And, most young adults don’t sign in cursive anymore, so, aside from terrible handwriting, their printed name isn’t really much different than a typed name.
And, most young adults don’t sign in cursive anymore, so, aside from terrible handwriting, their printed name isn’t really much different than a typed name.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
That seems like a terrible idea. I’m disappointed in humans yet again.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Meh. After hearing years of complaints from old people about how terrible young people are, and working with a lot of young people who are objectively much better people than the old ones that complain about them, I always try to stop to think about why traditions are valuable.
Does writing your words with extra loopy bits that are less legible than print REALLY make you a better person?
Not learning cursive is like not learning Latin. Maybe it was useful at some point, but the only reason to push for it now, is because “That’s how I did it, so it must be the best way, and everyone else is wrong!”
mushroommunk@lemmy.today 4 days ago
On the flip side, there’s validity in doing things just for the aesthetics of it and we sacrifice too much to the ever present drive for efficiency.
Cursive isn’t necessarily the banner we should all really behind for that though handwriting something is still shown as one of the best ways to remember something.
As a fan of fountain pens and handwritten letters it is nice to get one knowing someone put that effort into it.
I dunno where I’m going with any of this. Teachers and schools are underfunded, if kids are fucked it’s our fault don’t blame them, fancy squiggles are fun.
Whooping_Seal@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
I think there’s validity in learning/teaching cursive, if you’re proficient it’s a much faster way of writing. Handwritten notetaking has been shown to be more effective than digital in terms of concept retention (you’re not just regurgitating content verbatim), and cursive can facilitate better notetaking. I’d argue its setting students up for better outcomes in secondary and post-secondary institutions.
Regardless of that I do agree with your view, we should not just continue things for the sake of tradition, young people aren’t “terrible” for forsaking certain traditions. If anything, re-evaluating what we hold as important is a useful exercise, especially when it comes to education.
mushroommunk@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Reading through these comments and I’m just now realizing something; I’ve never gone searching to see data on if cursive actually is faster on average and if so, how much. And does that handwriting improves memory fact apply more to cursive or print writing or equally just because it uses more muscles in general?
I’d imagine it would partially depend on the script chosen, ligature vs looped, Spencerian vs New American vs D’nealian etc for speed but the memory thing I’ve got no guess.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
Wouldn’t shorthand (stenography) be a better solution then?
Cursive was very specifically a solution to quill/fountain pens of old, where you needed to reduce the times the pen touched the paper.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I think both are still useful today, cursive less so. But sure, they’re not indicative of superior moral fibre, which is presumably why you prefer young people to old people.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 4 days ago
To put a finer point on it, it’s not even just “moral fibre”. Sure, higher societal morality is something we should all strive for, but I’m not even asking for that much.
It’s the morally neutral bullshit like handwriting, or reading a novel on your phone instead of on paper, or spending your free time playing video games or watching YouTube/Twitch as opposed to watching Network television. There’s no reason to raise a fuss or dub others inferior for doing things a little different.
snooggums@piefed.world 4 days ago
Sure, some people who practice their signature and do it consistently can have theirs tested for consistency but forgery is a thing. I have never had a consistent signature in five decades which confirms the whole ‘unique signature’ thing is bullshit.
The whole point is just having something that holds up for the legal system, and a lot of bullshit does.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Valid.
Having a robotic copy+paste signature probably only starts being useful if you’re known to have huge amounts of cash in the bank or you’re an artist, or have a troublesome bart simpson-esque kid.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 4 days ago
How’s your cuneiform? Do you know how to use a quill pen? Do you know how to bleach a peace of expensive parchment so that it can be reused?
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Yeaaaaah wtf are you talking about lad. That is an alphabet, i.e of a foreign language, not the act of being able to write my own name in cursive in my native Latin script.
Yes. Why do you not know how to?
I could probably figure out how to bleach a piece of parchment in order to re-use it, but have never had to.
Have a nice day.
cattywampas@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Why? Everyone’s handwriting is different and unique whether it’s cursive or regular script.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Difference is more pronounced in cursive, I strongly believe. I look at a lot of regular script handwriting and it looks the same as another person’s, you’d have to get out a magnifying glass or microscope to see the subtleties.
Now that I say that though I think a lot of handwriting manages to look the same when people strive for the same ideal of neatness.