Who Designed This Crap? The Dark Side of the Internet

[Tom_T]

Several posters lament the change in Tom's Hardware over the years. They argue that data and statistics are the "real" content. I believe these opinions may reflect a segment of the readership who suffer from Asberger's Syndrome. People with this disorder have difficulty with social interactions and may be obsessed with technical specifications. They might, for instance, be interested in measuring the diameters of spools on VHS cassettes down to the micrometer level.

What people of this nature may have difficulty realizing is that as technology becomes integrated into daily life, and hence becomes truly useful, the focus should change. If we lived in a society composed only of people obsessed with data collection, we would not have had Picasso, but instead people interested solely in measuring exactly the composition of paint pigments. We would not have Stanley Kubrik, but instead people focused only on making film cameras run faster than 24 frames per second.

 

[caamsa]

Are you are a doctor with a PHD in psychology and an expert in diagnosing asberger's syndrome? Your diagnosis of some of the posters on this site as being people who suffer from asbergers is unfounded and some what insulting to people and children who truly suffer from the disorder.

 

[Obi-Wan]

Well, there has been no dearth of interesting replies on this topic.
The original reply indicating that Barry's article was US-Centric was valid.
Not all geographies suffer from such "dedicated" internet behaviour.
Some of the negative responses were uncalled for. Personal attacks on the author (whatever your opinion) serve no purpose, except to illustrate the "quality" of your repartee. If you have something to say, it is wise to keep a response articulate. State your view.
Others may or may not agree with you.
I am replying to Barry's article to state my view.
Many of you may disagree with my view, no doubt including Barry.
That is certainly your right, and I am stating here and now that I am aware that many others out there will not agree with my view any more than they might agree with Barry's view.
Anyway, this is the specific point that I am replying too:

I won't go into great detail, but a lack of face-to-face interaction leads people to devalue themselves and others and this leads to some wacky personal and social behavior on their part. For example, war and other kinds of violence become easier for these folks to accept because they don't have the empathy that comes with face-to-face interaction.

There is an alternative view than the one put forward by "social psychology" (and this alternative view has been around for over 2,500 years):
Basically, one must know oneself, before it is possible to know others.
To know oneslf requires solitude. Time alone with yourself.
No Books.
No News.
No Music.
No TV.
No Video.
No Internet.
Just oneself. Looking inward into your own mind, your own thoughts.
Only when you know yourself truly, and you can understand and forgive your own actions, can you be expected to understand, and be empathic towards others. The journey to mindfulness is the most important journey that any of us will ever make.
To be blunt, this ststement "a lack of face-to-face interaction leads people to devalue themselves" is quite contrary to the truth. In fact, solitude - a lack of face-to-face interaction - is absolutley essential in order to value oneself.
Only after this has been accomplished will face-to-face interaction be fruitful, beneficial, and rewarding.
And more. After this has happened, it would be a waste not to share your lessons, your insight, your joy with others.
I'm going to cease now, with 2 important alternative ideas:
1) "We think we're important. That is a delusion"
2) "I am not a follower, because that would mean that I am not taking complete responsibility for my life. Neither am I a leader, because that would mean that I am taking responsibility for others".
(Sayadaw U Jotika).

 

[r0x0r]

Just oneself. Looking inward into your own mind, your own thoughts.
Only when you know yourself truly, and you can understand and forgive your own actions, can you be expected to understand, and be empathic towards others. The journey to mindfulness is the most important journey that any of us will ever make.

So how do you expect people to develop social skills if they don't talk to other people?

It's unfortunate that text lacks the intonation required for truly meaningful conversation. Your post was excellent, and I do hope that you do not see my question above as patronizing.

However, it must be stated that since a mere human cannot possibly hope to know everything (I'm an atheist, by the way. I'm not insinuating religion is the answer and please, no replies concerning religion), it is useful, and, perhaps for the sake af advancing the human race, imperative that we share knowledge, which is impossible without social interaction.

 

[Grongle]

Hmm . . . The responses to the original post seem to make the whole exercise worthwhile. One of the positive aspects of internet communication.

It is excellent to see so many people who are able to think in paragraphs. This has become a rarity; most folk are doing well to put a single sentence together.

I have also learned things, reading this. I had thought, for example, that babies were born with cell phones attached. You mean the cell phone is still an option? Well, there goes my research into the genetic possibilities for a third arm (an extra-cost, after-market option for the rich, of course).

The anti-cell phone group, however, fail to tell us how we would deal with the possible disaster of having someone attempt to contact us while we were walking down the street. What if we missed a call? WHAT IF WE MISSED A CALL? (Oh, sorry, Mr/Ms Moderator; I did not intend to post such a horrific thought; it just slipped out. Gee, I sure hope we're all well over 13 here.)

Cell phones have provided so many busloads of otherwise bored people with marvellous insights into the private lives of cell phone users. Not only that, but a case has been made that cell phones cut into cigarette-smoking time, as it is hard to do both at once. (Hence I had planned another genetic option, the 4-arm model, but I'm afraid it too will come to nought. Such a shame. And the 4th arm was to have been fireproof.)

At another level, I feel the internet does indeed provide a way for a great many people to communicate. Included are many, many alienated people. They have every reason to be alienated, especially if they are young, bright, sensitive, and individualistic. Face to face social interaction would be preferable, but face to face with whom? Many of the young people I'm talking about would have nothing to say to the cell phone robots, or even to the robots of the so-called "news" hegemonies.

Some people had hoped internet communication would by itself forestall war worldwide, but people worldwide love killing people, perhaps next to their love of chopping down trees. Hard to channel folk against the things that turn them on. Gee whiz, even with the great diversity of real-time killing that humans amuse themselves with, there is still a huge market for theatre and game-arcade killing, just in case somebody has missed some way to do the job in the real world.

I s'pose I'd have begun this thread with "Who Designed Money? The Dark Side of Human Nature". Money isn't the cause, but you'll notice that money usually shows up very soon in discussions of war, poverty, environmental destruction, and, generally, one person's exerting his personal fears or power over another person. (You can substitute "nation" for "person" if you like.)

But I really like hearing the voices of the alienated young people (and old people, too) on the internet. Any open valve for communication is good. I believe for many people the internet is a life-saver in this regard. As I said, sure, face to face is the ideal. Of course it is. But it has probably been some aspect of face to face that has caused these people to become alienated. What really matters is that we can still share our thoughts. And forums allow us to breathe, or to wait awhile, before replying—and that, too, can be valuable. It may even teach us to consider what the other person is saying.

 

[Tom_T]

Are you are a doctor with a PHD in psychology and an expert in diagnosing asberger's syndrome? Your diagnosis of some of the posters on this site as being people who suffer from asbergers is unfounded and some what insulting to people and children who truly suffer from the disorder.

I am an M.D./Ph.D, but my doctorate is not in psychology. I do research in genetics, including that of Asperger's and other forms of autism. I did not state that any specific individuals reading Tom's Hardware suffer from this disorder - of course a diagnosis can't be made by reading people's messages! However, in my research and clinical practice, I've been very surprised by how many people who work in IT/computer professions have been diagnosed with this disorder. Some of the messages on this forum reminded me very much of comments from people with Asperger's. Their focus tends to be on quantifiable aspects of technology, and not on the social or user viewpoints. Of course, people without this disorder may hold similar beliefs.

But, I think it's interesting to consider how Asperger's has influenced the computer industry. As you are probably aware, a number of experts think Bill Gates may have Asperger's, and several well-known computer scientists have been diagnosed with it. This is interesting in the same sense that understanding how bipolar disorder has influenced various artists and writers is. In some ways, these disorders shouldn't be viewed as disorders, because they have led to much creativity and innovation.

 

[r0x0r]

At another level, I feel the internet does indeed provide a way for a great many people to communicate. Included are many, many alienated people. They have every reason to be alienated, especially if they are young, bright, sensitive, and individualistic. Face to face social interaction would be preferable, but face to face with whom? Many of the young people I'm talking about would have nothing to say to the cell phone robots, or even to the robots of the so-called "news" hegemonies.

I'm much the same. When I see the cliche iPod owning, latest-phone using, oversized-sunglasses wearing, Big-Brother watching 'chiks', who usually use 'txt spk' and tell the world that they are, somehow, a princess, I feel like doing them a favour and ending their superficial existence. Same with emos, but that's a different story. Damn unoriginal, procrastinating retards.

However, I tell myself that hating them is a waste of energy, and that I shouldn't bother with them. It doesn't help when you see the 'chiks' walking around like they're in a commercial (stop being so pretentious bitch, you live in Adelaide, not Monte Carlo).

Now when I see these 'chiks', I don't get angry. All I do is laugh to myself, because I know that they can't rely on their looks forever, and that when they get older and realise that, "Shit, men aren't as shallow as I thought; it looks like I will actually need a personality", it will be too late.

Cynical? Me? Never!

By the way, some people may be bright, sensitive and individualistic, but that equates to nothing without adaptability. Today's world is a globalised one (much to the chargin of many world leaders who are somehow convinced that foreigners are evil), so adaptability is a very much a required skill for today's society.