Newsflash! Your Kids ARE Digital Zombies!

If these kids aren't digital. zombies, then what are they? Certainly not living in the present and attending to the larger world.

Bill Maher, in his last ('New Rules') segment of Real Time Friday night,  merits kudos for calling out all the selfie stooges - including the recent mobs in Philly and NYC trying to capture Pope Francis on their smart phones - looking through their mini screens - instead of taking in the moment directly. (Not to mention the assorted kids with a 1 in a million chance to actually meet and see the Pope facing backwards and doing selfies with him.).

But the ubiquitous selfie is but one symptom of the zombification of the nation, especially its younger generations.  We also behold texting zombies - heads buried in their phones- walking along side walks, crossing busy streets or even driving cars - oblivious to the reality around them. They also display an alarming .similarity to actual zombies in their sidewalk shuffles and guttural, incomprehensible responses when you attempt to make conscious contact, e.g. "Urrrgh", "Unhhh".  Can we then agree if it walks like a zombie, and expresses itself like a zombie it is, for all intents, a zombie?

The WSJ's Alice Gopnik ('No, Your Children Aren't Becoming Digital Zombies', Oct. 10-11, p. C2) doesn't believe so. She cites study after study purporting to show there are no ill effects and all is pretty close to normal. She also revives the old "happened in older generations" Mcguffin, by trying to compare the behavior  we're seeing now with smart phones to the telegraph! Are you kidding me? She seriously quotes a hand wringer from the year 1858 about the telegraph being too "unsifted, superficial and too sudden for the truth".

But of course,  this is a false analogy,  irrespective of what any critic of the time said or wrote. For one thing, the telegraph was not ubiquitous like smart phones are today. You had to actually enter a post office or wireless station to send a message off, and even then there were absolutely NO images...only terse wording. There was no way - given the costs - one could use it to communicate with peers minute by minute or second by second as texters can now. Hell, there was no speed of long distance communication such as allowed and enabled today by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

Hence, Gopnik compares chalk and cheese.

The point she misses in her Pollyanish prose is that there is indeed cause to worry given how the dominance of imagery has weakened communication as well as literacy skills in adults.  I already have noted this in previous posts referencing the findings of Neil Postman in his masterful book, 'The Disappearance of Childhood’.

Postman’s thesis is subtle to grasp because it is two-pronged. He showed how the continued intrusion of visual media via television (and now smart phones, I-phones and the internet)  has stripped childhood of its innocence, even as he showed the same media has effectively rendered adults as children. The effect has been to create “adult-children” and ‘child adults”.

Thus, nearly all current TV fare adults can watch, like 'Survivor', kids can also watch. The visual medium itself - integrated into the use of iPads, TVs and smartphones, makes the reduction of the world to a visual medium the same for all ages. Hence, child adults, and adult children. Taking selfies, as the scenes of Francis also showed, are as much the province of kids as adults. Thus, one beholds a regression of modern day adults to the state of children - again via their over use of electronic media.

Many may be surprised, but in fact the era of true adulthood only seemed to last a short time, certainly in western culture.

In the period following print typography, a new world of symbolic abstraction based on the printed word emerged, and the human adult with it. As this adult became more solidified and print became the basis for separating the adult mind from the child’s – the social construction of “childhood” had to be created. This was to more easily distinguish child activities and media from what adults consumed. Thus, it was expected even as recently as 60 years ago that no child would be paging through Playboy, or for that matter Sartre's Being and Nothingness, and no adult in his or her right mind would be glued to 'Howdy Doody' or 'Superman' on the tube. In either case, there would be cause for serious intervention (in the child reading Sartre case, it would be positive, say the kid  skipping 7-10 years of school to go directly to first year university.)

Postman's point is that before about 300 years ago the “child” as such didn’t exist in the social sphere. The child before about 1650 was treated as a small adult, had to work in the coal mines along with his more mature relations, as well as toil in the fields. There were no child clothes, child games as such or child distinctions.

The arrival of print changed all that because it disclosed the need for the young to be properly trained to assume a role in a world in which lack of print mastery exacted great social costs. The mastery of print required also a certain skill set totally contingent on the ability to process the printed word including: the ability to sit still and focus  for protracted periods, the ability to sequentially process abstract (phonetic) symbols, the ability to master logical –rational thought.

The point missed by those like Gopnik is that the child-adult transition is now nearly impossible because of the ubiquity of electronic media. This indeed, has been proven in research such as by Mark Bauerlein, ('The Dumbest Generation'). showing FB users, for example, have been conditioned to accept a "single-minded attachment or obsession which has contributed to an artificial,  solipsistic view of the world"

Thus, instead of being a channel of information and genuine knowledge consolidation, the monitor screen becomes a mirror for the users’ own limited selves and under-developed psyches. That Facebook would insinuate itself into a life to the extent of excluding so much else in the world is not surprising, and Bauerlein shows how this is done by blocking out all unwanted material on one's FB pages. Most of this material turns out to be dealing with complex issues of news, global conflicts etc - hence the elimination indulges the child yen for a pain-free world minus any negatives.

But Facebook is but one medium. We now know from research (that Gopnik totally ignores)  that legions of kids are already seriously addicted to  online games, and it's gotten so bad in China that the gamers have had to be interred in "boot camps", e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/09/chinese-get-serious-with-their-net.html


As noted above, for the Chinese, screen addiction of any type is now classified as a clinical disorder and they've taken serious measures to break their young addicts of their screen dependence - whether it's to their smart phone, or laptop via some gaming app. At Daxing Boot Camp in Beijing, one of 400 rehab centers created to treat net addicts, calisthenics, group therapy. some mild ECT and a complete lack of screens. You can bet your bippy if the problem is severe in China this screen addiction is equally severe here in the U.S. all Gopnik's cited studies to the contrary.

Gopnik also neatly sidesteps how digital bullying has now evolved to the number one form, and we won't even go into the increasing prevalence of porn addiction - such that many teens (according to a recent Economist report, Sept. 26th, p. 59)) are having to seek help at sites like "No fap". The report cites a pan-European study from 2010 that found 14 % of 9 to 16 year olds had seen porn in the previous year - and this was prior to the advent of smart phones and iPads which make the stuff easier to access for kids.  Further, March Childline and NSPCC - two charities serving kids - found that one in ten British 12-13 year olds described themselves as "addicted to porn". If these stats are such in the UK you can be certain they are as bad or worse here in the U.S.

Gopnik, at the end of her piece asks:

"So why, despite the research and all those failed prophecies of previous technological doom are people so convinced that this time it's different?"

Well, because it is! In the old days drivers weren't killed at a 20 percent higher rate (reported last year) because of "texting while driving". You had to sit in your home with your trusty Smith Corona and type your messages out. You didn't do it in a car!  In the old days also kids couldn't bully their peers by long distance, sending nasty messages over the smart phone. You had to get up close and personal and settle issues with your fists right then and there. No hiding behind a screen.

And as for porn, it wasn't ubiquitous on some 800 million websites (hell, no internet even existed then) all accessible by smart phones, as The Economist notes. You had to actually get up off your duff and hoof it down to the corner 7-11 and plunk down 50 cents to buy the latest Playboy - and hope the counter clerk didn't ask your age.

So YEAH, it IS different in quality and quantity. A pity those like Gopnik don't see that, but then - working for the WSJ - her job is as much to feed and "grease"  the wheels of consumer frenzy (especially in time for Xmas) as it is to spout specious opinions.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/11/turn_off_your_fking_phone_and_talk_to_me_sherry_turkle_on_why_im_not_the_darth_vader_of_social_media/
 

A Note to Selfie- Takers: Not At Baseball Games!

These selfie-obsessed sorority babes at a recent AZ Diamondbacks' baseball game merely showed how out of touch they are with the real world. Fortunately, no one was taken out by a line drive.

As most readers of this blog are aware, I detest the whole selfie -taking culture as a narcissistic, navel gazing socio-economic mutation of recent history with our young people (mainly) spending more time staring at themselves than looking beyond and attending to world events.  Even when the selfie-takers do apprehend external events it's often to make them part of their selfies, even catastrophic ones,  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/memo-to-selfie-takers-not-in-front-of.html

Thereby these image narcissists deform perceptions of the event by interjecting an unwanted, irrelevant, solipsistic aspect.

Perhaps my sister- in-law Krimhilde (an Eckist) best summed it up:

These are the creations and obsessions of the immature human, which remains steeped in narcissism, in self-absorption. No truly advanced or advancing human on the path to a higher spirituality takes a selfie. Our true motivation and mission in this life is instead to embrace selflessness. That means placing one's body in proper relation to one's spirit."

This came to the fore again this past week as a group of sorority girls from Alpha Phi Omega was caught ingratiating themselves in an orgy of selfies at a major league baseball game. On beholding them so involved in a superficial pursuit, devoid of attention to the game (why go to it in the first place?) the first thought that came to mind after their self-(ie) obsessing was the risk being taken in not paying attention. We've already had two incidents this year where one woman was clobbered by a flying bat (who wasn't paying attention to the game) and another knocked out by a foul ball lacing into the stands.

While morons have talked about putting up "protective screening" to shield idiots, the rest of us (baseball lovers) are asking: "Why the fuck aren't you watching the game instead of texting or engaging in random, distracted BS?"

The same question could apply to these sorority women. On that basis it was a welcome  intervention for many of us to hear the sports casters go off on them with the following light-hearted commentary:

“Do you have to make faces when you take selfies? That’s the best one of the 300 pictures I’ve taken of myself today!”

ADVERTISEMENT

 “Every girl in the picture is locked onto her phone. Every single one is dialed in. Welcome to parenting in 2015.”

"Take a selfie with the hot dog, selfie with the churro, selfie just of the selfie! Here’s my first bite of the churro, here’s my second bite of the churro.”

 “Can we do an intervention? How about if we send Baxter (the Diamondbacks’ mascot) out there and he just collects all the phones. You’re not getting them back till the end of the game.”

It was too hilarious for words, but then the no-nonsense PC police took notice, as in a recent piece in the UK Guardian and pulled up the announcers for their "misogyny" which is the most ridiculous nonsense ever belched out in a serious newspaper. The moralistic author went on to write:

"And so forth. The cringeworthy exchange persisted even after Arizona’s David Peralta led off the bottom of the fourth with a base hit, the horse apparently not dead enough."

Seriously? And further:

"On one hand baseball broadcasts, first on radio and later on TV, have long depended on light-hearted commentary of ballpark scenery to fill the many pockets of downtime during the average game. Yet something about Wednesday’s paternalistic rant felt creepy and excessive beneath its bouncy veneer.

From a fan standpoint, the failure to hang on every pitch of meeting between two also-ran clubs that have been out of playoff contention for weeks is hardly a mortal sin.."

 Which beggars the rational mind, because those detached, self-absorbed young women certainly merited a dressing down for their surreal antics in a setting not conducive  to "pompasetting". (In Bajan parlance.) To their credit, the announcers delivered it with humor. Only a politically correct nag would see it otherwise, but evidently this Guardian writer did (along with the selfie brigade defenders) As for blasé inattention during a game not being a  "mortal sin", maybe not. But to a baseball lover you attend a damned game - irrespective of its portents or implications - to watch it, not text incessantly, yak it up with your neighbor or take selfies of you and your munchies. If you don't really like baseball, and it's too boooooooorrrriug for your hi-techie, high-powered social life and truncated pace, then stick to 'World of Warcraft', re-doing your dorm or Facebook page. Besides, then you won't risk losing your front teeth or getting a busted nose if a foul ball hits you in the face.

Then, after busting the chops of the two sports casters the writer drags even more codswallop onto the page:

 "But even the most seemingly innocuous episodes of everyday sexism reinforce the idea of sports as a boys’ club, an outdated notion that serves no one. Certainly not a traditional sport whose problems attracting younger, more progressively minded fans are as thoroughly documented as the Mitchell Report. The median age of last year’s World Series viewer was 55.6 according to Horizon Media, up from 49.9 only five years ago. That’s an alarming trend for baseball’s power brokers even as revenues and franchise valuations soar."

Yadda, yadda, we've heard it all before. Look, here's the real skinny:  too many in today's world are driven to impatience so really have no time for anything substantive - whether reading a real book - like Sartre's Being and Nothingness, or attending to the thoughtful intricacies of a game they only partly understand and probably never played as youngsters.  To many of us 'old farts', however, that doesn't hold and that's why we still watch venerable sports contests like the Series. (Which I've watched nearly every year since 1957.)

But I believe the underlying issues go even deeper and the problems were first articulated by Neil Postman over 33 years ago in his masterful book, 'The Disappearance of Childhood’.

Postman’s thesis is subtle to grasp because it is two-pronged. He showed how the intrusion of visual media via television (and now smart phones, I-phones and the internet)  has stripped childhood of its innocence, even as he showed the same media has effectively rendered adults as children. The effect has been to create “adult-children” and ‘child adults”. To starkly illustrate his point, he compares – for instance – the favorite TV shows of different age groups, ca. 1980 (p. 131):

“The 1980 Neilsen Report on Television reveals that adults (defined as people over the age of 18) rated the following among their fifteen favorite syndicated programs: Family Feud, The Muppet Show, HeeHaw, M*A*S*H, Dance Fever, Happy Days. These programs were also listed among the top fifteen most favored by those between 12 and 17 years. And they also made the favored list of those between age 2 and 11!”

He concludes from this that the figures support his contention that what in 1980 amused the child also amused the adult. By extension, the selfie an 18 year brat can take, a 4 year old can as well. What happened?

In the era following print typography, a new world of symbolic abstraction based on the printed word emerged, and the human adult with it. As this adult became more solidified and print became the basis for separating the adult mind from the child’s – the social construction of “childhood” had to be created. Thus, before about 300 years ago the “child” as such didn’t exist in the social context. The child before about 1650 was treated as a small adult, had to work in the coal mines along with his more mature relations, as well as toil in the fields. There were no child clothes, child games as such or child distinctions.

The arrival of print changed all that because it disclosed the need for the young to be properly trained to assume a role in a world in which lack of print mastery exacted great social costs. The mastery of print required also a certain skill set totally contingent on the ability to process the printed word including: the ability to sit still and focus  for protracted periods, the ability to sequentially process abstract (phonetic) symbols, the ability to master logical –rational thought.

The mastery of print also separated child from adult in much the same way that current specialist domains, say in modern physics,  separate specialists from those outside the specialty discipline. Take solar physics for instance. The appropriate equation of transfer in a simple, plane-parallel atmosphere would be:


dI = j dx - σ I (Θ) dx = (j - σ I (Θ)) dx


where I (Θ) is the specific intensity. If you do not know the language of solar physics (or basic stellar physics) you will not know what specific intensity is, nor will you be able to produce the "moments of intensity" - say obtained by successive integrations over an element of solid angle - defined as (A/r^2) for a sphere. In other words, you will be like a "child" left out of esoteric knowledge granted to those in the "priesthood" of solar physics. Those who had to come up through years of dedicated training, education and research to be able to perform such tasks.

In other words, you'd be like the child relative to the adult in the new world where print mastery was foremost....and defined the adult.

Before the advent of print there were no children as such because there existed no means for adults to know exclusive information. What the adult knew the child knew, as all knowledge was in the "vernacular". With print this changed, because the introduction of abstract symbols split the access "codes". As adults mastered the printed world, children were excluded...analogous to how novices are excluded from the province of specialist research.

 Print literacy then, similarly demanded a specialized period of “childhood” education and training, apart from adulthood for which literacy had attained a peak. Thus, a child was not expected to master anything like Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’, Thomas Mallory’s ‘Le Morte d’Arthur’ or Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ but the adult was.

The arrival of electronic visual media changed all that by making everything available to everyone but in visual form rather than symbolic. Attendant on this was the need for speed, for shortcuts in presentation, and as Neil Postman puts it, the insatiable demand for novelty. Thus, one eventually ended up in a “Jerry Springer” cartoon world shown on daytime TV airing problems on everything under the sun from a spouse’s sexual fetishes, to violent on- set altercations between races, to once private personal physical issues, to you name it.

And the damnable thing was that with this medium no barriers existed. The child glued to the TV (or now to his Surface or Ipad, could soak everything in as much as the adult. No symbolic barriers existed that had to be surmounted. All one had to know is how to flick the remote on, and change channels! Or to paraphrase Postman, “the six year old and sixty year old could equally access what was shown on TV.”


Seen in this light, the selfie taking sorority sisters can actually be seen as immature, self-absorbed children (at about the  6-year age). I would also warrant they'd be no more likely to sit attentively through a 9-inning baseball game (even at the Major League level) than they would be to read Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' - or even the complete  front sections of The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times. Their flitting little brains wouldn't be able to handle it! And this isn't being "misogynist" or "sexist" because I daresay none of their male peers - similarly invested in the current social media world- would fare any better! They all have the attention spans of gnats, precisely because of the media in which they incessantly and gratuitously partake.

Heck, it's much easier to become swallowed up by the childish visual divsersions of the selfie which encourages rampant narcissism at every turn. "Look at ME! ME! ME! ME!"

But the worst offal to come from the PC Guardian columnist was this:

"Worse, these patterns embolden misogynists, like the third-rate aggregator who demeaned Wednesday’s offenders as “future world leaders” who got the dressing-down they deserved."

Well again, as noted earlier, the accusation of "misogyny" isn't even relevant because the flit-brained fan boys these girls likely hang out with share the same attention disorders. So, dismissing that complaint, the "third rate aggregator" may have had a point. Which elicits what kind of college majors these young women (or their frat boy friends) are pursuing. If it's public relations, marketing or something on that score - then I'd say 'case closed' and that "aggregator" has got it correct. Because I sure as shit wouldn't want some airhead marketer or PR front person dealing with Putin, or even Bibi Netanyahu!

Lastly, the writer is flat wrong for insisting that we beheld: "grown men mocking young women for enjoying themselves"

No. What I saw and heard were serious humans who have lived through some serious recent  times (including 9/11) expressing horror at the solipsistic vacuum these women inhabit. Thus, they responded they only way they could,  pulling up  these vapid brats (their own profs are probably afraid to)  who probably haven't even taken a single history course that interprets events without spin and PR.

IF these are our future leaders, may the Force help us all!