“Technology, Experience and Our Current Situation” Comments, Page 1
You are currently browsing page 1 of comments on the article Technology, Experience and Our Current Situation.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Technology, Experience and Our Current Situation: How Our Social Situation Affects Us”.
47 Responses (12 Discussion Threads) to “Technology, Experience and Our Current Situation”
-
1
Hi Evan,
As I heard once, there’s a chair for every buttock (pardon my French, if so)… Which, to me, means there’s a line of though and therapy for each kind of person.
I believe some people (according to their background, views, traditions, values, etc.) will benefit from a new school of thought or a new therapeutical approach, while others (for the same reasons, traditions, beliefs, values, etc.) will benefit from a more ortodox line of thought, counselling, therapy etc.
I do some non-paid work helping people help themselves. That’s my contribution to this world, so to speak. And I found that some people feel more comfortable with a non-traditional psychological approach to solving their problems while others would like to receive a traditional treatment.
Some focus more on the “spiritual” side and other focus more on the “medical” side. Whatever really helps people, I’m okay with it (I accept their views,) although I might not fully agree. (e.g., people who choose to believe in some miraculous technique that will magically solve all their problems just by wishing so.)
Anyhow, what people choose to believe in is so important itself, it has such a force, it’s so powerful, that more often than not, that is what ultimately help them above any other technique that I (personally) might consider more suitable. But, at the end of the day, who am I to tell others what to choose to believe in?
Now… about “Where have all those hysterical Victorian upper class women that Freud used to treat gone to?” I think some have joined the Women’s liberation movement and now are stressed out trying to make a living, others have joined several detaing sites on lines and are channeling thei hysteria there, and some (like me) are posting replies here =)
Have an excellent week!
-
1.1
Thanks Mariana. I think different therapies do suit different people. I also think that different therapists suit different people (this may be even more important than the therapy).
I like your thoughts on where the hysteria has gone.
Who are you to tell others what to believe in? Well, you may be able to offer experience and reasoning that others find valuable. This isn’t telling exactly.
Thanks for your comment.
-
1.2
Thanks so much for your reply, Evan. That’s an interesting way to look at it, (not exactly telling people, but letting them know there might be other alternatives.) I like that. Sometimes I censor my views because they may seem not too traditional, but they might help someone who’s looking for a change.
-
-
2
That was “dating sites”… sorry (and the other typos as well, help instead of helps, thei instead of their, etc… hard to think in different languages while fixing lunch, at the same time!)
-
2.1
I confess I’m one of those narrow Anglo-Saxon types (only one language). And I probably make as many typos while just typing and in my own first language!
-
-
Lunna
3My humble opinion is that technology can never replace human interaction. However, information can be a small piece in the big tapestry of communication. To me that big tapestry encompasses from my cell, to my face book or whatever puts me in contact with the people I value. For other people may be different. That is the beauty of life…we may not always value the same!
-
3.1
Hi Lunna, I too love the diversity of life. I too think technology will never replace face to face communication.
Thanks for your comment.
-
-
4
have to say I find this new way of publishing comments really irritating! That out of the way – a couple of points:
“Hysterical victorian women” are today having “panic attacks” and on anxiety and anti depressant medication. There is no difference in the numbers from what I can see in my work as a counsellor!
I find the use of “our world” a bit irritating (maybe I am just irritable this morning ;-)) – I am a fully paid up member of the cyber world, but in the small Polish town where I live I do not have a range of tai chi options – indeed I couldn’t find a counsellor if I wanted one. I don’t think I’m alone in this. The equality of individuals in the internet world may mask real social differences.
I think the implications of technology might be quite immense on the brain, actually, attention span etc.
-
4.1
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but just to check: what do you find irritating about the new way of publishing comments? Is it too funky having the newest at the top instead of the bottom, or is it the threading/replying feature that makes you go eeeuuuwww, or something else?
All the best,
Greg -
4.2
Hi Sarah,
Me too about this way of doing comments.
Interesting about hysteria.
I think the inequality in the cyberworld is just as real (perhaps more extreme) as in the non-cyberworld. Different in some ways I guess.
I’m quite fascinated by the effect of technology on us. The most striking example I’ve heard is that: before mass media most communication was face to face, now perhaps 10% of our communication is face to face. I think it is very likely that we experience the world very differently to medieval or even Victorian Age people. If you have ideas about the kinds of differences I’d be very interested to hear.
Thanks for your comment Sarah.
-
4.3
For me it’s the threading. Not sure why it is so irritating. Maybe I’m just conservative.
-
4.4
hello Greg the hi-jacker – although I suppose my minor commenting annoyance does have something to do with ‘technology,experience and my current situation”!
It is indeed a little ‘funky’ not being able to follow how comments develop without going ‘backwards’, but I can live with that, what I don’t like are the thready things – I might for instance want to comment on someone’s comment (which is already smaller and in grey which I don’t like either – it makes me read in a different ‘tone of voice’), taking it off in another direction, rather than commenting directly on what they originally commented on. You can’t do that, all comments are subordinate to the original.
not a big deal but a minor irritation…
all best!
Sarah -
4.5
Like right now – I want to comment after your comment Evan and I caaaan’t! So I cut and paste:
“I think the inequality in the cyberworld is just as real (perhaps more extreme) as in the non-cyberworld. Different in some ways I guess.”
yes, but what I wanted to put my finger on was the way ‘we’ the people reading are in a sense, here as we appear on the blog, equal. We all have access to a computer that puts us in the same place, no one can see how we are dressed, we didn;t pay or use connections to get into the debating club! The inequality as one of us types in a rudimentary cyber cafe in a Morroccan village (using the example as it is somewhere I have gone online and felt a huge clash in worlds!) and another from an office in New York is totally invisible. Which makes saying ‘our world’ easy, but I would argue, possibly a bit damaging to some of us!
I did read a review of a book not long ago about the changes in our briains and the way we perceive the world due to use of technological means of communication, but I am blanking on where I found it now. Evolutionary changes seem to be happening quite fast…. there’s loads to think/write about here, but afraid I don’t have time ;-)
-
4.6
Hi Sarah & Evan,
If I’ve followed correctly, Evan doesn’t like the threading at all, whereas Sarah would like the threading to extend to deeper levels — so you can reply to a reply, rather than just replying to an original comment. Is that right?
It’s quite tricky, striking a balance between supporting more detailed comment-to-comment interaction, on the one hand, and ensuring that readers new to the discussion can easily see the relevance of comments to the original post, on the other. (I take it the latter is one main thing that separates comments on a blog post from free-form comments in a forum, which this isn’t intended to be.)
Having said that, I’m certainly open to setting the threading to the next greater level of replies, so you can post replies to replies to comments on posts — which would probably annoy Evan even more! The one thing which has held me back so far is that WordPress is seriously impaired when it comes to switching back to a lower level of threading: if I set it for 3 levels and then switch back to 2 levels, WordPress will currently display any replies entered at level 3 in the wrong order.
As for the ordering, however, I’ll switch that around in just a moment and see what folks think. My sense is that it might make it harder to follow the comments on posts with multiple pages of comments, but I’m happy to experiment.
All the best,
Greg -
4.7
It’ll be interesting to see how it goes and what people like. I confess to being a bit of a Luddite and so mine may be a very minority view.
-
-
5
Well actually, I think I preferred it the way it originally was! Once it had been made more complex, it threw up new problems, which weren’t there in the first place. (This often seems to happen, maybe you could write a post about it Evan!)
So I think you could go either way Greg, make it bog standard simple again, in which case human ingenuity can be used to make things clear, or you can make it even more complex and try to create a category for more possibilities, like the comments springing from comments. Although of course all the comments are related to the original post, a relationship which is already a bit obscured by the ‘comments on the comment’ set up.
God I am irritating myself now, going on about this :-)
Whatever you decide to do – is it possible to make all comments the same size?
-
5.1
sorry I inadvertantly made a new post and came out of the thread!! (making my comment bigger in the process!)
-
-
6
@Evan and Sarah,
I’ve tweaked it so the threaded replies are still displayed smaller (to help them fit into what is a horizontally smaller space), but not as small as before. As Evan says, we can see how it goes and listen to what people prefer.
Many thanks,
Greg -
7
Many thanks, Greg, FWIW this looks much better to me – size and order, feels more comfortable. Interested to see what others think!
-
William Gordon
8…and all this cyberbable(psychobabble?)just emphasizes what you highlighted in your piece – that the technology has got too clever for itself so we’ve lost the thread of the topic by the time we reach the end, and in the process know very little about the people who are contributing! ie the difference ‘twixt this form of communication and old-fashioned ‘pen friends’! I communicate both ways, and have five pen friends and we feel we know each other as though we were good ‘next door neighbours’-wheras the cyber folk are just that – ‘in the ether’.Something’s going wrong somewhere, because from the pure ‘mechanical’ point of view the internet/email wins hands down on our 20 page handwritten letters to each other (never mind the cost and time of ‘snail mail’) – but oh, the joy when the big fat envelope pops through the letterbox, the feel of the paper, and (sometimes) the fragrance of the writer! And what about the bundles tied up in ribbon – or just in a desk drawer, to be savoured again vs the ease of the delete key – gone forever into cyberspace? Call me prehistoric if you will, but there’s a total lack of human spirituality in today’s communication
-
8.1
Thanks for your comment William. It does seem to me that technology does affect how we relate and so our relationships. You give a great example. Many thanks for your comment.
-
8.2
I personally believe that either in person (face to face) or through the Internet, telephone, video conference, cell phone, etc, we bring to the table who we really are.
I mean, I am not a different person with different feelings, emotions and values when I communicate in person than when I communicate through the net.
Since I come from a very affectionate culture, of course I prefer a face to face contact. I’m used to hugging people, smiling, etc. But, for instance, my youngest brother lives 8,000 miles away, in a foreign country, and I’m very grateful for the Internet and Skype. That way we can talk and see each other. Not the same as hugging him in person, but not as slow as sending him a letter (it takes 10 days through snail mail).
-
8.3
Hi Mariana,
I think technology affects a little what/how we express. At it’s most extreme there is twitter which restricts you 140 characters. I write somewhat differently when typing an email to when writing a letter.
While we bring all of us to the communication, for me at least, what is expressed is slightly different. My emails are more immediate and less considered than writing on paper for instance. It may be different for you of course.
-
-
William Gordon9
Yes Marianna, the wonders of technolgy (particularly with the ‘add-ons’ of audio/visual) can indeed ‘shorten the miles’, bring glimpses of home life to those away from it etc., and obviously this is all to the good. I was thinking more of the day-to-day communication (seen particularly amongst the younger generation)where people seem to be endlessly texting,and their mobile at their ear etc. Even social/leisure activities are curtailed. I heard an interesting expression on a radio programme today – an architect talking about the expansion of internal house area space in the U.S.-to the deteriment of the loss of joint family activities; where the young “retire to their cyber cave” – how true! Yes, I too will wait almost a fortnight for my snail-mail letter, but ah, the sheer joy to hold close something she has written! (almost as good as a hug! – I’ll never FEEL that from her emails (unless of course the technology gets really clever!)
-
9.1
I wonder if the ‘cyber cave’ web of relationships doesn’t nourish a need for constant connection, and a feeling of company and stimulation all round us, whereas face to face or letter writing etc foster less of a sense of being surrounded and more depth?
Having said that, as an online counsellor I can testify that relationships of immense depth can be made in this medium…absolutely.
-
-
William Gordon10
That’s very interesting Sarah. I’ve just completed my Certification course in counselling, where we did a lot a face-to-face exercises, when such things as tone of voice, change(s) in facial expresssion, body movements etc were emphasized as very important and monitored. Obviously all this will be lacking, as will pauses etc in an online counselling situation, so I’m wondering how you can ‘pick up’ the feelings of you Client when these are absent? Also (as in online dating situations)surely the Client can present a completely different personality to who they REALLY are? ie how valid is the ‘depth’ in cyberspace?
The comment form is currently closed.
Newer Comments »