This is the archive of the old Colorless! Go to the new Colorless →

7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making you Miserable (EDIT) (Thread)

http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html

This post is based around the article above, it's a great read and I highly recommend it. It's not too terribly long, it's just an article after all. I won't summarize it here, because I can't convey the point any better.

I do highly agree with his point, our interactions with people are severely lacking. A lot of information is lost with text, especially if the other person lacks writing skill, doesn't speak English naturally, is too lazy to type out entire words, etc. It drives me crazy to not be able to look a person in the eyes if I want to communicate something beyond idle chat. Even voice is a little bit better.

So what do we do with this information? If we seek to improve ourselves as people, a logical step would be to improve our communication. Should we have more Skype chats? Mingle with other communities? Make efforts to just talk to people in the local mall?

EDIT: I suppose the fundamental question is this. Has communication been cheapened? If so, will these new trends in text based conversation have a negative effect on our communication? Will these skills of face-to-face communication remain relevant in the near future? I know that this source is not reliable. However, it provokes thoughts. We could all use a few thoughts in our lives, so give me yours.

A fellow cracked fan? Vivo~

Uhmm... You do know that about 75% of cracked.com's articles are completely bullshitted in order to keep readers interested, right? I wouldn't rely on it as a source of valid info.

True, Cracked is not as reliable as such trusted sources as TheOnion or Wikipedia. However, the article has a very valid point. If you disagree with the article, tell me why.

Cool Story Bro.
That was one of the most personally opinionated articles I have read in a long time. There are no sources or basis for them to help validate this article on because it would be nearly impossible for them to find any type of research that has meagerly insignificant points such as these. Like @Xegis said, most websites like Cracked.com have to compose bullshitted articles that try to appeal to the interest of the reader base so they are able to keep a steady flow of income. Wikipedia and TheOnion are hardly trust-able sources of information either. The use of Wikipedia as a source in academic applications is highly looked down upon in most higher education institutions and those institutions simply will not hesitate to reject/fail your papers because of it.

1) We don't have enough annoying strangers in our lives.
---Yup, and there aren’t enough criminals, pederasts, serial murderers, pedophilic rapists, druggies, gang members, drug cartels, violent assaulters, human traffickers, child slave labor traders, wife beaters, black widows, sexual offenders, bar fights, gun-point robbers, and Michael Jacksons in our lives either.
Didn’t your momma ever tell you to not talk to strangers?
I guess you didn’t listen during that time.

2) We don't have enough annoying friends, either.
-If you even had annoying friends in your life, they serve only one purpose, to annoy the living fuck out of you with their retarded bullshit. People end up discarding or neglecting annoying friends in the end anyways because it is quite hard to imagine going through a decade of one’s life while also persevering through their crap. Here, I’ll fix that shit for you. “#2. We don’t have enough ENTERTAINING friends in our lives because we are either too lazy or socially retarded to go look for them”. Fixed. Life is only as entertaining as you make it out to be. My life is so colorful that when my life is compared to other’s lives, it looks like I was the inspiration for Robot Unicorn Attack. My life is a colorgasm either with or without friends.

3) Texting is a shitty way to communicate.
Only if you use it for shitty purposes. Anything you use for a shitty purpose will always result in a shitty meaning and shitty outcome. I find texting to be a useful form of communication that is an alternative to talking on the phone. Sometimes I would be in the lab or office doing my work when suddenly; I will randomly remember that I forgot to send a note to someone or to notify them of changes. I obviously can’t call and try to whisper the whole phone conversation because looking like an idiot in a lab coat is a huge oxymoron. Type it out really quick while remaining as silent as possible, press send, ?????, and profit. Slip that shit back into my lab coat and back to work. Simple like ABC’s and 123’s.

4) Online company only makes us lonelier.
-Whose fault is this? Obviously, your own damn fault. This topic has been covered so damn much that it is like beating on a dead horse with a 35lb sledgehammer. Even the famous Zimbardo had a seminar about this topic along with the help of various other researchers (which I was lucky enough to attend). Majority of the individuals that seek the company of others in a virtual setting is commonly due to their lack of adequate social skills. When you interact with others in reality, it is easier to be singled out for your lack of intelligence, logical capacity, and such. With this in mind, individuals seek out online communities because these groups are clearly defined and labeled as a particular type of group. The individual will then immerse themselves within a group of interest so that he/she can undergo the process of social proofing with individuals that possess similar interests and levels. What people do not understand is that the more you undergo social proofing with online groups, it will serve as a type of reinforcement towards your own biases which will be a factor that alienates you from society even further (ex; how weeaboos genuinely believe that their vision of what Japan is like is truly what it is like in actual Japan). Society is absolute.

5) We don't get criticized enough.
We all know that I undergo this action daily on an almost biblical proportion enough to drown you all in an epic mass flash-flood of realism. But how do you all react to criticism? Everyone just shrugs them off because they are shoulders deep in their own personal fables, thinking that their way of thinking is utterly superior in comparison to society and everyone else. You good sir, @Vivo, are almost a poster child for this type of behavior. You openly admit to copy-pasting everything that you talk about out of a meager textbook and consider yourself to be a trained expert in absolutely everything that you read but when exposed to individuals that actually work in the fields that you mindlessly blabber about and are told by them that you need to simply smarten up because you are a pseudo-scientific retard, all you do then is try to push your personally-opinionated points in every possible way to try and make it seem like a fact so you can dig yourself out of the huge 20 foot hole you dug yourself in. You don't take any form of criticism well at all.
Who actually keeps count of blatant insults in their lives either? The author obviously cares way too much. Here; fagget, douchebag, asshat. Add 3 more instances of being insulted to your gay-ass glorious chart. Oops, I guess that makes 4.

6) We're victims of the Outrage Machine.
---You are only victims because you make yourself to be. The mass majority of society is sheeple because they are, by choice, unable to face the harsh reality of the world. If they did, they would understand how they are just but a drop of water in the ocean. To truly understand this world and to achieve a level of proficiency in the area of self-actualization, you, as an individual, must always be prepared to shoulder and persevere through the isolation you will be put through and face huge retardation levels that the world displays on a daily basis. People fear the realization of things that may/will render them "smaller" in comparison to everyone else thus they live their lives buried deep in denial and personal fables. It is part of the defense mechanisms of the mind. Majority of individuals when they discover that they are insignificant in the face of others, they undergo something we all popularly refer to as being "butthurt". U Mad Bro?

7) We feel worthless, because we actually are worth less.
---The "Labeling" Theory. This theory states that if an individual is exposed to a particular label over prolonged periods of time, they will begin to live the label because they will psychologically submit to it. For example; if Bob is labeled as a thief by the people around him on a daily basis over a prolonged period of time, Bob will start to believe that he is indeed a thief because that is what others think of him thus he will begin to accept and assume the role of an actual thief.

True, Cracked is not as reliable as such trusted sources as TheOnion or Wikipedia. However, the article has a very valid point. If you disagree with the article, tell me why.

The Onion or Wikipedia

Reliable

http://i.qkme.me/eb6.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DVHi2.jpg

doesn't speak English naturally, is too lazy to type out entire words

Speak french so, or other language é_é it's not my fault if I was born in a country where english is not the main language.

@Asuka I'm not holding your original language against you in any way. However, a person who didn't grow up with the language may miss out on some of the subtle features in favor of semantic meaning.

And to everybody else, that was a joke. Does anybody read the onion even? It's all parody and satire. Wiki also isn't always reliable. Relax, i'm not that dumb.

http://thecolorless.net/uploads/2G9_medium.jpg

Désolé,
C'est la vie, mademoiselle.

@VivoDePyre I don't agree, because I know people, like my father for example, who speaks english better than a native english sometimes. And it's a british who said that to my dad.

@Asuka-chii does prove an easily replicable point against your opinionated reasoning.
I do sound pretty white for an Asian.
English isn't even my first language either.
Hmmmm.....

@Spooky

Oh boy. Alright, let's set a few things. You have never provided a legitimate source for any of your information, with the excuse that "you know it's true". I have no issue with what you believe or where you get your information. However, the hypocrisy of holding me to a standard you fail to meet yourself is unreasonable. I'll try harder to find sources for things, but some I get from lecture material. I also do not claim to be an expert, I'm still in schooling.

With that out of the way, I'll address the article. This is not a study, this is not research. It's an article, something that a human being wrote in response to a thought he had. I happen to agree with the opinion that communication has been greatly diminished by the implementation of new technology and the preference of many to interact using the internet, as opposed to more personal means.

Take for instance body language. Unless you movies of you saying your point, this element is completely removed. After you leave the simple nerves (V1) in the eye and travel into the V2 area, you start to pick out certain patterns automatically, anywhere from simple geometric shapes to facial expressions. (175-176, Kalat) A study by William Condon showed that people can recognize the most brief of expressions and react to them, an ability called Interactional Syncrony. Without even knowing it consciously, we react to each other's body language.

Tone and inflection is a learned, you aren't born with it. Similarly, all people are born with a pruning reflex, a process in which unneeded neurons are destroyed and the useful connections are protected. This is determined by usage of that neuron. It's crucial that a child learns a language early on or that they are exposed to one. If they don't, their ability to learn language will be greatly diminished. However, this pruning process does not end until about 24, at which point inactivity can lead to more dangerous, naturally occuring cell death. (Pruning uses apoptosis, it prevents swelling and inflamation) (130 Kalat)

So, if you choose not to use those pathways and neurons that are responsible for body language recognition and verbal language, it stands to reason that you capability for it will diminish. This is not to say that you'll sound like a retard if you play WoW often, but I do believe that there will be a significant drop.

To finish this up, I don't feel that text based chat is enough to maintain proper functioning. Before long, with an increased reliance on technology and less personal interactions, we may lose a vital tool for communication. It won't be in the next month or year. However, I really feel like the youth in general could benefit from spending more time face to face.

I'll get to the annoying people part in a bit. Break first. The ball is in your court for this section I've addressed.

Kalat - Biological Psychology 10th edition
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Literacy/whatresearchCondon.asp
Elizabeth D. Hutchison - Dimensions of Human Behavior: The changing life course

@Asuka - Fair enough. Some people have a natural affinity for language. I'm not trying to say that a person who doesn't speak English as a first language cannot do the things a native English speaker can. I simply mean that you can use non verbal cues to interact in person, assuming a person cannot speak the language fluently. Not being a native speaker can be a reason for poor text based communication, but it doesn't mean all non-native speakers have bad poor text based communication.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I've owned the 8th, 9th, and 10th edition of that exact same textbook. If you wanna be childish to the point of looking like a whiny little butthurt bitch, I can do it the 4chan way and give you a picture of the same book with my name and a time-stamp on it too. Whoop de fuckin doo. I've even seen Zimbardo joke about these textbooks once at one of his events because they put nice little off-spins on what he actually did. Reliable sources of information comes from the original sources themselves. When you write a research or thesis paper for a reputable higher education institution, they only want to see original sources in your bibliography or else you will be severely marked down (textbooks do not count either). Anyone with an IQ of 50 and over can copy and paste shit out of a textbook, we have a word for it called "plagarism". The ability to understand the basic vanilla concepts put forth by the textbook and applying them toward a practical situation in order to obtain viable information from conducting actual unbiased experimentation that can never be covered in the textbook is the name of the game.
And thanks for proving my point that you copy out of a textbook.
You've made it much easier for me by taking it so personally on a scale of epic butthurt proportions. Also, someone told me that you were 17 too. Nice falsified claim of being a Uni student at UOL you made there but then again, what kind of university student actually copies directly from the book?

Going by your logic, I can also bring out a particular book, copy half of the material straight from it, and compose a nice thesis paper on how you intrinsically want to fuck your own mother and kill your own father due to deep subconscious desires.
As Borat would say, "Very Nice!".

http://i.imgur.com/6mLL6.gif

Citations != copying

Proven studies = facts

Stating facts is the basis of debate.

Thus, Spooky, I deem thee to either be trying to spark a dispute, with falsified information/opinion, or just plain dumb.

I hope for the first.

I'm 18, 19 in a day actually. I've finished one year of college at University of Louisville. I will admit, it isn't much.

However, I didn't copy from the textbook. I verified my information with sources, something you clearly have no ability for. Just keep saying you know Zimerman, and that he did studies in neuroscience and developmental psychology. Most of his studies focused on interaction and social constructions. And if he did other stuff, I really don't care. Provide me with a source that he has specialty in these fields and that his opinion is better than accepted studies and research. The burden of proof falls on you, because you have discredited my source with your imaginary source. If you can't do that, congratulations on effectively losing and proving yourself to have no ground to stand on.

@Acostoss
Not when you are participating in research projects yourself.
As time moves forward, just as people change, society also changes thus various factors begin to shift. We may accept certain proven studies as fact but logically if you attempt to replicate some of those studies in today's society, the results will not come out to be the same. Everything eventually becomes obsolete. Society is dynamic thus ever-changing and so is science since it moves along with society. During the days of industrialization, we believed child labor to be completely acceptable by social standards. How about today?

Mine:

Even the famous Zimbardo had a seminar about this topic along with the help of various other researchers (which I was lucky enough to attend).

Mine:

I've even seen Zimbardo joke about these textbooks once at one of his events because they put nice little off-spins on what he actually did.

Yours:

Just keep saying you know Zimerman , and that he did studies in neuroscience and developmental psychology.

Wait, Wdf?
Zimmerman =/= Zimbardo.

...Wow.
Epic Fail.

@Spooky

yes, they do, but if it is accepted as fact, today, as child labor is accepted to be wrong, today, then you ought to agree that it is reasonable basis upon which to make a claim, correct?

You are on the old site. New site is here:

The site has been updated on the 24th December 2011. Please go there when you are finished with the archives.

  • 481,435 posts
  • 2,075 threads
  • 23,121 users