Thread: Data deluge swamping our brains

Here’s some stuff I found in our local daily paper. I’m too dumb, or too lazy, or too overworked, to put it into my own words but still believe it 100% and would like to hear what you think. Bolding mine.



Source: The Courier-Mail





Data deluge swamping our brains

• by Des Houghton
• From: The Courier-Mail
• June 08, 2011 12:00AM

THE speed of modern life is 2.3 words per second. So says Roger Bohn, from the University of California, San Diego, who reckons we are being bombarded with at least 100,000 words a day; more than a 350-page novel.

Our brains are being swamped with so much data that scientists like Bohn are now measuring information flow in zettabytes. Each one equals a trillion gigabytes.

The new information age is on steroids and I fear it is changing the way I think.

Is the deluge of data turning our brains to mush?

There are implications for the economy, too, with serious cases of business-interruptus.

Magazines as culturally diverse as Wired (hip) and The Economist (conservative) are writing about the health risks of information overload.

Internet addiction disorder is real and now we are warned to expect an epidemic of email apnoea and nomophobia, the fear of being out of mobile phone contact.

Data deluge also leads to poor sleep habits. A US sleep survey released in March found a link between late-night computer and mobile phone use and poor sleep.

The study found the worst offenders were 13 to 18-year-olds who were receiving about an hour and 45 minutes less than the recommended amount of sleep, registering an average of seven hours and 26 minutes a night. Our teens are consumed with iPhones, tweets and social networking.

Boffins hunting for a cure for memory loss at Britain's premier clinical research site say "busy lifestyle syndrome" is to blame for the problem.

Dr Alan Wade, of CPS Research in Scotland, says people are becoming more absent-minded because we're bombarded with a constant stream of data from phones, internet, television and radio.

They are investigating whether this kind of absent-mindedness could be cured with a low dose of an Alzheimer's drug.

There are now more mobile phones on Earth than people.

Executives with BlackBerrys secretly complain they feel they are handcuffed to corporate life in their every waking moment.

Australian-born cultural anthropologist Genevieve Bell believes mobile phone use and instant access to the internet from almost anywhere could be stifling creativity.

"I wonder if it means we don't have enough time to imagine things," Bell told news.com.au.

"I think there's something really powerful about one's own imagination. We do a lot of consuming, but where's the moment where you develop your own point of view?"

Edward Hallowell, a New York psychiatrist specialising in attention deficit disorder, says: "Never before have our brains had to process as much information as they do today.

"We have a generation who I call 'computer suckers' because they are spending so much time in front of a computer screen or on their mobile phone or BlackBerry. They are so busy processing information from all directions they are losing the tendency to think and feel."

And much of the "information" they get is superficial prattle. "People are sacrificing depth and feeling and becoming cut off and disconnected from other people," Hallowell says. According to one survey, 28 per cent of every working day is lost due to information glut.

Worldwide consulting firm McKinsey & Company added a new dimension, last week warning executives of the perils of multitasking.

In its online journal McKinsey Quarterly, it presented various studies showing multitasking as a corporate deceit.

"Always on, multitasking work environments are killing productivity, dampening creativity, and making us unhappy," the article says.

"We tend to believe that by doing several things at the same time we can better handle the information rushing toward us and get more done.

"What's more, multitasking interrupting one task with another can sometimes be fun. Each vibration of our favourite hi-tech email device carries the promise of potential rewards. Checking it may provide a welcome distraction from more difficult and challenging tasks.

"It helps us feel, at least briefly, that we've accomplished something, even if only pruning our email in-boxes. Unfortunately, research indicates the opposite: Multitasking unequivocally damages productivity. It slows us down."

McKinsey says senior executives need time and focus to synthesise lots of information and make good judgments.

The article urges executives to cope by focusing and filtering doing one thing at a time and delegating.

The brain works best focusing on one task at a time.

And it needs a rest. Take breaks to clear your head.

Many people are giving up their right to think and their right to interact, face to face, with other people. They only talk with others through a machine, conforming their thoughts and words to the needs and demands of the machine. It's called 'social networking', but it's causing social disconnect.

Social networking is you, me, and Bob arguing over a pint down the local. Social networking is Pie Sunday at the village library. Social networking is kids playing together, making up games as they go. Social networking is two women gossiping over the back garden fence.

Society is being fragmented because the machine has become the guardian of the words and thoughts of growing numbers of people who have come to believe that pressing buttons on a cell phone, sending and receiving arcane messages in a language formed by machine requirements, not human need, constitutes conversation.

This century will see the greatest ever societal division. There will be three classes of people. The technocrats will design, build, and control the machines. The masses will be the subscribers, mental midgets tightly controlled under the threat of denial of access. Finally will be the outsiders who have not given up the idea that a machine is a tool to be used, not a master to be obeyed. They will rule all.

A US sleep survey released in March found a link between late-night computer and mobile phone use and poor sleep.

That conclusions from the study is faulty unless it has done controlled comparisons between these activities vs the use of late night bright lights; plus these activities vs mentally challenging activities in darkness. It's a scientifically proven fact that bright lights at night disturbs our internal clock, regardless of activity.

Let's not get carried away with this notion that social networking or technology are replacing face-to-face interaction. If they are, I sure don't see it. I have coworkers, friends and acquaintances who all use Facebook and Twitter, MSN and text messaging etc. -- and I don't see them doing it at the expense of social interaction. In fact, people use social networking and messaging to keep up with friends often for the purpose of getting together. I've actually missed events that were primarily planned on facebook.

The bars and coffee houses are crowded. Every weekend, when I drive through my neighborhood, there are cars lining the streets because people are having parties. At home, I can look out my window and see moms who are no-doubt facebook users out talking and socializing. All the younger people where I work are out every night. I really don't think that what I'm seeing is atypical.

So I think the doom and gloom predictions of people sitting isolated in front of machines instead of interacting face-to-face are a little premature. And if you actually move in circles in which people communicate online or use social networking and texting etc, then you could probably see that for yourself -- which is better than guessing.

garza should be able to confirm that a journalist never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

I simply can't understand how people can endure reading over 10 different journals, watch dozens of videos on youtube, watch tv and handle social networks of 5000 people. Save for journalists (it's their job), this is like torturing your brain with things that are hardly important.

I am the "no tv, no journals, no radio, no social networks" kind of guy; I search for the information I want and when I need it, not when it's pushed onto me. And even then, without all this, I spend most of my time reading something.

However, I can see the difference when I'm the only guy in a room that's not falling appart because of three or four tests. Having a mind that's only concerned about the situation at hand and my own real life issues seems to have a great effect on my ability to get things done.

When I deal with people over the phone I often do it on a strictly down-to-business matter. I use the phone to arrange meetings or quickly inform people of some issue. The only exception to this is my parents, because they live too far for us to meet frequently.

The downside to this is that I'm almost always out of the loop, and I'm more often asking questions than giving answers, but at least I can live in peace. This is how I've always lived, and I don't mind not knowing things unless they actually concern me.

As for socializing over the net instead of doing so physically... well, I'm not a social magnate, but I'm fine with talking exclusively to people who I cross paths with, and people I spend prolonged amounts of time with. Talking to strangers is strictly business with me.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

That conclusions from the study is faulty unless it has done controlled comparisons between these activities vs the use of late night bright lights; plus these activities vs mentally challenging activities in darkness. It's a scientifically proven fact that bright lights at night disturbs our internal clock, regardless of activity.

I can't count the number of times my friends have stayed up late to sit under a bright light. I try to tell them, "dude, just do something less addictive like texting or facebooking" but they're all, "oh man, I can't kick this sitting under a bright light thing! How am I ever going to get another good night's sleep?"

xO - You are thinking of the 'If it didn't happen that way it should've' school of journalism. Those of us who were consistently successful over many years achieved that by consistently reporting facts and not fancies.

Joe is correct as regards the present situation, but what we are seeing are what economists would call leading indicators. They move before the economy as a whole moves. Oftentimes the leading indicator changes for no apparent reason, then days or weeks later a major shift will occur that would, had it happened earlier, be seen as the cause of the change in the leading indicator. If you pay attention to what are classed as leading indicators you can begin to get a picture of what, in general terms, will happen in the future. This is one of the tools econmists use to forecast trends.

While the use of social networking via the Internet may be a peripheral activity for most people today, I personally believe it to be a leading indicator, casting the shadow, as it were, of some future cataclysm that will render close contact with others undesirable. If you chart the history of social networking over the past 40 years (not an error - I said 40 years) including breakouts for economic status, level of education, date of birth, cultural orientation, and geographical location, some interesting trends begin to appear.

As an example, Belize is one of the smallest countries in the world, and is not especially wealthy. It is very, very rare today to meet anyone over the age of 13 or 14 who does not carry a cell phone. Go into the poorest neighbourhoods on the Southside of Belize City and everyone you meet, including the sprong-heads on the corner, will have a cell phone. BTL has the country about 99 percent covered with cells. I don't own a cell phone, and I personally do not know any other adult who can say the same. Even people in the remote villages of the Toledo District that do not yet have cell service have cell phones that they carry and use when they are in range of a BTL tower. (BTL, with its continued technological updates, is one advantage Belize has over other countries in Central America.) And Belize is typical. Today at least 59 countries in the world are 100 percent saturated with cell phones - the number of cell phones equals the population. Here's a page with some numbers.

The numbers are phenomenal. No other technology has developed so rapidly and been embraced by so large a percentage of the world's population. What does this suggest for the future? If we believe, as taught by quantum mechanics, that effect can precede cause, then we may be looking at a dark cloud lurking over the horizon. Perhaps a new plague, perhaps a nuclear war, perhaps the increase in the number and severity of local violence such as we have seen recently in the mid-East, perhaps the rapid increase in the use of drugs with the accompanying criminal activity that is threatening the stability of nations in Central America. Perhaps a combination.

Or perhaps a new age of enlightenment.

Most people have had cell phones here for the past 10 years at least. You see people on them when they're out and about -- but let's say you're in a crowded grocery store -- maybe 2-3 people will be talking on their cell phone. At work, I see that people are on them to conduct business -- just the same as if they were on a desk phone. I might call my wife on the way home to check to see if she needs anything or to let her know I'll be late -- or a friend if I'm stuck in traffic. Kids are constantly texting on their phones, but I'm seeing younger people, at work mostly, transition away from that as they get older.

So the fact that cell phones are ubiquitous doesn't really indicate any huge shift in the way people communicate. They just might do it more often. More people have them because they're now cheaper and more convenient to use than land-line phones. How did the telephone really change things other than providing a more convenient way to communicate? Anything negative? Did people hole up at home just so they could talk on the phone? I don't think so. But I wouldn't be surprised if people weren't making the same dire predictions about land-line phones as they became more prevalent. Who do people talk to on cell phones? Their friends, family, coworkers etc. So I'm not seeing how cell phone use is an indicator of some future catastrophe.

You could very well be right, but I'm not talking about cell phones as telephones. I'm talking about cell phones as social networking portals. There has been nothing like it to make comparisons. I've been watching this for a few years now, and what is beginning to emerge is a shift in the way people view society and the way they use language. An example is the way that political debate, in those nations that allow political debate, has become tense and terse. Shouting, either literal or symbolic, has replaced reasoned rhetoric. When you become accustomed to thinking in terms of a dozen words or so, then logic is of little use and shouting is all that's left.

Here is a personal example. I was never a good letter writer, tending to put off answering a letter as long as possible. When I did write, I sat and carefully composed a long reply. Then came email. Now my son writes a few sentences, the latest bit of news about his work and his family. I type out a brief reply and hit send. A friend writes just to say 'hello how are you? I'm fine' and I'll send back a reply that is similar. The days of carefully composed personal letters are gone. There is bad and good in this. The bad part is I no longer spend time composing a nice letter to friends and family. The good part is I stay in touch more often because typing a few lines and hitting send is so easy.

Now go beyond email to chat and texting with their abbreviated words and syntax, unreadable for those of us who learned to write using Fowler's Modern English Usage. This may be the future of language, at least for the masses. The technocrats - the engineers and technicians who design, build, and maintain the virtual world - have their own language. Those of us remaining, the outsiders, may eventually disappear, or we may, as is my belief, have a long term advantage.

I'll not live to see it, but one day language, history, and philosophy majors, with help from the engineers and technicians, will rule the world. (The Member for East Baliwick (lawyer country) rises to object, but the Speaker signals time has elapsed.)

I think we’re on the cusp of seeing how some of this might play out. I work with a lot of people who are just getting out of college and through their late 20’s – so people who have been immersed in online communication, cell phone use, social networking etc, through their formative years.

Not that my experience is some awesome indicator of larger trends, but I’m seeing people’s habits change as they get older. Their priorities shift to work, relationships, marriage and children – and so there just isn’t as much focus on online activities. They’re more or less forced to communicate with people who are actually in their lives. Their just isn't as much time to devote to the computer or cell phone. This is something that I’ve discussed, because it has to do with our business – so these aren’t just impressions. Also, people can't stay up half the night noodling on the computer -- as has been mentioned -- and function the next day. Trust me boys and girls, when you hit 30, you just can't do it anymore. You hit a wall and it hurts.

I’m not saying that all this technology isn’t detrimental in some ways. I’m convinced it’s shortened attentions spans. My sister is a language professor and she’s noticed that her students increasingly have difficulty focusing -– and she’s been forced to introduce multimedia components into her classes, because otherwise, kids won’t pay attention. That can’t be a good thing. Whether or not it’s really a bad thing long-term or not remains to be seen. It might be that how we learn and retain information will just be different, but not necessarily worse or more harmful.

I'd love to skip ahead a hundred years so I could read the complete history of the 21st century, see how it all works out, experience the remarkable technology my grandchildren's grandchildren will have invented, and download Office 2110 to see if all the bugs are gone.

Originally Posted by garza

While the use of social networking via the Internet may be a peripheral activity for most people today, I personally believe it to be a leading indicator, casting the shadow, as it were, of some future cataclysm that will render close contact with others undesirable.

garza - In my simple way I might ask which came first, the chicken or the egg. Does the use of electronic communication make people less face-to-face sociable (I inserted the adjective simply for emphasis) and that consequently close contact is in their minds undesirable, or have they made a unilateral decision that people per se don’t matter and that therefore contact can be limited to the electronic medium?

xO - In the beginning the novelty of it all was the attraction. When the first bulletin boards were created in the late 70's we all fell in love with the idea of instant electronic interconnection. The Hayes 300 baud Smart Modem was the rage of the day. Mine is still packed up in a storage locker along with my Texas Instruments Silent 700. I could probably peddle them to a museum somewhere, though they were so common 40 years ago that there are probably thousands of them still around.

The novelty of it all. Instead of calling my neighbour on the telephone or walking down the street to his house, I could dial his BBS number and send a message to his computer to be printed out. Or I could, with the same ease, dial the number of a friend of mine in Oxford (Mississippi) and send a message to his computer to be printed out. The seeds of the Internet had been planted.

The next generation took this technology for granted, and demanded more. Now we are seeing a generation growing up before our eyes who accept electronic communication as the norm and face to face conversation as the exception. When I first heard about kids sitting across the table from one another and texting instead of talking, I laughed. It's no longer funny.

The problem, if problem it is, extends beyond conversation. I walked into a neighbour's house in the village one sunny afternoon and saw six or eight boys in the ten to 12-year-old range gathered around a computer. One of them was my neighbour's son, and my neighbour explained that the kid had recently bought the FIFA authorised World Cup computer football game. Those kids should have been outside with a football playing the game, not inside watching a computer simulation with two of them pushing buttons to control the players on the screen. When I suggested this to my neighbour he said he agreed, but that his wife was afraid the kid would get hurt outside playing football. With that I decided there was more than one problem and I came home.

Texting has, as I understand it, a severe limit on the length of a message. This on the one hand may teach a person to be concise, which is good, but may also teach a person that long thoughts are bad thoughts. And here is where the English, history, and philosophy majors will rise to the top. People who have disciplined themselves to think both broadly and deeply may use the social networks as tools, but will never see them as ends in themselves. The masses will see the social networks as solid reality, and the snippets of abreviated conversation as evidence of deep thinking.

The world's languages will become as Gaul, divided into three parts. The Masses will speak Textish. The technocrats will speak Techie. The Ousiders will continue to speak and write English, Spanish, Khmer, Tagolog. Rules for the masses to live by will be based on policy decisions taken by the Outsiders who will have little or no direct contact with the Masses. The rules themselves will be formulated and enforced by the technocrats. The Masses will make up 90 percent of the world population with the last ten percent about equally divided between Technocrats and Outsiders. These groups will also control the Earth's natural resources along with 90 percent of the total wealth. The supply of Soylent Green for the masses will be carefully regulated.

So to more directly answer your question, there is no conscious decision on the part of anyone that people don't matter and that contact should only be through an electronic medium. The concept has grown, along with the technology, without conscious deliberation.

We are seeing the birth of a brave new world unlike anything that has been imagined or written about in the past.