We teach arithmetic, but are people better or worse at it than before calculators were widely available?
I’m not sure what you mean by “if you recognise the skill as necessary or useful” - but taking a leap, I don’t see how that matters.
If I allow a machine to code for me, and don’t regularly use my own skills, when that machine becomes financially inaccessible, or just breaks down, it doesn’t matter how important I think the skill is - I’ve given it away.
No question the average person is worse at arithmetic since the invention of the calculators. But we probably wouldn’t have our current standard of living if we hadn’t invented the calculator either. And calculators wre so ubiquitous and basic…
So… On balance it was a net benefit. On the other hand AI affects more than a single skill. Will the QoL improvements outweigh the negative behavioural effects? I think the jury is still out on that one.
Absolutely, I’m not necessarily making the argument that calculators are bad, just the point that technology can help us, and also create dependency, or at least a kind of laziness.
…said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.”
But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.
“For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.” (Phaedrus 274c-275b)
Why don’t you try getting a new argument, yours is a bit dated.
That was written when less than 10% of the population was literate because of how expensive and difficult it was to learn. There was no publicly funded literary education, and public opinion on literacy was at best contentious.
It’s not a similar conclusion. You are literally parroting the same talking points. They are just as fundamentally misguided and divorced from reality now as they were 2000 years ago.
I once had to explain to a room of four other servers and a bartender (so you know, people who are more likely to do mental arithmetic at work than many others), that if each of five servers tips the bartender out ten percent of their earnings, then he’ll earn half of the average tips. Several of them did not believe me even after went through a couple examples.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I do despair if that’s the best we can do.
As with all anecdotes, it does not explain itself, but I can explain this one: repetition.
I don’t think that was really in question though and both you and the other person have already responded genuinely, which makes this interaction less fun than I was intending, because I had hoped my anecdote would be taken as the joke it was.
He’s not really citing anything, just making a claim that happens to align with his existing argument.
People certainly don’t seem better at arithmetic, and readily rely on calculators. Which isn’t necessarily bad, but it speaks to my argument that technology can, and does, cause skills to atrophy.
Well yeah, but so are you and I’m just bringing up an anecdote. If we wanna bring numbers into this, they’ve probably got some evidence related to the Flynn effect, but I don’t know that there’s a good way to actually determine whether the average person got better at arithmetic after calculators came out, unless we want to reuse some oooooold tests.
While anecdotes are iffy sometimes, I think they’re alright in this context.
If people feel the need to reach for calculators rather than doing simple maths in their heads, that at least nods in the direction that the technology has impacted our skill development, or at the very least, made us inclined to use the tool over our own facilities.
But also, there’s emerging evidence of the issues with frequent AI use, so it seems pointless to split hairs.
Edit: just to clarify, I was agreeing with you in my first comment
I was saying the person you responded to was essentially saying “nuh uh!”
We teach arithmetic, but are people better or worse at it than before calculators were widely available?
I’m not sure what you mean by “if you recognise the skill as necessary or useful” - but taking a leap, I don’t see how that matters.
If I allow a machine to code for me, and don’t regularly use my own skills, when that machine becomes financially inaccessible, or just breaks down, it doesn’t matter how important I think the skill is - I’ve given it away.
No question the average person is worse at arithmetic since the invention of the calculators. But we probably wouldn’t have our current standard of living if we hadn’t invented the calculator either. And calculators wre so ubiquitous and basic…
So… On balance it was a net benefit. On the other hand AI affects more than a single skill. Will the QoL improvements outweigh the negative behavioural effects? I think the jury is still out on that one.
Absolutely, I’m not necessarily making the argument that calculators are bad, just the point that technology can help us, and also create dependency, or at least a kind of laziness.
Why don’t you try getting a new argument, yours is a bit dated.
Can’t help but notice that in addition to being weirdly smug, all you did was show that someone else has come to similar conclusions.
Writing things down is a great way to offload the cognitive load of remembering things.
Fortunately, it’s hard to paywall writing. The same isn’t true for AI.
That was written when less than 10% of the population was literate because of how expensive and difficult it was to learn. There was no publicly funded literary education, and public opinion on literacy was at best contentious.
It’s not a similar conclusion. You are literally parroting the same talking points. They are just as fundamentally misguided and divorced from reality now as they were 2000 years ago.
Removed by mod
Thankfully, removing literacy from someone is cost prohibitive.
Better. Significantly better.
I once had to explain to a room of four other servers and a bartender (so you know, people who are more likely to do mental arithmetic at work than many others), that if each of five servers tips the bartender out ten percent of their earnings, then he’ll earn half of the average tips. Several of them did not believe me even after went through a couple examples.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I do despair if that’s the best we can do.
I mean, that’s a curious anecdote. But it doesn’t explain why they would have been better at the math prior to 1970
As with all anecdotes, it does not explain itself, but I can explain this one: repetition.
I don’t think that was really in question though and both you and the other person have already responded genuinely, which makes this interaction less fun than I was intending, because I had hoped my anecdote would be taken as the joke it was.
Them’s the breaks over text sometimes.
:-/
Again, nothing in this story explains why calculators are to blame. If anything, it illustrates how calculators are useful.
Several times vs several thousand times makes a difference 🤷
But hey, take it as a point for you if you want! Calculators are useful.
He’s not really citing anything, just making a claim that happens to align with his existing argument.
People certainly don’t seem better at arithmetic, and readily rely on calculators. Which isn’t necessarily bad, but it speaks to my argument that technology can, and does, cause skills to atrophy.
Well yeah, but so are you and I’m just bringing up an anecdote. If we wanna bring numbers into this, they’ve probably got some evidence related to the Flynn effect, but I don’t know that there’s a good way to actually determine whether the average person got better at arithmetic after calculators came out, unless we want to reuse some oooooold tests.
While anecdotes are iffy sometimes, I think they’re alright in this context.
If people feel the need to reach for calculators rather than doing simple maths in their heads, that at least nods in the direction that the technology has impacted our skill development, or at the very least, made us inclined to use the tool over our own facilities.
But also, there’s emerging evidence of the issues with frequent AI use, so it seems pointless to split hairs.
Edit: just to clarify, I was agreeing with you in my first comment
I was saying the person you responded to was essentially saying “nuh uh!”