shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

Dacher Keltner in Conversation

and W. W. Norton
6
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
33,695 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Chrissy Michelle Strawn Avatar
Chrissy Michelle Strawn
Posts: 1
Posted: 03.21.09, 11:52 PM
That was a very good question. I reluctantly have to agree that burying ones face in a cell phone and texting all the time may not be a good thing for the human condition. But is that all that these people do? I think not. The same question could be asked about video games. But I think this question is pointed in the wrong direction. Are these people who use these devices constantly becoming addicted? That people can get so enured by such simple things such as these devices, alcohol, and drugs is the tragedy.
Permalink
amoffat Avatar
amoffat
Posts: 0
Posted: 02.21.09, 04:39 AM
it's important to understand that using an abstract layer of communication (tech), helps evolve certain "blind" intuitions. where once we could infer the emotions of someone by their faces and gestures, now we are learning to infer them from subtleties such as word usage, the tone of responses, and timing...all 3 of these blind to actual "physical" cues.

i would argue that tech is evolving our senses of perception as we grapple with understanding context in an environment where context is not explicit.
Permalink
rocketdog Avatar
rocketdog
Posts: 211
Posted: 02.20.09, 12:07 PM
Speaking of devo, here's something interesting I found out a while ago: the idea of "de-evolution" is a biological fallacy. The de-evo myth is based on the assumption that evolution is meant to occur in a positive, singular direction, and any perceived "regression" to previously held ("less-developed") evolutionary traits run counter to that line of progress and therefore are a Bad Thing. In fact, changes that occur due to evolution are just that -- adaptations due to environmental or other circumstance, and nothing more. It's certainly possible, if not highly likely, that technology is affecting our evolutionary development as a species, but from a strictly objective, biological point-of-view, it's a fallacy to assume those changes are negative because some of them can be viewed from our current situation as less "complex."

I haven't figured out how to link in this version of the comment box, but the Wikipedia article on biological devolution is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution
__________________
But words - words are not enough! - Klaus Kinski
Permalink
rocketdog Avatar
rocketdog
Posts: 211
Posted: 02.19.09, 03:36 PM
Are we not men?
__________________
But words - words are not enough! - Klaus Kinski
Permalink
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Stephen Hinshaw: The Hidden Crisis Facing Teenage Girls Stephen Hinshaw: The Hidden Crisis Facing Teenage Girls
01:10:26 min | 6,792 Views
Ask a Scientist: Sex and War Ask a Scientist: Sex and War
01:41:23 min | 51,590 Views
Glenn Wilson: The Power of Music Glenn Wilson: The Power of Music
00:55:04 min | 44,442 Views
Mary Roach: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex Mary Roach: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
00:23:59 min | 66,124 Views
Roy Blount Jr: The Sounds, Roots, and History of Words Roy Blount Jr: The Sounds, Roots, and History of Words
01:00:17 min | 10,896 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement