Gadgets Have Taken Over For Our Brains 311
skotte writes "According to a Trinity College survey released Friday, the boom in mobiles and portable devices that store reams of personal information has created a generation incapable of memorizing simple things. In effect, the study argues, these devices have replaced our long-term memory capabilities. 'As many as a third of those surveyed under the age of 30 were unable to recall their home telephone number without resorting to their mobile phones or to notes. When it came to remembering important dates such as the birthdays of close family relatives, 87 per cent of those over the age of 50 could remember the details, compared with 40 per cent of those under the age of 30.'"
Values? Importance? Experimental control? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I know something is recorded somewhere else, I am less likely to remember it - why try to remember something that is easy to find?
No, I haven't rtfa, but what controls are in place to separate the conclusion of 'kids these days don't remember stuff good' and 'kids these days have different priorities'?
I think it's somehing more simple than gadgets (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Einstein couldn't tell you how many feet in a m (Score:5, Interesting)
Extra 20 years to remember repeated event. duh!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow you mean the extra 20 years of repeating the same birthday dates helped them remember them, duh no surprises there really.
We choose what to memorize... (Score:4, Interesting)
Papyrus Have Taken Over For Our Brains (Score:2, Interesting)
(Our brains adapt to make the most efficient use of our tools. Who would have thought?)
The real issue is being avoided.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Those who would decry technology focus too much on (relatively) meaningless data: "these people who have no desire to remember X do not remember X, whereas in the past, we needed to remember X and we did!" and its ilk.
Those who would defend technology spend their time pointing out the obvious flaws in that argument.
Both sides ignore the important question: will this affect us in other ways?
There are many things I do not NEED to do, but I do them because they benefit me in other ways. I do not NEED to be able to run a mile, or perform pushups, or solve Rubik's Cube or a Crossword. However, I do them because in doing so, I prepare myself for things to come.
Likewise, many everyday activities benefit us in similar ways: kids don't walk to school anymore, but the argument "they don't have to, since we have cars" doesn't hold up - walking has benefits beyond getting us somewhere.
The question is, then, whether our memories ARE getting worse. Certainly we depend less on them for certain types of data. Whether we are replacing this practise with other forms of mental exercise is a more complicated issue: is our use of the cellphone and computer to recall this stuff good practice for using tech down the line? I'll bet those people who can't remember their phone number would score better than the oldies in a 'technology competency' test, on average.
In other words, the issue is, as usual, far more complicated than TFA would have you believe. The data they've used to draw their conclusion is LAUGHABLE, yes, but that doesn't mean their claim is false.
Asimov wrote about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Levels of storage (Score:2, Interesting)
-1613, London
Biased statistics (Score:2, Interesting)
The home telephone number is nowhere near as important any more, simply because everybody has their own cellphone. I know I hardly ever use my landline, so of course it's going to be harder to remember the number.
"When it came to remembering important dates such as the birthdays of close family relatives, 87 per cent of those over the age of 50 could remember the details, compared with 40 per cent of those under the age of 30.'"
Those over the age of 50 have had at least 20 years longer to burn it into their memory
Re:I was going to comment on that article... (Score:2, Interesting)
GPS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:and this is a bad thing?? (Score:2, Interesting)
I can accept that relying on your gadgets for this data may not be a bad thing, if someone can enumerate the advances each person can make by not having to remember it.
Until then, I'm of the camp that it's not the import of the data that matters, but rather the act of using your mind to remember it.
Re:Sad.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Walkable communities, particularly those with decentralized mixed-use zoning, *are* associated with all sorts of social benefits, from lower incidence of several chronic diseases to higher rankings on self-reported happiness surveys. And, personal autos do contribute to a bunch of social problems: global warming, the geopolitical struggle for access to oil reserves, and personal injuries.
So, yeah, actually - it's sad that most of us use a car to drive to town. We'd be better off walking like they did in the old days.
But, not *because* they did it in the old days. On that point, I agree with you completely.
The problem isn't that people don't remember their friends' birthdays. The problem is that the article is using an obsolete and artificially restrictive definition of "remember."
A more appropriate question is, "are you able to access or be reminded of your friend's birthday whenever it would be useful?" When the date is bit of ink on page 73 of an address book, the only way you're likely to remember to say "happy birthday" is by lugging around redundant copies of that information in your brain. But, when the date is a entry in a calendar application (with appropriate backups), then by any functional definition, it has already been remembered. No need to bother saving another copy in your head.
Re:In other news..... (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe they will eventually also discover that not using the legs leads to fatness.
Re:err obvious point (Score:3, Interesting)
What really matters is how well you can tie together bits and pieces of knowledge. A good memory just lets you access more bits more quickly than having to look things up.
A lot of folks think you shouldn't waste time memorizing things when you can always look things up. However, if you memorize nothing, then you have no foundation on which to build new knowledge. I teach an advanced middle school math program which mixes rote and synthesis because I believe both skills are crucial.
I can teach my students to memorize things without too much difficulty - it's a natural skill for most children. Especially if they're pre-pubescent. About 1/10 of class time is spent on recitation. What's very, very hard to teach is to get them to tie the little things they've memorized together into something they never knew.
Umberto Eco says no (Score:3, Interesting)
Let us start with an Egyptian story, even though one told by a Greek. According to Plato in Phaedrus when Hermes, or Theut, the alleged inventor of writing, presented his invention to the Pharaoh Thamus, the Pharaoh praised such an unheard of technique supposed to allow human beings to remember what they would otherwise forget. But Thamus was not completely happy. "My skillful Theut," he said, "memory is a great gift that ought to be kept alive by continuous training. With your invention people will no longer be obliged to train their memory. They will remember things not because of an internal effort, but by mere virtue of an external device."
Yep. Even Plato was discussing such issues, with regards to the invention of writing. We'll lose some skills which are less important, and replace them with others. That's how it goes.