/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

You guys are the frontiers

Millennials will lose 'Face-To-Face Social Skills' and 'Deep-Thinking Capabilities' by 2020
>Experts are growing more concerned about the effect of technological advancement on a generation of Americans.

>According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center and Elon University, more than half of the 1,021 respondents believe that constant multitasking and zealous decision-making capabilities will generally produce positive outcomes for young adults in the future.

>On the other hand, 42 percent of respondents think that the wired mentality will actually impair cognitive abilities. By 2020, Millennials will "spend most of their energy sharing short social messages, being entertained, and being distracted away from deep engagement with people and knowledge." They'll lack "deep-thinking capabilities" and "face-to-face social skills."

>“Memories are becoming hyperlinks to information triggered by keywords and URLs," says Geoloqi's CEO Amber Case. "We are becoming ‘persistent paleontologists’ of our own external memories, as our brains are storing the keywords to get back to those memories and not the full memories themselves."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-28/news/31247791_1_millennials-experts-cast-doubt-memori
es#ixzz1qaz2I5hE

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

I'm not a millennial. I look forward to manipulating them though.

However this worry is stupid because by 2020, the internet will be dead.

[Anonymous No.]

Some of this seems to be aimed at those that actually spend a lot of time on social media.

``Deep-Thinking'' isn't something you lose, it's something you develop by yourself and merely using the Internet won't stop you from achieving that, it could even help you with it. Obviously, if you only spend your time doing superficial things, that may be true, and the part about not keeping full memories around for topics that don't interest us is also partially true, but that's still better than other people who can't even look up information about things they require for a temporary amount of time.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776564
> because by 2020, the internet will be dead
Are you some kind of fatalist? Or the opposite? An early singularitarian? (Internet replaced by something faster/better?)

[Anonymous No.]

You've got to be kidding me, if anything solitude and internet activity will increase deep thinking capabilities to dangerous levels, so much so that the normals will think you are insane when really it's the reverse. What you should be worrying about is all the normal fags. Cellphones, faggotbook, movies, shitty music and TV along with social ladder has completely turned them into robotic NPC like humanoids. And they're incredibly stupid when it comes to anything other than their chosen profession and social skills.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776564
Yep. I honestly feel kinda bad about those who talk about the future, because any real investigation will reveal things are going to collapse.

[Anonymous No.]

This is one of the usual "them darn kids and their loud rock music" articles that come on the heels of generational change in the work place. You can safely ignore it and go back to masturbating.

[Anonymous No.]

if you think you had deep-thinking capabilities why are you sill in /jp/?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776586

Because what else is there to do in life? Everything is heavily restricted, you can't really do what you truly want to do. This is the best alternative.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776572
No I just believe the internet will be strangled by stupid laws until it's reduced to just being that thing you use to watch Netflix on your phone.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776598
Maybe only in the US. There is not a single thing that I can think of that one can't do in today's Internet, legal or not.
The reason for this isn't laws or lack of them. It's because general computation and end-to-end communication cannot be truly censored or controlled and getting any of those 2 is very simple, even with "specialized" hardware you won't be able to do it - something "specialized" would be a general-purpose computer hacked to be less general (thus can regain its abilities), not the other way around.

Even if the Internet were fully censored (all countries were to agree to some crazy shitty laws - unlikely as hell), they would have to completely outlaw cryptography and basically have someone watch what you do constantly - total surveillance or a pan-opticon. Without that, it's very easy to create protocols which cannot be censored or even properly identified for what they are or what the data being transmitted through them is. Today, you might not be taking advantage of such things (even if perfectly easy and possible), but if things get bad in the future, you can expect it to become commonplace. Consider what happens in countries with tough copyright laws (such as Japan) - people move to anonymous p2p for their pirating needs.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776605
All they have to do is get the providers to only allow certain traffic through and make it so you have to have some sort of identification, like how Koreans use their SSN for MMORPGs, to be connected. They can then track anything you do without having to actively monitor you and remove undesirables "forever" be it banning the SSN or just arresting them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776617
The internet is far too complex for something like that to work today, it would become unmanageable. Also, you can send hidden traffic through legitimate-looking one quite easily.

SSN thing only works for centralized services that try to play nice. True end-to-end communication doesn't work like that. If you only wanted that to work, you might as well ban the Internet entirely and watch TV and read newspapers, otherwise it's not going to work.
Not even China has something as stupid as that (it wouldn't be Internet if it did).
Anyways, regardless, this would require that all countries agree to something like this, which is unlikely to happen. In the highly unlikely event that it does happen, you can also make your own darknets which are not government controlled and completely separate from the Internet. Basically, you either prevent people from communicating or do some total surveillance, otherwise it's not going to work. Expect something like this only if all countries start valueing their authoritarianism over freedom. Such countries won't be stable anyways, because they are too much against human nature, the only authoritarian ones that would survive are those that at least give some semblence of 'freedom' so peopel don't rise against them or merely refuse to work or contribute (thus leading to the death of the structure).

[Anonymous No.]

I don't even know what deep thinking is. when I spend 30 minutes working on an argument for why someone on the internet is a fuckhead is that deep thinking?

[KING OF /jp/ !2K23m85knQ No.]

>>8776637
that would be wasting time

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776623
Thanks for the posts. It's nice being able to read good posts on /jp/ once in a while.

Also, I'm a layman on computation/internet privacy, if you have the time, could you elaborate on what darknets are? They aren't the same as freenet, right?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776647
Freenet is just anonymous distributed storage. It can be considered a darknet, but basically you can think of them as hidden parts of a network. For example, someone making their own private or semi-public network, or a network built on top of a public network, yet still "invisible" to those monitoring it (the right term would be incomprehensible, due to encryption or the path the traffic takes). The thing is that the fact that end-to-end communication is possible makes it possible to design countless such forms of networks. This would be true even in a completely censored network, of cours such censorship would only work if you could monitor all parties' activities fully (I'm talking about direct surveillance of the person doing it, not just passive sniffing of the traffic, which most countries practice for "security" reasons, although due to the intrusive nature of such acts, it's not used for law enforcement).

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776637
The act of posting on /jp/ requires deep thinking

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776647
Also relevant reading on the topic: http://lwn.net/Articles/473794/

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776623
> Expect something like this only if all countries start valueing their authoritarianism over freedom. Such countries won't be stable anyways, because they are too much against human nature, the only authoritarian ones that would survive are those that at least give some semblence of 'freedom' so peopel don't rise against them or merely refuse to work or contribute (thus leading to the death of the structure

Bullshit. That only works if you ignore most of human history. All medieval societies were authoritarian by today's standarts and so were most in the ancient world .

Today's idea of "freedom" were the results of several social struggles that took place during the 18.-20. centuries and can be taken away just as quick.

There is no "human nature" that could dictate the way humans organize themselves.

[Anonymous No.]

It's just your average 'young people are bad and new technology is bad' shit that old people spout.
Don't worry, in 50 years you will bash the youth and their gizmos.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776717
But I do that already.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776711
> Bullshit. That only works if you ignore most of human history. All medieval societies were authoritarian by today's standarts and so were most in the ancient world .
It wasn't stable in any way or form. Wars were commonplace. Groups trying to go from small to large by defeating one another and increasing their territory/power. Uprisings being common.
The reason for this is that humans prefer freedom of choice, and some of them want power. The deeper problem is us being embedded in a physical reality that makes this kind of injustice possible, but let's leave that alone for now.

Stable total surveillance societies may be possible, but they sure as hell are not desirable. Humanity would be reduced to a shell of itself if that will ever be realized ( our current technology and social structure doesn't make this possible, although there are risks that at certain technological development stages it will be briefly possible (if a certain groups' progress becomes too fast/uneven and their interests are of that sort)).

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776728
>It wasn't stable in any way or form. Wars were commonplace. Groups trying to go from small to large by defeating one another and increasing their territory/power. Uprisings being common.

They were stable. Individual authoritarian states might not have been, but authoritarianism itself was the dominating form of social organization for almost 1500 years. Wars were a stabilizing factor for those regimes, if anything. There were also almost no notable uprisings before the beginnings of the early modern period.

>Stable total surveillance societies may be possible, but they sure as hell are not desirable.

True, but because they limit human potential, not because of their stability.

[Anonymous No.]

>By 2020, Millennials will "spend most of their energy being entertained"
Seriously? Normals think of that as a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776759
I suppose as a form of government yes, but if said form doesn't lead to stable countries, then, no, I wouldn't call it stable.

Nowadays most countries are stable enough, there is still authoritarianism, but much lessened. It's still far from ideal though. We should strive to better ourselves, not to regress to what we know leads to our suffering.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8776766
Only because we still have plenty of problems to solve that actually do need solving, however one shouldn't make sweeping generalization that say that everyone would do the same. Eventually, happyness is everyone's goal, the problem is that taking direct routes to it might lessed the overall total happyness or reduce other people's happyness, so they might be afraid of that kind of tragedy of the commons. I wouldn't be so worried because people's psychology varies enough.

[Anonymous No.]

derp to long did not read xP