Googling gives us answers but deprives us of intelligence.

Do you agree?

I think I do.
On the plus side instant gratification...no more racking our brains to a question you don't know or cant remember the answer to.

On the down side, we go straight to the source, no build up of knowledge to get the answer.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/googling-gives-us-answers%E2%80%94but-deprives-us-of-intelligence/ar-BBA5vyX?li=BBiaL6p&ocid=spartandhp

Google Fact-checking is fine but when it comes to giving opinions I can't stand it when people just post links and boring facts.  I want to know what people think and feel.

There's no excuse for not thinking for yourself.

I agree with Quill, we should use our brains more, else they get lazy and we won't be thinking for ourselves anymore.

eddie wrote:Google Fact-checking is fine but when it comes to giving opinions I can't stand it when people just post links and boring facts.  I want to know what people think and feel.

happens a lot on here.

Original Quill wrote:There's no excuse for not thinking for yourself.

And ironically, when that happens on here, all hell breaks loose.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Google Fact-checking is fine but when it comes to giving opinions I can't stand it when people just post links and boring facts.  I want to know what people think and feel.

happens a lot on here.

Yes it does.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's no excuse for not thinking for yourself.

And ironically, when that happens on here,  all hell breaks loose.

Yes it does.

People have clearly failed to understand the article, regarding claims to facts.

You have to already have a knowledge of many things, to even begin to form opinions within debates. That comes years of research, reading and reasoning and understanding. Reading multiple sources. To attempt to crash read through something on google and then post up something you have not cross referenced by researching. Will make that poster generally end up with egg on their faces.

Sadly you can provide all the reasons in the world to something and even all the data to back up your reasons and have people still in denial. So the process to start using your brains. Starts with research, long before you even begins using any googling. As countless debates, would not even flow.

The point they are making on google, is based on its flawed search parameters, how also people fail to cross reference etc and are thus taken in by unsubstantiated views.  Hence why people buy into conspiracy theories, alternative cures ect. As they fail to research both sides of the arguments.

For example when Quill and I debate on history. The reasons have already been formed within our heads, based off our knowledge. Hence why a debate can rapidly progress between us on given subjects we know.

So the article is apt and true and has been happening for years, allowing countless people to be gullible, because they fail to research many things.

magica wrote:I agree with Quill, we should use our brains more, else they get lazy and we won't be thinking for ourselves anymore.

Google and the like do make us lazy, and not only mentally.
In my day we would go to the library to research whatever fact or information we needed to know, and we used our brain to sift through various sources before we found the answer.
Now we just sit at home and type in a few words...job done.

Anyone who says they still use the old method .....

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

happens a lot on here.

Yes it does.

Agree with both.
It's always more interesting to know someone has put their own thought and feeling into their answers, that's what makes debate more interesting to read than a text book.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:I agree with Quill, we should use our brains more, else they get lazy and we won't be thinking for ourselves anymore.

Google and the like do make us lazy, and not only mentally.
In my day we would go to the library to research whatever we needed to know, and we used our brain to sift through various sources before we found the answer.
Now we just sit at home and type in a few words...job done.

Anyone who says they still use the old method .....

There is are far better ways to stimulate the brain.

Play chess

Play Music

Write a novel

Paint a picture.

Write a poem

Etc

Google is now the central Library. The problem though with this library. Is that the articles are not based on subject groupings but popularity. It then makes it harder to find works that are factual, to further learn on the subject matter.

A case in point, some peoples only access to scientific knowledge and evolution. Is through the internet. As they are censured from reading other works, which are banned in their country.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Google and the like do make us lazy, and not only mentally.
In my day we would go to the library to research whatever we needed to know, and we used our brain to sift through various sources before we found the answer.
Now we just sit at home and type in a few words...job done.

Anyone who says they still use the old method .....

There is are far better ways to stimulate the brain.

Play chess

Play Music

Write a novel

Paint a picture.

Write a poem

Etc

Google is now the central Library. The problem though with this library. Is that the articles are not based on subject groupings but popularity. It then makes it harder to find works that are conflict with your views, to further learn on the subject matter.

A case in point, some peoples only access to knowledge, is through the internet. As they are censured from reading other works, which are banned in their country.

I agree about other ways to stimulate the brain Thor....I was thinking more of info finding...it's just so easy now, and I do believe it limits our enthusiasm to fact find in the more conventional ways.

Your last point...good point. But don't some countries block certain internet sites, just as they censure books?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


There is are far better ways to stimulate the brain.

Play chess

Play Music

Write a novel

Paint a picture.

Write a poem

Etc

Google is now the central Library. The problem though with this library. Is that the articles are not based on subject groupings but popularity. It then makes it harder to find works that are conflict with your views, to further learn on the subject matter.

A case in point, some peoples only access to knowledge, is through the internet. As they are censured from reading other works, which are banned in their country.

I agree about other ways to stimulate the brain Thor....I was thinking more of info finding...it's just so easy now, and I do believe it limits our enthusiasm to fact find in the more conventional ways.

Your last point...good point. But don't  some countries block certain internet sites, just as they censure books?

Some of these countries do block. The future is going to be about information stored online and backed up.
The issue here is not that we do not have a Library anymore. We now have one so big, it is creating infinite problems for people to access information. Based off the many flaws built around the search parameters Syl.

I though still rather a good book any day of the week for research. As they are far greater in depth and research than articles. The issue's to resolve here, is around for people to properly to check sources, until such a time. They are able to fix the many flaws with their search parameters. People have most definitely become fare more lazy when they use online. There is no reason, why people cannot research further on topics. They are just being lazy, when they don't.

I admit I don't use books to fact find anymore, if I had to do any kind of serious research I would, but I don't have to...so I use the easy way...search engine.

Reading for pleasure is a different matter. The feel, smell and just the turning of the pages beats any kindle type electronic gadget hands down.
Life without books, be they hard or paper backed, would not be the same for me.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:There's no excuse for not thinking for yourself.

And ironically, when that happens on here,  all hell breaks loose.

Good.  At least something is happening beyond so-and-so's kitty spit up a fur ball.  

The problem with people failing to think is, we spend too much time on definitions or clarification of the debate, that we rarely get anywhere.  I ask someone simply to substantiate their claim, and I get a lot of lip about how I should do a ton of research.  That's the job of the person wanting substantiation.  I have only to say, I don't believe you!

I enjoy Ben, didge, Wolf and sassy--among my long-time comrades--as they get to the point.  Others also impress me, but I will stick to my long-time mates as I don't want to turn this into a popularity contest.

All of this goes back to the fact/value distinction.  In any given question, there are the pertinent facts.  Then there is the value you affix to them.  Take a simple argument like, wars kill too many babies.  There's the facts: babies are killed, and how many, and why are they killed.  Then there's the value: innocent babies shouldn't die because adults are shooting at each other.

Google is a valuable resource because it gets you to clear facts quicker than any library I've ever seen.  And I was raised in libraries.  I can build an argument inside of 90-seconds, where in the past I might spend a morning researching the same question through books.  That's amazing, and a tremendous innovation.  

Ninety-five percent of what google offers is in the way of facts, but there's also framing, and google will often turn you onto different ways of looking at a factual pattern.  Of course, that's what a library would do, too.  

But look at the timing.  What an innovation.  I can be sitting here thinking out a thesis--Trump should not be judged by laws of nationalism, but by emerging laws of geopolitical economic supremacy--and POW...within seconds I'm at or near a target posting which explodes into several postings, and each explodes into...you get the picture.  If used correctly, Google is a Maserati where once we were driving a 1976 VW squareback.

PS: I love oak and leather-bound books, and the tall fireplace at Moses Hall, Berkeley, a room three-stories high, with stacks leading off, too. But i have a lot of that here in my own home study. The main thing is I don''t take up the space, and I have at a keyboard's reach, every bit as much.

you are all too old( I am right on the change over, only while at Uni was the internet becoming a valid research tool) to have the advantages of a 'reprogrammed' Brain.
Most of You still consider memory intelligence rather than problem solving. (Quill seems to be the exception)

the skill that is 'intelligence' today is the ability to critically analyze multiple pieces of information on the same subject, and it is greater intelligence than merely reciting a single point of reference (a.k.a. what the encyclopedia said) I would argue against the OP, and would instead propose that peoples memorization is far worse but their critical thinking is much better.

Thorin wrote:People have clearly failed to understand the article, regarding claims to facts.

You have to already have a knowledge of many things, to even begin to form opinions within debates. That comes years of research, reading and reasoning and understanding. Reading multiple sources. To attempt to crash read through something on google and then post up something you have not cross referenced by researching. Will make that poster generally end up with egg on their faces.

Sadly you can provide all the reasons in the world to something and even all the data to back up your reasons and have people still in denial. So the process to start using your brains. Starts with research, long before you even begins using any googling. As countless debates, would not even flow.

The point they are making on google, is based on its flawed search parameters, how also people fail to cross reference etc and are thus taken in by unsubstantiated views.  Hence why people buy into conspiracy theories, alternative cures ect. As they fail to research both sides of the arguments.

For example when Quill and I debate on history. The reasons have already been formed within our heads, based off our knowledge. Hence why a debate can rapidly progress between us on given subjects we know.

So the article is apt and true and has been happening for years, allowing countless people to be gullible, because they fail to research many things.

it does allow you to use advanced parameters but if you don't know them it doesn't really show them anywhere.

it was originally based on SQL(Simple Query Language) now it has a custom set

Here is decent list. you can stack them together
https://bynd.com/news-ideas/google-advanced-search-comprehensive-list-google-search-operators/

And I just worked out Google have added it
if you go to "Tools>advanced search" it comes up with a page with dropdowns that allow you to refine your search.

Using google is a bit like using a calculator though.....you get the correct answer to a specific question.....but half the time you don't know how you got there.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:I agree with Quill, we should use our brains more, else they get lazy and we won't be thinking for ourselves anymore.

Google and the like do make us lazy, and not only mentally.
In my day we would go to the library to research whatever fact or information we needed to know, and we used our brain to sift through various sources before we found the answer.
Now we just sit at home and type in a few words...job done.

Anyone who says they still use the old method .....

Not to mention those clay tablets weighed a ton

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Google and the like do make us lazy, and not only mentally.
In my day we would go to the library to research whatever we needed to know, and we used our brain to sift through various sources before we found the answer.
Now we just sit at home and type in a few words...job done.

Anyone who says they still use the old method .....

There is are far better ways to stimulate the brain.

Play chess

Play Music

Write a novel

Paint a picture.

Write a poem

Etc

Google is now the central Library. The problem though with this library. Is that the articles are not based on subject groupings but popularity. It then makes it harder to find works that are factual, to further learn on the subject matter.

A case in point, some peoples only access to scientific knowledge and evolution. Is through the internet. As they are censured from reading other works, which are banned in their country.

Along the same (or, at least similar) lines :

I rarely take any notice of "special interest" forums discussing either beekeeping, nor many other agricultural/farming topics...
(Nor many allied environmental and/or health/nutrition/fitness subjects..).

Primarily, because when I have looked in on many of the regular US, Euro'-centric and Aussie-based ones, I have largely found them fill of outrageous fantasies, ignorant unqualified 'opinions', and outright lies --  with the worst miscreants on there being a handful of noisy bullies, who obviously have zero real world practical experience or proper training between them..

Sites offering genuinely useful information from beekeeping associations, legitimate research academics, and gov't ag' departments are a "completely different kettle of fish" --  as the people posting on them can usually be identified, and recognised as having proper practical experience and relevant knowledge.

Identifying the difference between the genuine knowledge bases and the amateur_hour crappola blogs is helped immensely by having some (practical..) actual experience and training, decent education,  and a wide range of suitable reading, oneself..

Allied with a basic yet still sound education/understanding of underlying scientific, technical and economic principles involved in the various fields...          

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Google and the like do make us lazy, and not only mentally.
In my day we would go to the library to research whatever fact or information we needed to know, and we used our brain to sift through various sources before we found the answer.
Now we just sit at home and type in a few words...job done.

Anyone who says they still use the old method .....

Not to mention those clay tablets weighed a ton

Holy Moses...that made me chuckle.

veya wrote:Most of You still consider memory intelligence rather than problem solving. (Quill seems to be the exception)

"Memory intelligence" was the bane of our existence at universities, too.  I remember in graduate school, the reason I gravitated toward history and political theory was because it was the only thing to stretch the mind.  The professors at the time wanted us all to become number-crunchers (as in polls and quantitative argument) and study only statistical equations.

I skip long and boring c&p posts. I'd much rather read someone's thoughts if I'm honest, interspersed with snippets of facts or links to the facts where relevant.

eddie wrote:I skip long and boring c&p posts. I'd much rather read someone's thoughts if I'm honest, interspersed with snippets of facts or links to the facts where relevant.

I agree, if I wanted to read someone else's words and opinions I would go to the origional source.