It’s a bit strange to think about, but our brains seem to have adapted to information accessibility today by more readily remembering how to find the information instead of the information itself. (See Betsy Sparrow et al)
Hmm interesting. But it means I don’t have a magical “damn it I forgot, let me google it” option. If I lived in that time, I’d have to write every piece of knowledge I want to remember down on a notebook, so I don’t forget and have to go borrow that same book again.
Or keep a whole bookshelf of knowledge, in which case, that would be taking a lot more space than a wikipedia.zim file + .epubs
count_dongulus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 days ago
If you lived back then, chances are you’d just straight up remember more things without needing to go look them up again. But, you might also just remember what book you found it in.
Its more the second than the first, knowing where to get info:
- Want to know the industrial products of Turkey? Almanac.
- Who said “Give me a lever long enough and I can move the world” Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations book.
- Synonyms for the word “apology”, thesaurus book. Basic history of the Navajo people, Encyclopedia.
- Definition (or spelling!) of “analgesic” - Merriam Webster Dictionary.
- What happened in town on March 3rd 1967 - Microfilm/microfiche at the library
- What model of refrigerator is the most reliable? - Consumer Reports magazine backissues at the library
I have wondered if this is part of the reason why ancient orators were apparently capable of reciting hours of dialog from memory.
I’d be curious for this answer too. However I think this is more of the “benefits of a classical education” which meant that teaching materials were limited, and you may find your entire class for the year is memorizing famous speeches from men that society deemed worthy.
ChaoticCassowary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
keep a whole bookshelf of knowledge
When I was a kid, in the 70’s and 80’s, the shortcut for that was the set of encyclopedias you (hopefully) had on your bookshelf. Wikipedia gets its name from wiki + encyclopedia. And the Encyclopedia Britannica, or whichever one you had, was the go-to when you couldn’t make it to the library.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Hmm interesting. But it means I don’t have a magical “damn it I forgot, let me google it” option.
So true! That is the benefit to today. But keep in mind, no one else would have it either.
If I lived in that time, I’d have to write every piece of knowledge I want to remember down on a notebook, so I don’t forget and have to go borrow that same book again.
Nah, it didn’t really work like that. You had a handful of reference books at home for general knowledge. So when you got home you could crack open your encyclopedia or almanac to answer most basic questions. Like this one:
Here’s the partial table of contents from a much later edition:
For topics/questions that exceeded this, it would be a trip to the library and potentially a conversation with a reference librarian on where to find the detailed info. If you had to order a book from another library it could take days or weeks to get your answer. This required effort is why knowledge was more prized. If you had the knowledge it was a reflection of your effort to get it. Or back in the 80s, those that were self conscious would call you a “nerd” for knowing more than they did as a defense.
Or keep a whole bookshelf of knowledge, in which case, that would be taking a lot more space than a wikipedia.zim file + .epubs
Yes, this is what many did. Yes having much more knowledge at your fingertips is much better.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
You wouldn’t have that issue since you would have developed a better memory without incessant infantilizing technology. Look at how many people still remember their original phone number 40 years later. Look up the study of cab driver gray matter decrease after the GPS era. We are all stupider now thanks to tech, no doubt.
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
We are all stupider now thanks to tech, no doubt.
I respectfully disagree.
I mean, if you mean like for some of my peers that spend their time on shit like “tik tok” all day, that’s obviously making them more stupid. But for the nerds that actually want to know more about the world, Not really.
For example, the Encyclopedia. That’s a very narrow source of information, and subject to the author/publisher’s censorship possibly by government pressure. There is no direct publishing like there is today.
In my birth country, PRC, the Tianamen Square Massacre wouldn’t ever made it into any encyclopedias, but with the internet, at least now there’s better chance of someone using a VPN and accessing the truth. Might not change anything politically, but at least the truth is out there for anyone willing to see it.
The internet-connected world make it harder to censor thing. There are a lot of videos and images of protests during the covid lockdowns that would’ve have a hard time mading it out to the international community without the internet.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Im talking about the majority of humans, the lazy and the simple ones for whom tik tok is their lives. Yes sure, for those who are actually adventurous and interesting, it’s awesome to have this information and power. But most people don’t utililize that at all. They want spoon fed content. People don’t even want to find content. They want it shoved in their faces because they would rather not use their brains for 1 second.
I don’t agree with the making it harder to censor. They don’t have to make it harder to censor because everything is misinformation now, and by using that logic they can say everyone is just lying (except for their side, of course) so it’s right back to square 1. Have you seen how many people think ai slop images are real? I rest my case. Technology enabled the dumbest to become dumber and, more dangerously, confident.
All of this could also just be because it’s Americans im interacting with, and we are definitely the dumbest country.
Azzu@lemm.ee 2 days ago
You’re absolutely right, but the average person does not think like you. Most people don’t ever think about stuff like this.
And so you currently have a very “high-level”, rational view of technology, that makes it amazing specifically for you.
However, you either disregard or lack contact with people that are (vastly) different. When looking at a technology in relation to the world, like you want to know about in this topic, you have to view the effects on those different people from you as well. And what other people in this thread said is simply observable and happening. A very small percentage uses the internet/technology like you do. The overall effect on the population is not solely amazing.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I agree with most of the points you are making, but I think the main point the person you are replying to… their point was that … younger generations simply are not able to remember things they have read, either online, or in a book.
It used to be the case that you could not just pull up literally any information, out of your pocket, on demand.
That knowledge had to exist in your brain.
Historically, it gets even worse.
Many cultures had dedicated members of their society who had memorized an ancient tale that would take one hundred pages to write out on paper.
Of course, they did not remember them 100% accurately each time… but humans do seem to be losing a capability for mass information storage in our own brains as technology enables us to… not need to develop that capability.
The GPS navigation example is maybe easier to grasp: Before everyone had a GPS homing beacon and navigation telling them where to go, how to navigate through a city or country…
People knew how to read road signs. People knew how to read maps. People knew how to avoid high traffic areas and take shortcuts… all on their own.
Now, if you take GPS away from literally those same people, 20 or 30 years later, they would end up lost even in places they’ve lived in for decades.
Acamon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Historically, people did exactly that and collected info in commonplace books.
Growing up back then I owned a lot of books (and borrow vastly more for friends and libraries). I had a couple of bookshelves in my room, but my family home had at least a dozen full sized bookshelfs. So although I didn’t have access to the infinite info of the modern Internet, I read a lot of much more specific non-fiction books. There’s a lot to be said about having a deeper and cohesive understanding of a subject, compared to reading a bunch of wiki articles and watching a few hours of YouTube on a topic (although I enjoy that too!)
Soapbox@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
The “damn it I forgot, let me google it” option, back then, was looking it up in the set of encyclopedias your family probably had. Or if you didn’t have a set, or needed more elaborate information, you went to the library.
I remember it was a big deal as a kid when we got the encyclopedia Britannica on CD-Rom. So I could just type in what I was looking for instead of having to try to find it manually.