if you really feel like it, rant on and on about it... the more info the better, just be prepared to be quoted in a 4th form debate

//just be prepared to be quoted in a 4th form debate

Or in the Listener.

When I first read this, it hit me quite hard, such a true statement. But then I thought about it a bit more. Todays society tends to be pretty dangerous, you can't just trust people. & if you're on the internet & that person takes a dodgy turn, you can just block them, easy, they're gone. (providing you didn't give out too many personal details, but if you did, you're probably a dumbass anyway)

If you're on the bus, or any situation in real life involving a stranger, you can't necessarily escape if things aren't looking good. Next thing you know, you're being followed home or having your drink spiked.

Bit of a tangent, but kinda reminds me of this guy I see regularly on my bus. He's always talking to teen schoolgirls, now this is possibly because I think he's the groundskeeper at their school. But he doesn't talk to the boys (as far as I've seen) & the girls don't ever look particularly interested (or comfortable for that matter). A friend of mines noticed him too, she was saying how sad it was that we can never instantly trust someone, we have to have a slightly suspicious attitude at all times. I'd agree. But that's people for you.

Agreed. But I've convinced myself that everyone I sit next to on the bus is a homicidal stalker now.

// i reckon it begins to limit people's critical thinking ability,
// it's easy to access alot of information
// it's convenient to believe this information
// this is condusive to discarding facts or possiblities that
// are not documented or easily accessible on the net.

but don't you think it's less a case of limiting, as opposed to one of giving people too many options to make up their minds about things?

In the pre-web days, there were far fewer ways of accessing information about any given topic. People were able to come to far fewer conclusions about events outside their immediate experience, as they had no way of contacting people close to the event, or scouring the records of organisations involved in any given situation. It probably was easier to 'think outside the square', as the square that was drawn for you was so much smaller than the equivalent one today.

The real problem in the post-web world, is that people are given too much info. A lot of people are still in the 'believe-what-you-read' frame of mind, and there is very little critical analysis done of what is often dubious source material. Witness the rise of the 'conspiracy theory', where virtually every major event - from 9/11 to the recent North Korean train accident - has a raft of 'alternative' explanations created by people who are all too keen to think that, as you point out, that there are always '...facts or possiblities that are not documented or easily accessible on the net.'

Of course, this is often the case (particularly, you would suspect, where the US government is involved), but not always. Not everything is a conspiracy - the obvious answer is more often than not, the right one.

I, for one, as you may have surmised, am still a strong proponent of the principle of Occam's Razor: "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."

[ external link ]

Occam's Razor is a good rule-of-thumb but can be used as almost a propaganda technique at times. For example, most world-views without some form of God/spiritual notion are `simpler', but that's not a great argument in support of atheism.

There's also a specific version for psychology called Morgan's Canon:
"In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale."

While at times useful, is often used to advance behaviourist explanations over anything involving thought/cognition. At it's peak, it can be argued that human's are solely governed by external contingencies (learning, experiences, genes etc.), and that our thoughts are purely coincedental and irrelevant by-products with no influence over what we do (naturally, people subscribing to a variety of determinist philosophies wouldn't have a problem with this).

[ external link ]

hey noizy, top notch reply;

//In the pre-web days, there were far fewer ways of accessing information about any given topic.

true

//People were able to come to far fewer conclusions about events outside their immediate experience, as they had no way of contacting people close to the event, or scouring the records of organisations involved in any given situation.

there has always been a way, but it is now significantly easier

//as the square that was drawn for you was so much smaller than the equivalent one today.

i'm not convinced that the square is any bigger,
and it's a complicated analogy to manipulate
being that the square is 'given' accepted data and thinking outside the square involves imagining or hypothesising unforseen variables .
and so while there is alot more factual 'given' info on the net, there is just as much if not more imaginary information
and so the size of the square can only be measured in relation to something else (perhaps that which exists outside the square) i would theorise that relatively speaking, the size of the square has not changed considerably. And ultimitely for every new fact provided for us, according to 'newton's law' there must be an equal and opposite reaction outside the square.

but generally i agree, with what you write, and it's too easy to buy into conspiracy theories and i even believe many conspiracy theories are inside this square, they are too easily accepted they are just hand me down info, that is too widely accepted...
but this square is massive and i don't think the internet has altered it's size as significantly as it has altered our minds ability to think beyond it.

a simple example is this:
the grass is green (fact)
thinking outside the square would require us to perhaps ask
why is the grass green?

now biology has obviously gone a long way to answering this question, but my point is that there is so much stimulus to question in our everyday life, that even now the internet has still not really filled the square.

good point myshkin;

//But this in itself leads to better developed critical thinking and analysis skills, as with all of the competing information available to us,

but the problem is that on the internet we are generally only ever dealing with second hand information, rather than direct observation and experimentation. So although we are given a vast amount of information, we are still in some way only drawing on others documentation rather than coming up with wholey uniquely imaginative thoughts. ideally what you say is true, that presented with more information our ability to think critically must be improved. But I clearly remember the pre internet days, rifling through library books. it was a severe mission. And the search light had to be set to high, you had to think hard even just to find the information. But now there is more than enough info at our finger tips. I think having alot of information at your disposal and just wading through it with the bullshit meter on, doesn't involve as much critical thought as having little or no information at your disposal and having to find answers and solutions creatively.

// a simple example is this:
// the grass is green (fact)
// thinking outside the square would require us to perhaps ask
// why is the grass green?

my two pre-school sons are obviously experts in thinking outside the square.

"why is the grass green?"
"um..." (desperately searching mind for form 3 science memories) "it's the chlorophyll in the grass that makes it look green."
"why does the claw-full look green?"
"um...it absorbs all the non-green light frequencies and reflects back the green, so it appears green."
"why does it reflect the green...?"
"ummm...because."

yes noizy,
your children are...
it is good you as a parent are aware of this
that the square is not something you are born to think inside
the 'square' is a constraint which is placed around our imaginations from a young age
some parents encourage their children to continue thinking ouside the square
some discourage it...

well its really enhanced them, i'm much better at dealing with morons now

but ultimately you'll notice that question was not in quotation marks
it is not intended to be directed at anyone other than one's own deductive abilities
theres is no critical thought involved in asking a question and being given an answer
the asking of the question is only the mind indicating that it wants the answer
so Joanna asks her mother
if her mother answers with information from the net, there is not much critical thought involved
furthermore, this information is likely to be highly flacious due to the fact that it is most unlikely that us leaving towls on the floor en mass will lead to the downfall of western civilization.
and also worthy of consideration are some other factors
what material is the floor made of
how clean is the rest of the house?
how resistant is joanna's family's immune system?
who else visits the room with the towel on the floor?
what kind of moulds are likely to grow in this environment?
how hazardous are these moulds?

and then along a different path
why would this lead to the downfall of western civilization when an outbreak of any thing would be easy to confine to the islands?
if it did spread to the the west, why could it not also bring about the decline of eastern civilization?
and why is joanna still leaving towels on the floor after many years of hearing this kind of thing from her mother?

there is more critical thought involved in attempting to answer these questions for oneself
than searching online...

no wayz, txt is da shizzle! :P

i meant 'meet' them...

//freudian

classic

oooh. legend burn.

I don't think it's Dr G's anthropological knowledge that is in question here.

were you teased at school?

...'concerned parents versus the internet'

I guess what should be set in place is the 'amount' of electronics/technology we should use.

asia is new zealand's future...
look forward to it