Does technology tend to bring out the worst in us? (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

Did they? I always thought VHS won on price and nothing else. Most people buy on price.....not specs. Were people going into stores and stating, "I'm buying a VHS player because VHS makers are giving me a machine that records longer" or were they saying, "I'm going with VHS because its cheaper than Beta"? VHS won on price and that is why HD-DVD has a good chance of winning the HD format war, because it is cheaper........and that is all that most consumers care about.

 

[RobertR]

Even if that's true (I think the longer recording time and better programming capabilities had a lot to do with it), how does that contradict what I said?

 

[Mike Frezon]

If we're not careful...someone's gonna show up and say THEY like strawberry best!

 

[Edwin-S]

After thinking about it, I have to admit it doesn't contradict you. I could say that people never asked for or wanted anything from the manufacturers of Beta or VHS: that the manufacturers of VHS set a price point which created consumers wants, but it would just be splitting a hair. The fact of the matter is that VHS was cheap enough for people to afford, so people suddenly wanted it.

The same dynamic is why HD-DVD has a good chance of blowing out Blu-ray: even though Blu-ray, on paper, has everything going for it. The only thing people care about is the price. They don't give a crap about specs. A lot of what I have read here, on what is considered an enthusiast site, only reinforces my belief that superior specs will lose to price every time.....laserdisc being an exception.

And BTW, I cannot decide if Vanilla, Chocalate, or Strawberry is best, so I'm going to be a fence sitter and go with Neopolitan.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Bowls and spoons for everyone!

 

[Steve Schaffer]

I think the internet itself is proof that technology brings out the worst in people, at least as far as being civil with one another. The anonymity of the 'net makes people feel free to insult and abuse each other in ways that they previously would not think of doing face to face or even over the telephone.

The sad fact is that the incivility of the internet is now spilling over into "real life" and degrading society as a whole.

 

[ChristopherG]

I was thinking about this thread as I was working in the yard this morning and basically was going to post something similar to what Steve did here. I completely agree with this sentiment. I don't really blame "technology" per se for a mere "my camera is better than yours" argument. If folks got out of control and abusive 20 years ago in this type of argument then I would think they would argue about anything - technology based or not - in this manner. They are called assholes. They will always exist.
Steve's argument is, with the net, people are given a whole new venue in which to interact and one that typically allows even the meekest (under "normal" circumstances) of individuals the chance to take on anyone in ways they wouldn't normally do. This ability then provides some false courage to act this way in other more traditional venues. Thus I think the argument is more centered on the asshole "boom" that the internet has created. Granted the internet has been provided by "technology" but I still don't believe that because Sony invented something as sweet as the PSP that it brings the worst out in those who favor it over the Nintendo DS.

 

[JohnRice]

The last two post have gotten more to what I was thinking to begin with. Notice I didn't say "does technology make us mean?" or something which blames technology. I said "does technology bring out the worst in us?" though maybe I should have said "does technology tend to bring out the worst in us?" If we behave badly, it is our own fault, regardless of what the catalyst is. I just notice over and over, the catalyst tends to be some aspect of debating (though name calling and random accusations are hardly debate) over some form of technology.

 

[MarkHastings]

Yes, debating within the safety of your own home is definitely a key factor, but it also has an opposite effect. I've been able to viscously argue points which (in real life) would end up in fisticuffs, but that's usually because there's no 'calming down' point in real life...

With internet threads, I'm able to post a 'heated' reply...walk away and calm down. Then I'm able to respond (later on) in a more calm manner after reviewing the responses to my post.Yeah, there will always be those who are going to argue just because they're assholes and the whole "hiding behind the internet" just allows them to be the true asshole that they already are.


And as far as technology, I would say that most people here (who regularly post on message boards) are into technology and are passionate about it. We all have strong opinions as to what is the best.

The one thing I always try to interject is that there really isn't one piece of technology that is best for everyone. Each item has it's own purpose and works best within the expectations of each user. For me to say that Firewire is better than USB2, doesn't mean that my parents should install a firewire card. Their USB2 will suit their needs MUCH better.

That's the other problem. Why do people always assume that "what suits their needs best" always equates to "the best"?

The best for you, doesn't mean it's the best product, but people are always trying to convince me that I need to invest in a certain piece of technology because they think it's so great, when in fact, it has NO impact on what I am doing.

Other Mac users have heard this line WAY too often: "Why are you buying a Mac? They don't have any good games!"

 

[Mary M S]

John, I admire your profession. I haven’t jumped on the digital camera bandwagon yet, when they were first readily available the shutter lag speeds were a killer for my heavily motion oriented shooting. Not to mention countless other perceived (IMO) drawbacks and issues. . Shocks my family because I am the unofficial official family photographer. They hand me their Digital’s to shoot for them...I am lost, they couldn’t believe I was not an early adopter/mainstream user of ...yet. Have 2 or 3 Digital’s around and don’t know anything about them beyond the ‘green box’ auto function. Need to sit down and learn ...they are handy for many applications, and easier in storage/delete/instant access.


Neopolitan and
Bowls and spoons for everyone!
waaaw...you can’t handle WAF?!!!! Don’t have room for 3 separate full range half-gallons with a gallon of rocky road thrown in to beef up the bottom end! Just had to have that itty bitty space saving container and all the pretty colors, don't cha!!

Homemade vanilla and butterscotch milkshakes are preferred by the informed.

 

[JohnRice]

Mary, FWIW, the DSLRs don't seem to have any more lag than film SLRs. The all in ones are usually terrible in that area though.

I'm glad you admire my profession. Unfortunately, as a real profession (as opposed to a sideline) it is dying a painful death. This is not just me complaining. I was even just talking to a peer in the Wedding area, and she, as well as virtually all working pros are having a very rough time.

 

[MarkHastings]

Another Vanilla lover here. And don't get me STARTED on those who are always telling me that 'vanilla' isn't a flavor.

I always tell them to try "sweet cream" - THEN tell me Vanilla isn't a flavor

See! I don't need technology to bring out the worst in me Incompetence does.

 

[Marianne]

It's the internet that brings out the worst in us. People can argue and hurl insults at each other without consequences.

If the same people were face to face they might see what they have in common (love of movies, love of photography) rather than what they don't agree on.

Or they might have to kick each others asses.

 

[chris_everett]

Amen.


I think that part of the "problem" that people like John see is because technology has lowered the financial barrier to entry into a lot of markets. I don't know photography, but I'll give an example from music.
20 years ago it would cost you probably $300,000 for the equipment for a studio with 48 tracks. Maybe more, between recorders, mics, preamps, large format studio board, compressors, effects.... Now you can buy all of it for $3000. Most is software. Any fool can make a record. But technology does not replace talent. The high cost of entry in the past meant that less-talented people would be filtered out. Not so any more.

 

[JohnRice]

That's definitely a big part of it, but you're also kind of contradicting yourself, since you kind of equate having 300K to spend on equipment to talent. Of course, someone who knows what they are doing also knows there is a lot more to it than the hardware, there is also the facility, in addition to the talent. The lower cost encourages the "hacks" to give it a go. Since thhey think technology is talent, they have no idea how unskilled they are and typically get extremely pissy when faced with it.

I watched The Magnificent Ambersons last night, and there are two major areas where it expresses the exact same thing I am talking about. Impressive, since it was written in (as I recall) 1917. The opening scene (also the opening of the book) talks about how "The faster we are carried, the less time we have to spare." Later, after George has one of his selfish rants, Morgan replies seriously, asying something to the effect of "for all it's speed forward, the automobile may be a step back for humanity" and that in the end, he may also agree that it should never have been invented.

Interesting to see something that was written (the book that is) 90 years ago is expressing the same sentiment I tend to feel.

 

[MarkHastings]

Chris, the same thing with the video industry. All of the producers that come through my facility are always sick of the fact that every joe-schmo can do video editing on their home computers.

Our video business has dropped significantly because everyone is going the old "Hey, my brother can do that cheaper" route.

It's infuriating because I'll often see what these people produce and roll my eyes.Agreed. The one thing I notice is that these applications give these 'hacks' the ability to do 80-90% of the job, but when it comes to that last 10-20% (i.e. the fine tuning/finessing) they just can't cut it. That's where it really counts. We all know the stories about editors that will cut only a few seconds from a scene and it'll make a WORLD of difference.

As was mentioned, ANYONE can easily cut a video together, but it takes talent to make that 10% difference on wether something looks "good" and not just "good enough".

 

[chris_everett]

John, what I was saying is that no one let you play in their $300,000 studio unless you had already shown you had talent. You had to work your way up from runner to tape op to assistant before you even had a chance to actually engineer something.

Don't get me wrong, I think removing that barrier to entry with technology is, on balance, a great thing. It's allowed people who never would have a chance to create great music/movies/art an opportunity to do so, but it's also allowed in countless hacks that just aren't capable of doing anything.

 

[JohnRice]

I agree with you on some counts. One main one is the opportunity to make movies. People with talent and determination can make the attempt much easier now, as well as musicians who simply want to release a CD, but I still think the vast majority of the ones who take the opportunity don't produce anything worthwhile. It's the ones who do who make it a blessing. In the area of ART however, I almost completely disagree. Most art has never required much other than skill and work. Technology does not make it easier. Lazy, untalented people just think it does. People are always saying "but now you can do this" when in most cases you always could. Now it just takes less work, which is not a good thing when you do "this" for no reason, simply because you can do it easily and quickly. In photography, a common to hear people say is, "I'll just fix it in the computer" thinking it makes it OK to not do things in the first place. It just doesn't work that way. Eventually you get to a point of garbage in, garbage out. Technology doesn't replace sound ideas and talent.

 

[RobertR]

As I read your post, I had strong suspicions that the sentiment expressed in the book was written from the standpoint of a member of the social “elite” annoyed by the prospect of technological change threatening aspects of his social status. After reading a description of the book on Amazon, that turned out to be precisely the case. It’s all well and good to think the automobile is “bad” when YOUR transportation needs are met without it. Those who oppose technological advancement are typically satisfied with the “old order”, and tend to want to keep things the same. I remember reading about a prominent conductor decrying the invention of the phonograph, and saying how gauche it was that millions could listen to great symphonies instead of the chosen few. I’m sure Swiss watchmakers felt the same when inexpensive Japanese quartz movements changed the world of timekeeping. It became nauseating for me to read the whining from LD diehards about how their privileged status as “cineaste” collectors was threatened, because loaded DVD special editions could be bought for a fraction of the price at (gasp! ewww!) Walmart.

I fail to see how this sort of change is a bad thing per se. If there are negatives, there are obviously also positives. On the whole, change happens because people like the changes, which is the whole point.

 

[JohnRice]

You might look that over again. The first statement comes from the narrator of both the book and movie, who is never identified, and is merely stating that when transportation took 20 minutes to cover a mile, people were more patient about their time. When it became possible to travel at much higher speeds, they became intolerant of the slightest delay. I can pull out the book and post the entire monologue.

In the second case, Morgan is actually acknowledging that his own invention and the source of his personal wealth may in fact result in a decided step back for humanity. Certainly NOT a case of someone being wrapped up in their own interests.

Besides, I never said or implied that technology is a bad thing. Just that it has a tendency to bring out a lot of bad things in us.