Brain augmentation.
Is it not smart to use the tools at your fingertips to get the answer you need rather than attempting to memorize all the knowledge you'll likely need? I think this article, and indeed, many people, are confusing "intelligence" or "smartness" with the ability to memorize and regurgitate. The article cites knowledge of Latin and the ability to do quickly do mental math as examples of intelligence, when really they're the marks of good memorization and (in the case of latin) the mark of a good education for 1914. In our world, these are useful, but functionally unnecessary. Quick mental math is great, but the speed at which one can mentally calculate is rarely a life or death situation, especially when we have standalone calculators, or calculators on our phones, or a pencil and paper. Under duress, most of us can still do mental math, it just takes us longer, and I don't see that as a sign of "biological atrophy". I think, in many ways, our "Human augmentation" is used mostly as a way to slough away all of the tasks which we dislike doing so we can focus on the things we either like to do, or need our full mental capacity to do or comprehend. Those who like math are usually pretty good at mental math (exceptions are everywhere, because humanity), those who love romance languages or roman / early gaulish history probably have a working knowledge of latin (as well as biologists, health care professionals and lawyers). I don't see the augmentation as a specifically bad thing, but if you want to track down the beginning of it, you have to go further back than the 50's. it started out with the beginnings of writing. Before writing was common, you needed to memorize everything. people could recite "Beowulf", or the "Aeneid" from memory.
Here's one of the many reasons I hate the fuck out of The New Yorker. The key subject being discussed, the crux of the debate, is buried in this cast-off little sentence near the end: Okay. First thing, computers don't do arithmetic through memorization. They do arithmetic through what, for a crude shorthand, is basically goal-seeking. If you've ever learned to do square roots by hand, you've basically learned how a comparator works. But more importantly, "working memory" is a much bigger concept than "I can't remember my times tables." "The Internet" is all about working memory. Clearly, we can look up anything we can imagine. However, if we're actually attempting to answer a question or solve a problem we'd best have a few clues as to where to start. Part of that comes from, say, knowing statistically-significant search terms. Part of it comes from knowing what you're not looking for. All of it comes from the intelligence to filter useless information from useful information. It's the same thing we did as hunter-gatherers, we're just doing it in a different field. Here's where it matters. I hate to beat a dead horse, but it's topical. In this conversation, one participant is intelligent, thoughtful, introspective and curious. He has theories. The other participant is boorish, rude, dismissive and sardonic. However, he has a working memory full of relevant tidbits. Both participants have full access to the Internet. Neither participant is being timed. Neither, to our knowledge, is under duress. However, the asshole dominates the conversation from the get-go because the asshole knows where to find his facts. How? Well, extensive reading about the Middle East. An enthusiast's understanding of militaria. And the working memory to craft a counter-narrative at the drop of a hat that, without resorting to gymnastics, holds water in the face of shifting counter-argument. In a world in which working memory doesn't matter, that argument stays philosophical. In a world in which working memory dominates, that argument quickly becomes quibbling about facts. Whose facts? The facts of the person with the greater working memory. That fight went to my turf on my terms because I could count the ways in which the argument was factually flawed without having to crack open a Google. Did I use Google? Yer damn skippy. I knew what I was looking for and I could "refresh" my working memory with relevant information. but without the initial imprint, it's easy to come to the conclusion that television has changed warfare. Why? All the information readily available on the Internet comes from popular media. I think these debates come up because nobody has figured out what we can and cannot safely offload onto our devices without detrimentally impacting our lives. I'm not sure I've made the best choices but I also know I worry about it more than most people. The Internet is not neutral. It feeds you the information it makes the most money on. I did interviews a couple months back where not one person we asked knew Kim Jong Un yet they all knew Kim Kardashian.Is it not smart to use the tools at your fingertips to get the answer you need rather than attempting to memorize all the knowledge you'll likely need?
Our limited working memory means we’re bad at arithmetic, and so no one does long division anymore.
I think, in many ways, our "Human augmentation" is used mostly as a way to slough away all of the tasks which we dislike doing so we can focus on the things we either like to do, or need our full mental capacity to do or comprehend.
Partly curious question-asking and partially advice-seeking, but how do you reconcile the power of working memory with the limits of human capacity? I personally have a terrible memory with almost zero ability to remember dates, names, or quotations. I know the way is not rote-memorization, but the only thing that seems to fix this problem is when I blunder and make incorrect assertions when conversing with others. And while that's definitely effective, it's also akin to learning from the rear-view mirror. One experiment I have been trying is to organize references on topics that interest me, using Mendeley in the case of hard-science topics and org-mode (Breaking big topics into lists upon sublists) for more general topics. I have friends that set up personal wikis for information pertaining to their hobbies, too. In different ways, it is both a step-up and step-down from the quality of note-taking in lectures. I end up with more citations of primary literature, but without regular revisions, the information quickly falls out of date with what is in my head. It's too early to tell if the experiment will be worthwhile, but without it, subjects not visited for months quickly fade away... I guess the question I ask you is: Do you organize your knowledge in some sort of tangible way? Does it work?
Some people have more than others. It's a muscle, just like everything else. Use it and it builds. Neglect it and it atrophies. Well, there's your ritual. Funny thing - I write notes, but I never read them. However, the act of writing them cements their content in my memory. If it doesn't, going back and reading my notes does not jog my memory. It's a ritual, not a reference. I only remember the things that are interesting to me, by and large. On the plus side, I find many things interesting. Yogi Berra misremembered lots of things. It made him famous. You could do worse. If I'm doing research for a screenplay or novel or something I really need to go digging for, I use Novamind and have done since 2003 or so. Learning curve has gotten steeper, though. Using it, on the other hand, is a really good way to cement things in your head… and give you something you can reference later....how do you reconcile the power of working memory with the limits of human capacity?
I personally have a terrible memory with almost zero ability to remember dates, names, or quotations. I know the way is not rote-memorization, but the only thing that seems to fix this problem is when I blunder and make incorrect assertions when conversing with others.
One experiment I have been trying is to organize references on topics that interest me, using Mendeley in the case of hard-science topics and org-mode (Breaking big topics into lists upon sublists) for more general topics. I have friends that set up personal wikis for information pertaining to their hobbies, too.
Yeah, that was my problem all through grade school. Science was interesting and, consequently, easy, but I couldn't care less about early American literature and consequently struggled hard. It's only been recently that I've started to fill in all the gaps left from daydreaming during US history classes. (Ironically?) My resources now are targeted towards that age when I was more interested in wandering in the hills than reading about the federalist papers.I only remember the things that are interesting to me, by and large. On the plus side, I find many things interesting.
Our brains are no longer libraries, but card files to the library that is the internet. This has huge implications in how we think. It's not just that we're storing different information in our brains. Our very thought patterns, our neural pathways, are radically different. A card file is a very different thing than a library. EDIT:
I believe this was one of the studies. E.g. "We remember less through knowing information itself than by knowing where the information can be found." and "When asked to recall the folder names, they did so at greater rates than they recalled the trivia statements themselves".rather than attempting to memorize all the knowledge you'll likely need
I read some things a while back which suggested the 20th century brought a shift in the way humans process information, from Memorization to Reference. In Google terms, from "sort" to "search."to get the answer you need
In order to get that answer, you have to know the question. This is reference. That is, you don't know the answer, but you know how to find it.