'm not disputing that.
However, I've included three quotes in a post above where you clearly talk about a "generation" and "young people" in general. I refuse to go along with you there, because your own personal observations of your own social circles cannot be applied to a bigger group of people just like that. To spell it out clearly: just because thing X happens in your life doesn't mean that thing X happens in everyone's life.

Your argument has been completely dismissive and has come with zero "proof" as well.

Of course it is. I'm not here to make some kind of point about anyone or anything. You took that ball and planted it firmly in your own court. You are the one making claims about social problems and their supposed cause, not me. I just ask you to back up your claims with proof, but so far, you have failed to provide any. It's kind of weird that you think it's normal for someone to make some claim about something without backing it up with proof and then demanding proof from people who are critical of your claims. It just doesn't work that way gramps. Even you must somehow understand that.

So who's wrong here? I'm going to say no one.

Without providing adequate proof, I'd say we're both wrong at best.


Oh, just curious, have you given that Rembrandt pic any thought yet?

[YourGrandpa]

Both wrong or right is subjective. Whichever way works for you.

Yes. On the surface it appears to show that kids are choosing technology over culture/history/art. However, they could all be on a museum app getting additional information about the picture. It really doesn't offer much to support or negate my point.

[Eraser]

Yes. On the surface it appears to show that kids are choosing technology over culture/history/art. However, they could all be on a museum app getting additional information about the picture. It really doesn't offer much to support or negate my point.

You are more observant than I had given you credit for.

Why I posted the pic is because it went viral all over the Internet, mostly by people using it as proof to show that, yes indeed, children are uncultured barbarians who are more vested in their virtual phone world than the real world around them.
Truth is, as you guessed, they were using a museum app to read more about Rembrandt's painting after having studied it and listen to what the tour guide said about it.

The thing is, observations are clouded by bias. Many people saw this picture, and through their bias actually reinforced that bias, thinking that their idea of the world is correct.

Now, don't take this the wrong way, but this is true for you, me and everyone else. Chances are that kids aren't being spoiled by technology and Internet nearly as badly as you think because through your bias and that self-confirming feedback loop, in your head, the problem grew bigger than it really is. Maybe I'm making the problem smaller than it is. But before I can sensibly work on decreasing my bias and opinions, I need more substantial proof than someone saying "this is what I see, so therefore it is true".

And yes, since you are the one making (pretty negative) claims about today's youth, the burden of proof is yours.

[YourGrandpa]

I don't think I have a bias toward technology. I can recognize it's befits and I am not for banning/restricting it in any way. But I can also recognize the negative aspects. Quantifying those negative aspects seems to be the hang-up here. For some reason you don't seem to want to recognize those negative aspects. However, I believe they are very noticeable and becoming increasingly prevalent. This isn't something in my head. It's something you can see every time you go out in public.

[Κracus]

I don't think anyone has a problem with that when you're not generalizing. It's when you throw out terms like generations and young people etc... That's the problem. Also, insulting the people that are just discussing something with you doesn't help either.

[Eraser]

I don't think I have a bias toward technology.

Oh! Of course you don't! Should've known! How stupid of me. Here he is, Mr goddamn voice of reason himself.

[YourGrandpa]

Please help me understand my technology bias, while continuing to disregard it's short coming, oh exalted purveyor of self righteousness.

[YourGrandpa]

I don't think anyone has a problem with that when you're not generalizing. It's when you throw out terms like generations and young people etc... That's the problem. Also, insulting the people that are just discussing something with you doesn't help either.

Sometimes grown-ups generalize when they speak. It's up to other grown-ups to understand that and not assume ultimatums unless specifically stated. And insulting people here is something that happens on the norm. It's a you get what you give reaction to conversation.

[Transient]

That was easy.

Kearney and the research team set up two studies, one long-term and one short-term, to test the theory. The first study, which followed the social media use of individuals from 2009 to 2011, found that change in social media use was not associated with changes in direct social contact. In addition, the participants' feelings of social well-being actually increased.

[YourGrandpa]

Was it?

[Transient]

Did you even bother to read the article you linked? Because nothing in it actually backs up the claims you made that I disagree with. There's nothing about increased crime rates, there's nothing about confirmation bias, and there's nothing about entitlement. Of the dozen sources cited, half are irrelevant to the conversation at hand, 2 are opinion pieces with no sources, and 4 are broken links.

The whole point of my post was that it's easy to search Google for articles that support a disputed position. But you couldn't even do that.

[YourGrandpa]

Yes it is easy to search for articles to dispute your/any position. Why don't you waste some more of you own time doing so. There are loads. But you should calm down a little first. You seem upset.

[Transient]

You're the one who asked for stats. I provided them. Now you say it's a waste of time to do so. Convenient.

You're trying to devalue my position by saying I'm upset for posting so much, even though half of the posts in this 4-page thread are yours. You call people idiots, dismiss our opinions out of hand, you say we're naïve, all while hiding behind a "have a nice day" or a "cheers" in a desperate attempt to convince us that you're not getting worked up. Your posting style hasn't changed in years, and it's wonderfully transparent. U mad bro?

I'll give you credit, though. Q3W hasn't been this active in weeks.

[YourGrandpa]

Eraser is the one who asked for stats. Any reference I've made has been a sarcastic response, not general interest.

Saying you're upset isn't a diversionary tactic or an attempt to diminish your position. You've clearly demonstrated that by the investment you've made... Let me explain.

#1 You initiated the search for stats to challenge the integrity of a conversation that is largely based on opinion. Mind you, the adverse opinion isn't unfounded. But you felt you needed the upper hand in this discussion and the stats would help you "win".

#2 You asked if I read the entire article I linked (which you clearly dissected). My answer is, I skimmed it. Being I'm not really concerned with your point of view or this discussion, I simply google the opposite phrasing of the article you posted. (BTW, I only skimmed your article as well). Then I posted the link to show there is an opposing view.

#3. Not only have you read the articles, you've followed all of the links and sourced the information. All in an effort to "win" an opinion based discussion on the internet. Ur not mad bro?

Now, I know your next move is to say I'm trying to minimize my involvement in this discussion or the discussion itself. Truthfully, I'm not that invested. I have a valid opinion that I've expressed and you disagree. I've got no issue with that. I'm also completely fine with continuing to jerk you around for another 12 pages (I've got a lot of down time at work lately) because it sadistically fun. But you need to calm down before you wind up with another one of my quotes in your sig for the next 10 years.

Cheers.