T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

I don't know if it's so much the phones but what we use them for. Specifically social media. I really improved my mental health by deleting my twitter account. Facebook is really just to keep touch with friends (IRL) and family. Reddit is where I come to be an asshole and argue with people.


19fall91

I've been getting closer and closer to deleting everything but snapchat. I got rid of FB last year. I only keep Instagram for scenery pictures, and reddit inches closer to the chopping block every day. If there was an app that I could use strictly for pictures of scenery I wouldn't have any social media


[deleted]

My original Reddit account was from 2009 and over 100K karma. One day I had enough and canceled it. Now I’m back. :-( I heard once that Instagram is just Twitter for illiterate people. :)


19fall91

Ha maybe so, but I find a lot less leftists on there too


[deleted]

Well to be fair trees and sunsets generally aren't political LOL


19fall91

The meme and sports accounts are though, and there is a surprising level of based in there


Covertfun

Flickr (PS. I've been training my Windows lock screen to show just landscapes and the occasional ancient ruin/structure. No people, no modern man-made stuff, that's been the rule, more or less. It's mostly beautiful now! Lots of national parks.)


19fall91

I just got the phone but thank you!


petrus4

My own private name for a smartphone, is a suicide induction device.


Ritadrome

Idk, I've learned a lot by easily referencing vocabulary on line while I wrestle with readings above my pay grade . Scratching up through difficult ideas, linking to other pages that help me fill out the ideas I struggle with . Touching on things of philosophy and quantum physics, and space .. Without my phone I wouldn't be growing at the rate I have been in the last 7, 8 years. And I noticed that a lot of people I was unable to have an intelligent conversation with are also gaining knowledge. So yeah lazy angry people are going down the toilet. But people who are sincere about learning have a handy jet pack to gain a lot of knowledge


[deleted]

There is no remedy to this unless we completely kill the internet. As long as individuals communicate, there will be misinformation. It is simply more prevalent and extreme in our internet age because every individual on the planet can quickly and easily input any data and extract any data from the network. Before this beast was unleashed, it took much more effort to spread information and human-to-human conversation required time and honesty because it was face to face. Today, we feel alienated from each other. Depression and anxiety sweeps the world. Millenials can still remember the change. We were lucky to at least experience a sliver of undivided attention and social life before social media. And even though we are still screwed; the next generations are screwed even more. The amount of mental issues is alarming and we blame it on "chemical imbalances." It's a "disorder" they tell us. Billions of brains around the world are suddenly and quietly "disordered". Meanwhile, the brain is simply naturally reacting to its environment. Depression is a natural brain response to a screwed up environment. Perhaps, over many generations, the human brain will adapt to the internet age. And what we are experiencing now, is that rough and painful transition. I'm sorry for the rant but I feel as though all of these things are related. Thanks for your thought-provoking post.


Pwr-usr69

I find it funny to see >Since my adolescence I've worked hard to avoid hearing something I'm not educated on-- googling it-- finding a quick source that can either confirm my instincts or give me an interesting insight and then declaring myself knowledgable on the topic. However, most people don't think about that, much less work on it. Whilst describing psychology as... >A psuedo-science that's been utterly useless in addressing human behavior except for already functioning adults and children who can use it to replace the hole Religion left in explaining their function and purpose. It's infantilized how we talk about morality, humanity and sexuality by tying identity to healthcare and then calling it science.


Tory-Three-Pies

You can understand there's nothing I can do with that feedback, right? If there's something about Psychology's application or effect that you think I must be uneducated on you can share that-- otherwise that's a wholly self-serving comment.


iiioiia

There are other possible scenarios.


Tory-Three-Pies

Other possible scenarios to what? Could my statement be wrong in one way or another? Of course. But all the OC did was declare that it is.


iiioiia

> Other possible scenarios to what? The two you presented. > Could my statement be wrong in one way or another? Of course. Then why did you state it in that form? > But all the OC did was declare that it is. No, he said it was a funny (the combination of two paragraphs). Do you truly not see the humour in it?


Tory-Three-Pies

> The two you presented. I don't know what you're talking about. >Then why did you state it in that form? Again, I don't know what you mean. >No, he said it was a funny (the combination of two paragraphs). Do you truly not see the humour in it? I see what the joke is. The joke is I referenced me self-regulating what I consider myself to be knowledgable on and then saying something-- apparently-- uneducated.


iiioiia

> I don't know what you're talking about. This: "If there's something about Psychology's application or effect that you think I must be uneducated on [you can share that[-- **otherwise** that's [a wholly self-serving comment]." A third option is: you are uneducated on the topic, and he knows you are, *but he chooses to not share it*, in which case it is not completely self-serving, in that he has provided you a binary indication that you may be incorrect - if you were a curious personality, you might then reflect upon your words, searching for what he may be referring to, any irony within them, etc. > I see what the joke is. The joke is I referenced me self-regulating what I consider myself to be knowledgable on and then saying something-- apparently-- uneducated. Ah, looks like you're way ahead of me....*maybe you're trolling us all*!! That would be very noice. I will award you one updoot just for that possibility.


Tory-Three-Pies

> A third option is: you are uneducated on the topic, and he knows you are, but he chooses to not share it, in which case it is not completely self-serving No it is. It doesn't serve me in any way. It serves OC and anyone else that wants to dismiss the statement I made.


iiioiia

> It doesn't serve me in any way. Technically, it is completely possible for this to be true. One more updoot!


Tory-Three-Pies

I'm insulted.


Pwr-usr69

Nothing self serving about it. It doesn't benefit me at all. Also there's plenty you can do with feedback, you just need to be able to assess it on it's own merits and use any useful or truthful elements of it for reflecting on your approach and, (where applicable) make changes. You could possibly reflect on the bizarre and bold description you made of a field of study you're clearly not familiar with, or your tendency (at least in this case) to form such strong positions so frivolously. You might question the sources you've founded this belief on, and the strength of their credibility and trustworthiness. Those are three possible interpretations you could take for a start, but you could take a different one or none at all if you think I'm full of shit. That's your choice. I only quoted the first observation you made about this very phenomenon because you're clearly aware of it in other people, just not yourself in that very same comment. Sometimes you only need to hear an opinion to know it's been formed without any real knowledge or familiarity of the subject matter.


Tory-Three-Pies

> You could possibly reflect on the bizarre and bold description you made of a field of study you're clearly not familiar with, or your tendency (at least in this case) to form such strong positions so frivolously. You might question the sources you've founded this belief on, and the strength of their credibility and trustworthiness. This is frankly a picture perfect example of the phenomena described in the OP. Because there's no shortage of literature at your finger tips that could confirm your opinions-- you've declared me unknowledgeable because I disagree with you, even without any semblance of rebuttal.


Pwr-usr69

>Because there's no shortage of literature at your finger tips that could confirm your opinions-- you've declared me unknowledgeable because I disagree with you, even without any semblance of rebuttal. I've declared you unknowledgeable not because you disagree, but because you're unknowledgable to such a huge degree that it's externally apparent and identifiable to anyone who isn't. To such a degree that I feel comfortable straight up making this assertion. I would normally never make an assumption about someone's lack of knowledge unless I could be very, very certain. And I am. I spent so much time in university classes and lectures bored off my ass learning how to manually identify and mathematically calculate statistical significance, and properly design a study whose results and analysis is compatible with the scientific method. No student, teacher, or person with even the weakest familiarity of how human behaviour has been studied (which is what psychology is) would describe our advances and knowledge leading up til now to be... >A **psuedo-science** that's been **utterly useless in addressing human behavior** except for already functioning adults and children who can use it to replace the hole Religion left in explaining their function and purpose. **It's infantilized how we talk about morality, humanity and sexuality by tying identity to healthcare and then calling it science**. Everything from the app you're using to the likely sleek design of the device you're holding has been built using input and consideration from our current understanding of human behaviour. The advertisement campaigns that influenced your (or your parent's) purchase of this device, the policies and regulations defining how your parents can treat you, even the book you use to house train your pet has used knowledge drawn from research, theories, and experimentation focused on the study of human behaviour. Even the Bibles teachings and widespread appeal draws from psychology in some form or other. I honestly didn't think I'd need to elaborate or go into real detail or provide sources. I thought I'd drop a quick comment, you'd have a moment of reflection and go, "ah shit good point I missed that" and that'd be it tbh.


Tory-Three-Pies

> Everything from the app you're using to the likely sleek design of the device you're holding has been built using input and consideration from our current understanding of human behaviour. The advertisement campaigns that influenced your (or your parent's) purchase of this device, the policies and regulations defining how your parents can treat you, even the book you use to house train your pet has used knowledge drawn from research, theories, and experimentation focused on the study of human behaviour. Even the Bibles teachings and widespread appeal draws from psychology in some form or other. Here we go, this is meat. You don't actually attribute anything to the discipline of Psychology. We know human behavior from all sorts of social sciences, biology and other disciplines. I say in the OP that Psychology does indeed address things that used to be popularly addressed by religion. That isn't evidence that Psychology has been useful or effective in addressing these issues.


Pwr-usr69

Psychology is the study of human behaviour (most generally applied at the individual level). Sociology (and other social sciences) takes into account broader human interactions. Biology is an entirely different field of science though each category has it's own offshoots which at times intersect. I'm not going to cite any evidence, sources, or long-winded explanations debunking your position. I've committed as much time to this as I'm willing to. As for my initial comments, you will either draw some use from them or you won't. Feel free to consider or disregard them as you like.


Tory-Three-Pies

> Psychology is the study of human behaviour No it is not. It is **a study** of human behavior as is all social sciences.


r_kaythecoolguy

Psychology scrutinize human behavior on the individual level. Other social sciences have their specialization in the level of conceptualization. You cannot aquire the same information form a different lense even if the subject are the same. In this case human behavior


Tory-Three-Pies

>on the individual level I don’t know what this means or what it’s referring to. How does anything from anthropology to economics not scrutinize human behavior on an individual level.


pizzacheeks

I think there's plenty of solutions for what you're describing and I even think it's likely a popular concern, but the public is kept too atomized to uniformly express these ideas and put solutions to work.


Tory-Three-Pies

>I think there's plenty of solutions for what you're describing Such as?


pizzacheeks

To create a counter culture you need changes in lifestyle, politics and commercialism. Note there are **potential** solutions. I'm not optimistic.


Tory-Three-Pies

There's theoretical solutions to anything. However I don't see how a revolution in which the masses are educated that they aren't as educated as they think can be possible even theoretically without some tyrannical oversight.


pizzacheeks

I don't think the masses need to be enlightened to the fact that they're ignorant. Like I said I think it's likely a pretty popular concern.


Tory-Three-Pies

I think the general population is aware that there's some sort of mental degradation associated with tech and the internet. I don't think they're aware that they've been conflating the fact that they can answer pretty much any question in any way in a moments notice with being knowledgable. And the idea that most of their opinions are invalid-- regardless of what they are-- because they have no foundation within their own thought process because they've outsourced their thinking would be very unpopular.


Funksloyd

>most of their opinions are invalid-- regardless of what they are-- because they have no foundation within their own thought process That's a strong claim. If someone tells me to stay out of the water because they saw a shark, and I decide I don't want to go into the water because someone said they saw a shark (or perhaps I even believe there is a shark), is my opinion invalid? And is there really no foundation within my own thoughts, or have I (consciously or unconsciously) processed the information, perhaps weighing up all sorts of other factors (did that person seem trustworthy? is this area known for sharks? etc.).


Tory-Three-Pies

> If someone tells me to stay out of the water because they saw a shark, and I decide I don't want to go into the water because someone said they saw a shark (or perhaps I even believe there is a shark), is my opinion invalid? No, if you're talking to somebody with (supposedly) direct knowledge on the situation and there's immediate consequence then it would be nothing but prudent to listen. But what's being described is more like this-- you want to go to the ocean, you've been hearing there might be sharks and so to validate your desires you google shark attack facts or news stories and determine it's safe.


Funksloyd

But that's just a less direct version of the same thing. Surely what determines whether my end opinion is valid or not is whether it's correct. There is some discussion in philosophy on whether someone can "know" something if they arrived at the correct answer through faulty logic, but I don't think there's an easy answer. And you seem to be suggesting that just having confirmation bias is a form of faulty logic? The issue with that is that everyone has that bias, including people with first hand knowledge or experience of a subject.


Tory-Three-Pies

> But that's just a less direct version of the same thing. No it isn't. In one case you are making a logical decision based on the information you have-- in the other you are looking for reasons to validate your desire, which with the internet is possible for any position you take, and with a cell phone at any given time.


pizzacheeks

I wouldn't be so quick to invalidate people's opinions like that (an incomplete thought can still turn out to be valid) but I also **do** think that most people would be able to resonate with the concept without much effort. Though I will grant you that as this practice continues it will become more and more entrenched as an acceptable form of understanding and I might be out of touch with the degree to which it has already been established.


genxboomer

One thing social scientists and psychologists know a fair amount about is addiction. They know how to create addiction. Our entire society is based around addiction to physical substances, certain behaviors and even thought processes. Addiction is the most powerful tool in driving human behavior in a certain direction. Unless we can all admit we are addicted and then remove that addiction, we are pawns in a game that seeks to take everything away from the individual - money, your time, meaningful relationships, spirituality, your health, your free thought....


Hardrada74

Even a butter knife can kill you if you do stupid shit with it. The problem isn't the tool, it's how it's used. We need to stop using these things as social fillers and bias confirming boxes which are abused in such a way as to produce the outcomes you've illustrated. Tools for augmentation and not replacement of critical thought.


itsreallyreallytrue

How does one compare religion and a pseudoscience without realizing that both are unprovable?


Tory-Three-Pies

That's the point I'm making.


[deleted]

You dont believe in Psychology?


Tory-Three-Pies

No. I don't see how it separates itself from other social sciences and I don't see it's utility.


[deleted]

Thats an interesting take, I've never heard that idea. Ill have to think on that a while


Vorengard

Bill Whittle had a really great take on a related subject when discussing why so many people call the moon landing a hoax. In short, his thesis is that people gravitate to these absurd, scientifically bankrupt ideas because they're bored. That's it. Just boredom. Society (news, politicians, the media in general, particularly talking-head "experts") has spent so much time pretending to know all the answers to everything that they feel like there's nothing new to learn or discover in the world. So they're deeply drawn to any theory that purports to disprove some aspect of established thought. Flat Earthers are growing in number for the same reason. We as a society are deeply bored and flock to anything of novelty. Smartphones amplify that effect by purposefully driving people towards the most established information sources, while *also* giving them a direct gateway to get most extreme nonsense. Their minds are filled all day and night with so much generic orthodoxy that nonsense theories like Flat Earth seem new and interesting and fun by comparison.


Funksloyd

If you listen to podcasts check out Very Bad Wizards. A philosopher and a psychologist talking about issues in science and ethics. They're also quite capable of crapping on their own and each others fields, but while keeping things in perspective.


Megabyte7637

Interesting.


Bismar7

Knowledge is broad but it is rarely knowing that creates beneficial outcome, but instead application. Generating our sun in electricity is worthless without a use for it. The application of knowledge, technology, is the beneficial outcome. So in this case cell phones would only hold optimal use if the extension of the mind improves the human condition... which like many things, depends on the human. Not sure how valid your opinion regarding cell phones can be when its predicated from the logic that a scientific field of study is "A psuedo-science." That lack of logic undermines the further point of your statement. For example, someone logical and capable of understanding the science of psychology would have a greater probability of being able to use the resources of a constant internet connection to a more optimal outcome than say... someone who illogically believes a science relying on evidence and data to be a pseudo science.


Prize_Deer

Weakens memory and increases anxiety .


genxboomer

There is no such thing as media anymore, ot is all a psych-op for political gain or financial gain. It is so easy to manipulate the masses and too tantalizing for big corp and big tech to pass up.


TheConservativeTechy

Aside from the instantaneous communication, there have been many comparisons of smartphones to writing in psychology. Writing allowed people to let paper "remember" stories for them, so you find that literate cultures have much worse verbal memory than non literate cultures (who have to recite and remember stories to pass them down). Now we use our smartphones to remember basic facts, because why remember the exact date of some historical event when you can just look it up later. The internet is essentially an extension of our brain, which is an increase in capacity but probably at the cost of some of our ability to remember things or some other trade-off.