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

7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making you Miserable (EDIT) (Thread) - Page 2

So are you giving up by arguing that nobody can know anything truly and that the orthodox changes with time?

If so, why did you even try to bring up facts in the first place? If you can't deliver or bring a real response, just stop talking. If you want to claim an active role in research, how about you give us an overview of the study, what organization or institution it's being conducted through, and why this is relevant to the topic at hand.

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?

Somewhat,
because this train of thinking probably wouldn't apply to other concepts during that general time-frame such as slavery. The North and South both believed that they were correct but had the South won the American Civil War, we would all probably genuinely believe that slavery can be totally justifiable because they were the ones that set-up that basis. As society changes, its mindset does as well and we constantly improve as a species. The trick is to move with the times. I don't think anyone uses a DOS-run Flat-disk Macintosh today to try and play something like Bioshock on it.

Since the glorious @VivoDePyre cannot even tell the difference between Zimmerman and Zimbardo even with the addition of a textbook, this discussion has turned to the point that it is like beating on a dead horse with a stick for several hours hoping that it is alive.

@Spooky, no they do not, but, again, my point stands. If the majority accepts it as fact, it is daft, as a supposed psychologist, to ignore it.

Also ,I have yet to see sources for your claims, despite you asking the same of him. Couple that with the lack of proof for your supposed study, and I would like to deem you the loser.

Oh. Well, I herped on that one. You have more for that, because I could honestly care less who this person is. However, I was wrong. My bad. You still have yet to describe this research you are in or how this person is relevant to the argument. This is 3 posts now that you've avoided actually responding to the argument.

No amount of Social Proofing is going to help turn this around.

@VivoDePyre
If you could care less who they are, that defeats the whole purpose and flips this whole discussion over. To proficiently understand a theory, one's understanding of the theorist is also quite an important factor.
Derping about their names is just an excuse. If you could careless about who they are, how would you be able to even fully understand what they were trying to convey?

Oh. Well, I herped on that one. You have more for that, because I could honestly care less who this person is.

You could careless about Zimbardo?
He is one of the most influential people in the whole field of Psychology alongside Albert Bandura, Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, and Jean Piaget. You will find his name in every book related to Psychology and even those who do not understand Psychology knows his name. He is the leading force behind modern day Psychology along with Albert Bandura. And you call yourself a student of Psychology? Nice job there. If you are this ignorant, quit while you're ahead.

Alright, this really isn't going anywhere. I'm just going to drop it, and ask that you two do the same~

Alright, alright. I suppose I can drop it for now. This really isn't going anywhere, we've derailed entirely from the article after all.

Do you think it's at all possible to continue discussion about the article or should we just forget the entire thread?

Remake, I'd say.

Oh boy... this again? D:

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

I find this article to be false. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to interact with people instead of doing things over ther computer. I have all those annoying people, and deal with them.

The world is my playground, and I'm going to tear shit up.

@Kuru Which is good. I try to interact with people too whenever I can. However, I do spend a lot of time on my computer and I talk a lot with people I already get along with. Sure there are some exceptions and people that get under my skin, but my interactions aren't very diversified. I fear that the, with the advent of the internet, school and work will be the only social interactions we get to have.

So, the question is, could this level of interaction be enough? Will the people we meet in school and our jobs really push us to see beyond ourselves and learn to interact calmly and cool headed? Perhaps it could be that all youth is this poor tempered and awkward, across all generations. I've only been in this one after all.

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?

When I reached that "40% of what you write is misunderstood" part, I loled. Not that I think the guy who writes it is an idiot or anything, but 40% is a lot. Like

X XXXXXX your XXX but it's XXX like you'd XXXX anyway.

this much(I actually counted the letters). In fact, the guy has a talent for keeping readers' attention. That said, the really basic message(people in modern society are losing touch with each-other) is, well, obvious to anyone living in a modern society.

@TokoyamiSenshi True enough. Some of the numbers are ridiculous, and I don't think I would ever cite it as source for anything. The article made me think though, about how much we are losing with each-other. It makes me wonder if there is a problem, or how big the problem is.

Now that I think about it, this conversation might get to the point if I were to just completely abandon this thread and make a new one, without the article. People seem rather hung up on it, so much so that we can't actually have a discussion.

1 . We don't have enough annoying strangers in our lives.

But there are TONS of annoying people on the web... In fact, I think they are the majority. The whole idea that web enables us to escape them is ridiculous. If anything, web is less personal. So thumbs up for the "#5. We don't get criticized enough".

4 . Online company only makes us lonelier.

7% words and 93% non-verbal. I remember a professor once asked us "lift up your right hand and touch the right side of your face". While talking he lifted up his right hand and touched the left side of his face. And we all copied him. That is- we touched the left side of our faces instead of the right one. It's a simple example, but it shows the importance of body language. But I fail to see why online company makes us lonelier. Web offers alternatives such as smiles, acronyms... The words themselves are better selected. So... maybe everything can be balanced out?

@Spooky I don't know you at all so I have no prejudice against you. But man... You really don't offer any sources for your claims. And it would be all good if you would just say that it is your opinion and not a proven fact.

P.S. as Spooky said, this article is heavily opinionated.

Since this is related to communication of human beings, I'd re-quote this quote from my lecturer "7 out of 10 attempts of communication fails" and "The essence of communication is how other interpret the message we send, not the message itself". As Spooky and VivoDePyre and other users claimed, The article is heavily biased thus is hardly claim-able as facts. Thus, I will just state my opinion regarding the article.

From what I have read and interpret from the article, it talks about how Text-Messages decreases the quality of communication. so I will try to state my own view of this matter.

While I find his writing tells and proved that text messages dull the meaning of the message, I have to say that, Text messages are just a tool in delivering the message. The content of message delivered and how the recipient interprets the message is completely depends on the sender and the recipient's ability to compose and sends a message.

On the other hand, I find that text messaging allow some in-confident people to talk more. They also allow people to sends the message uninterrupted by noise. Money-wise, text message cost way more cheaper rather than direct call from cell-phone.

Everything also posses a bad side too.
Indulged purely in text messaging world (MSN Live, Yahoo Messenger, Blackberry Messenger) is also bad for mental development of young people. The reason why young people can be indulged with text messaging is because they are inspired by their idol. Thus slowly become a trends.

All in all, everything in this world should be balanced and used efficiently and proportionally. The usage of text messaging should be balanced with proper amount of direct conversation to other people in person. Although, unless you are a shut-in, even a chatter mania would have an adequate amount of interaction in your everyday's life. let alone normal person.

Text messages usage will keep increasing year to year proportionally to direct communication with other people. Some people, though, may interacts through text-messages more than direct conversation but will never neglect a direct conversation with other people.

"remembers that most of our knowledge comes from books, which is technically also a form of text message"

So I'll be providing a rebuttals to the article's 7 points

1. We don't have enough annoying strangers in our lives.

  • Why would we need even one annoying stranger at all? That what I first thought when I'm reading the sub-title of the article. After I read the whole thing, I concluded that, the essence of the first point is that "people starts growing individualism". I quote from the article "Annoyance is what we build our tolerance from" True, but why would we need to be annoyed if we can avoid it? Also "As long as you have needs, you'll have to deal with people you can't stand from time to time" In this statement, the writer implies that even technology can't prevent you from getting annoyed IRL. so we DO have enough of annoying strangers in our life.

2. We don't have enough annoying friends, either.

  • Why would I befriend someone annoying? That question also flashes in my mind when reading this. The actual argument of the second point is that "we need to train our tolerance against annoying things". Let me point, my experience. Annoying things will always be there, both in real world and even on the internet. I have lot's of annoying friends IRL, and I don't need more on the internet.

3. Texting is a shitty way to communicate.

  • I sense a very biased opinion from the choice of words; and I think I explained about texting in the first 3 paragraphs before this section.

4. Online company only makes us lonelier.

  • True, but I feel lonelier when I'm not online. and it's as Spooky's previous posts. The reason people gathers on internet is because they cannot do well in real world. and that's their damn fault, not the internet.

5. We don't get criticized enough.

  • From what I read, the writer cannot differentiate between insult-jokes and proper critique. A critique, will not only always insult you BUT ALSO provides the reasons Why You Need/Proper to be Insulted whether IRL or over the internet. In this case, wouldn't consulting to stranger over the internet gives us a more objective critique? Take a look at Ask-Spooky Thread. It provides users with answers with almost-unbiased answers. If the answer from the internet is ridiculous then it's either you lacked proper explanation or the answerer is just trolling you.

6. We're victims of the Outrage Machine.

  • As I pointed before, Internet, just like text messaging appliances, is merely a tool gathering the people all over the world together. All the content was made by human, for other human. If you're a victim of shitstorm, you are not the victim of the technology but the user, that is other people. If you're shot by gun, you're not a victim of a gun, but of a mad gun freak.

7. We feel worthless, because we actually are worth less.

  • I agree with Spooky's idea on this one. The labeling theory which reverses the above phrase. We are actually worthless, because we feel worthless. It's the same as this phrase "You already lose the war, when you think you are losing, even if you actually have thousands of advantage".

Thank you for reading.

and please respond my writing if it's proper enough.
(although it's purely made with my opinion without any actual facts or reference to any studies)

My agreement comes in mostly 1 and 3, and to some degree in 5. I really believe that the 'fewer annoying strangers' is an important point because I think tolerance is something that has to be built that way and choosing to just develop so that are no problems like that around and therefore no tolerance just means less human interaction and us being, ironically, less human.

For 3, yeah, I just hate texting - feel people are forgetting how to make small talk and end up texting more than actually talking but, of course, this does not apply to everyone. For the criticism point my view is more that people now feel having a swear word thrown at them means nothing but when they receive actual advice and a critical evaluation feel offended - I believe it should be the other way around so they can actually accept what they have to improve on.

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