> “Maybe you keep the wrong company,” my mother suggests. Maybe. But I like my friends! We can sympathize with each other and feel reassured that we’re not alone in our overeager consumption, denigrated self-control, and anxiety masked as ambition.
This is Gametalk[1], and you are a Loser (a term from [1]: basically one who is not Playing to Win[2] in the game of life.) You are finding no meaning in what you see around you because the things you are likely surrounded with are not real, raw art with messages to communicate, but rather tranquilizers and peptics to calm mutual nerves.
Do not do for what will happen if you do not—acting in fear to return the dial from its painful drift back to the sacred reference point[3]; instead, simply do for what will happen if you do, moving the dial to a new place and observing the change.
All of the tools, gadgetry, and connectivity referenced by the author as the harbinger of his decline from individuality (loss of personality) do indeed usher forth his dystopia because he is using them to fill the hole that was created by his leaving the stimulating environment of college. A place where learning is efficient and discovery nil (this is what college is good for, but it isn't the whole equation - I'm obviously leaving research an exception).
College is an intellectually artificial environment whose culture is curated by those who decide what should be taught about what. The ability to cultivate a stimulating life, a life rich in thought and contemplation, rich in actionable accomplishments (finishing that basement, building that open source project, etc...) is not something that can be taught! It is often a quiet and solitary road too - my mind, my books, my notes, and my Self are all I need to have a fulfilling and deep life. Friends make it better. But as the author noted, there are few "self aware" people in the world. That hole is filled by deliberately choosing your thoughts, by being firm with what you choose to believe, by transmuting information (lead) into knowledge (gold).
I hope to see another essay detailing his journey from the state conveyed in this piece to a state chosen of his free will (we all have free will but he's using technology as a scape goat); because, he is an excellent writer.
As long as we are going to share the same internet, we can acknowledge that the use of the masculine as the default gender for an anonymous person is a longstanding tradition in the English language, and not every person checks every byline of every article she reads. Norms are changing, but I wouldn't call someone wrong or sexist for using a convenient idiom instead of more awkward and somewhat forced modern formulations (although in this case, she is indeed wrong).
> Norms will only keep improving if people keep complaining.
This may be controversial or offensive, but it's the truth so I'll take the heat for saying it:
None of the most successful women I know really care or complain about things like he/she in the English language. For the most successful women I know - I'm thinking of an investment banker, lawyer, and chief editor of a magazine in particular - the idea of causing a fuss over pronouns is so low on their radar that it wouldn't happen.
Again, I'll take heat for this, and so be it - but I think people who complain about that sort of thing need to go do more relevant stuff in the real world. Most people who are actually hard working, enterprising, expansive and successful (professionally or in other worthy endeavors) simply don't have time to be upset and pedantic over this sort of thing.
Anyway, I'll take the heat for this now. It's not 100% the case, but the general pattern certainly holds.
We're drifting from the topic at hand, but None of the most successful women I know really care or complain about things like he/she in the English language misses the point completely. The effect of sexist language on successful women is not the source of people's concern. Rather, it is the (subtle) effect on women who are not yet successful, and the reinforcing effect on men.
Casual minor acts of racism probably have very little effect on Michael Jordan. That doesn't make them ok.
> We're drifting from the topic at hand, but None of the most successful women I know really care or complain about things like he/she in the English language misses the point completely.
No, I understood your point. I think you missed mine though - my point is that you have a limited amount of time each day to direct your attention. If you want to be more successful, or want women to be more successful, then focusing on he/she pronouns is a very bad use of your time. Focusing on creating wealth, learning management, networking, investing, saving, become more disciplined, fit, healthy, exercising are all good uses of time.
After the majority of women are well-informed and well-educated on the topics of nutrition/fitness, finance, investing, negotiation, accounting, self-discipline, goal setting, etc, etc, etc. - after all that's done then let's turn our attention to pronouns. In the meantime, it's rather like stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. Learning more personal finance, investing, and negotiation will massively help anyone's career success, including women. Having everyone switch to singular they will not make so big of a difference.
> Casual minor acts of racism probably have very little effect on Michael Jordan.
I'm getting better at predicting what people's responses to my comments will be - I knew someone would play the racism card. Well done. Comparing the historical use of "he" in English for a singular pronoun to racism smacks of really missing the point though - the point is, pronoun usage is going to have a trivial impact, if any, on people's successes. There's much better places to deploy your energy and resources if you want women to be more successful, either individually or as a group.
If you want to be more successful, or want women to be more successful, then focusing on he/she pronouns is a very bad use of your time.
I respectfully disagree. I think that language matters, and I am concerned about the influence of language on my four daughters (aged 3 to 13). I'm not saying that this is the most important issue, of course-- but I also don't think that sexist language should get a free pass in the name of some higher efficiency.
Learning more personal finance, investing, and negotiation will massively help anyone's career success, including women. Having everyone switch to singular they will not make so big of a difference.
It's not just about career success.
Comparing the historical use of "he" in English for a singular pronoun to racism smacks of really missing the point though - the point is, pronoun usage is going to have a trivial impact, if any, on people's successes.
Again, I beg to differ. Attitudes like racism and sexism are maintained though a variety of means, including casual acts that have largely symbolic value. If you reject the parallel to race, how about we draw an alternative parallel to sexual orientation? I know that in my lifetime, there have been major shifts in both the discourse around homosexuality and the rights gay people have won. I firmly believe the two are related, and that using "gay" as a perjorative has a (subtle, but real) damaging effect on society. Similarly, pretending that "he" is gender neutral supports unconscious assumptions that do women no favors.
The historical use of "he" to refer to both genders should, in my opinion, be relegated to history.
"Most of the clamor,as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupuwhiteship, straw white, whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word "white," either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute "person" everywhere where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All persons are created equal," or "All whites and blacks are created equal." Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident when "white" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker race just as much as fairskins."
You're saying when people don't care about a particular issue they just follow the accepted norm and get on with their lives. And you applaud that. But I don't see how that's incompatible with others who do care making an attempt to improve that accepted norm.
(Warning: sharp tone ahead, not so much at you, mostly at the people who felt the need to high jack this thread with their fundamentalist nonsense).
Because the people who 'do care' as you put it, try to 'improve' by imposing a cost on others, namely by polluting every discussion to the point where the actual points get snowed under and this he/she non-issue takes over as the main focus (case in point: this discussion).
It's like Jehova's witnesses or other nutcase religious people: 'oh we're not harming anyone!' - not putting a gun to my head, no, but still ringing my door bell, proposing legislation based around your idiotic beliefs, etc. Get lost with your 'trying to save my soul' and if you really can't contain your beliefs and have to somehow involve others, at least pick people who have expressed an interest (i.e., post on alt.philosophy.feminism or whatever) instead of always imposing your 'debate' on everybody.
Forgotten? I still use it. I also like to refer to companies as groups of people rather than individual entities. I prefer "Apple are evil" over "Apple is evil", and "Google own you" over "Google owns you".
Wouldn't it be just as sexist to assume that someone named "Alice" is a woman? Well, maybe not just as sexist. But at least a little bit sexist. I mean, for all we know, someone named "Alice" could be a male-to-female transgendered individual who still prefers to use the male pronoun. Or a female-to-male transgendered person who kept his original name to cut down confusion among friends, but switched pronouns.
I guess I shouldn't debate... I read the line about "... the hilarious moment 3 seconds into an intimate embrace when I realize that I'm literally rubbing the screen of my iPhone against his spine," and assumed the author was female because in my head, the "default" participants in an intimate embrace are a guy & a girl, since that's the one I'm most familiar with. So, negative points for me on the knee-jerk gender assumption front.
I thought that was a really great line, potential elicited sexism notwithstanding, by the way. I've had those moments myself. It took me a second to realize exactly what she was talking about, but once I did, I couldn't help but chortle at how much I've chided myself for the very same thing.
I was referring to both the author and Shteyngart using the masculine pronoun to make what I had written, "more personal" (instead of using "they"); a bit loose, I know, but this is a casual discussion medium.
Wow. I've often heard people complain about using "they" as a non-gendered singular pronoun because it was inaccurate, but I've never before had someone argue against it because it was _too_ accurate. I guess what I'm saying is that the stylistic choice you say you made (to use a singular pronoun when referring to two people, one of whom was male), totally confused me.
I note that nothing in this piece discusses Shteyngart leaving college (where the college link was how I resolved the pronoun in your first paragraph), and that surely Shteyngart will not write a follow-up to "this piece", (which is how I resolved the pronoun reference in your last paragraph). I guess I just don't understand how the male pronouns in your comment refer to Shteyngart.
I constantly see my peers lamenting how technology has "taken" their time and space for reflection away and have no idea what they're talking about.
It may be uncool to admit but I have no trouble at all keeping my inbox to zero unread items. And I do have a social life -- less active than many, but more active than a lot of people. I even read books, actual physical things made of paper, in my spare time.
How do I do this? I think maybe I instinctively understand that my personal information processing abilities are limited. I know I'm not a computer; I don't try to be like one. First of all, I subscribe or commit to relatively little, and of what I do follow, I don't feel any obligation to read everything. Mailing lists are aggressively filtered, even when I read them I'm culling entire threads left and right. Facebook I avoid unless I want to keep up with invitations and so on. Quora was starting to become a bit addicting, so I've curtailed that.
Am I abnormal? Do the rest of you just... let the machine take from you what it will? Why? Is there some ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: I READ THE INTERNET that I'm unaware of?
P.S. I'll admit that I failed rather badly a company where everyone was expected to read hundreds if not thousands of mail items daily. But I still blame that not on the fact that I didn't read EVERYTHING, but that I didn't prioritize effectively.
P.P.S. It even grinds my gears that this person laments random connections with people on the subway have now, in the Facebook era, somehow become an impossibility. It's not! I've done it! It's really not that hard. And yes I live in San Francisco, not Iowa.
I don't know if you're abnormal, but for me personally, the problem is more that there are so many things online that are interesting. It's so easy to get caught up, click another link, open another tab, or two, or ten, then spend another hour reading, or two, or the whole morning. Then at some point you realize, oops, hours have passed, I haven't done a damn thing, and yet for some reason I'm drained and exhausted.
Maybe this effect is stronger in those who remember when information was scarce, especially information on subjects that used to be obscure, like, say, programming languages. :) You instinctively try to eat up as much as possible. Except that strategy is actually harmful nowadays, because there simply is too much information on just about anything, for one person to process. That concept is easy to grasp, but it's not so easy to actually change our habits.
Re.P.P.S: I've found it possible, enjoyable, and even personally enriching to strike up conversations with random people on NYC subways. I'd imagine San Francisco would be similar. Here in Tampa Bay, however, striking up a conversation on public transportation is only interesting for a mental health professional practicing his diagnostic skills. A certain concentration of interesting people is required before one can have a chance at finding one who isn't busy updating his facebook status from his phone.
Glad to know that someone else is being human, not allowing machine to take over or Facebook to replace real friends:) Like your attitude, fully endorse it.
Gone are the tacit alliances with fellow subway riders, the brief evolution of sympathy with pedestrians. That predictable progress of unspoken affinity is now interrupted by an impulse to either refresh a page or to take a website-worthy photo.
It's sentences like this that I would imagine to be under a dictionary definition of "nostalgia." I read this, immediately look off into the distance in an oh-so-subtle way, and then wonder quickly how this type of thing could be changed... and if it would be changed.
Think of the last time the bus or the subway car stopped more suddenly than anyone expected. Most everyone will look up, look around, and make brief eye contact with another person to make sure that someone else felt it too. There's that initial panic that sets over a number of people, then, seeing how others have this same, shared experience, everyone is immediately partially comforted. Why wouldn't we be? Someone else is here, they know what's going on, we'll get through this together.
The instant connectivity means that this period of worry before we make the most fleeting of eye contact is even shorter - we're getting rid of that terrifying low in order to have a constant sense of stability. When we do this, we don't feel that euphoric positive delta of connection and of community. The internet, the tubes, the twitters, the facebooks, the pictures, everything is just a numbing agent so we don't have to fret for that initial period of time.
We've advanced as a society to avoid the great pains of life as much as possible - fighting to remove hunger, distance ourselves from war, medicine to cure the sick. Why do we think it unreasonable or unexpected for society to also inadvertently make progress towards avoiding the emotional pains of life?
"You know the good ole days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems" - Billy Joel - Keeping the Faith
to add, a lot of people used to read books or magazines on the subway, now they can read off a device, plus for a lot of users our physical location no longer dictates who we can make contact with.
It maybe shallow, but at least technology reminds us that there is someone out there when we might not be the type to connect casually with those in front of us.
As I was reading, I was having a hard time empathizing with the author. Then I realized that I had assumed the author was male, and checked. Sure enough the author was female. I feel like maybe men experience this stuff differently. For example, take this passage.
>Same with all-or-nothing friends: they’re only compelling if you talk to them all the time; when the chatty, daily interactions end so does the prospect of an interesting expository conversation. Without consistency, a long phone call seems not only daunting but also profoundly dull.
I have friends I meet with rarely and have great conversations with. We don't talk about each others' lives quite so much though. We talk about stuff :)
I'm male and I empathized quite strongly with the article. I have friends that I only speak to on the phone rarely, and I have that exact feeling... that we need to catch up, but since we're so out of synch, catching up is kindof boring.
Opening Safari is an actively destructive decision. I am asking that consciousness be taken away from me. Like the lost time between leaving a party drunk and materializing somehow at your front door, the internet robs you of a day you can visit recursively or even remember.
I struggle with internet addiction. On my bad days, I feel like a walking corpse. I breathe, I eat, and nothing memorable or valuable happens. I wonder what made me think I could handle a career in technology. I admire engineers and wanted to be one. But I need to flee from technology to take a piece of my life back, to reawaken to autonomy. I envy you who can ignore the internet and manage to be productive.
"It is my firm belief, and I say this as a dictum, that all these tools now at our disposal, these things part of this explosive evolution of means of communication, mean we are now heading for an era of solitude. Along with this rapid growth of forms of communication at our disposal — be it fax, phone, email, internet or whatever — human solitude will increase in direct proportion." -Werner Herzog
Thanks to the internet I can work anywhere in the world. Thanks to HN, Reddit and my RSS reader I can keep up with the cutting edge of my profession whereever I go. Thanks to email, jabber, skype and facebook I can travel the world without losing touch with my friends and family. Thanks to couchsurfing.org I've made friends all over the world and experienced dozens of different cultures. If the internet is making you lonely, you're doing it wrong.
Solitude and loneliness are not the same thing. Some people like their solitude and are probably happy that alternate means to communicate empower them to enjoy more of it.
(My attitude seems to be evolving into: "Don't friggin' call me and expect me to drop everything to chat with you. Shoot me an email and I will get back to you within a reasonable period of time without dropping everything like it's some crisis." And I'm a former phone-junkie.)
> Some people like their solitude and are probably happy that alternate means to communicate empower them to enjoy more of it.
It's not just communication but the ability to easily keep track of where people are in the world and to coordinate meetings and shared holidays. Facebook is particularly good for keeping in touch with old friends and acquaintances because of the contextual information it supplies. I saw recently that a friend I haven't seen in years is spending a month in Thailand and I arranged to change my travel plans so that I would be passing through during the same period. We weren't close enough friends that we would still be in touch if it wasn't for those kinds of coincidental connections.
I also meet a lot of new people through couchsurfing.org and various expat sites. Couchsurfing is particularly interesting because its goal is explicitly to create friendships between people of different cultures. I would probably be much more lonely when traveling without it.
I don't understand the obsession with working anywhere in the world. Yes, you can... and? Do you really want to be traveling all the time? If so, that's a good thing to have... but I just can't sympathize. I like to travel, but it's also nice to feel home.
> Do you really want to be traveling all the time?
Personally, yes. I'm aware that this is unusual. Maybe I will settle down one day but the few times I have tried so far I have experienced what I can only describe as cabin fever.
> ... it's also nice to feel home
I suppose that I do have the same instinct to seek out shelter/security/safety, manifested in an irrational fondness for my tent and the few other belongings I carry with me.
It’s like being demoted from the category of thinking, caring human to a sort of rat that doesn’t know why he needs to tap that button, just that he does.
I can't think of a better explanation for the rise and rise of Farmville. The author mentioned Twitter, Tumblr as examples, but I think Farmville is a far better example.
Days seem over before they even begin, and I have nothing to show for myself other than the anxious feeling that I now know just enough to engage in conversations I don’t care about.
To me, this was the most striking sentence in the article. It seems to be something that has increased from the time pop culture began to the present. Each of us probably hears more about Justin Bieber than we would ever truly care to, for example.
For instance, I know that Bieber exists, and I can probably count on my fingers how many times I've seen pictures of him. I found the one or two songs of his I've heard innocuous and utterly forgettable - I probably couldn't identify him if I heard those very same songs again. I'm not even aware precisely why he's the go-to example of annoying celebrity, lately.
I'm not utterly isolated from the world or media, though. I just actually choose what media I consume.
Indeed, and I've pretty much done it. But it takes effort. You need credible replacements for the mindless time, and then you need to actively push yourself towards the new stuff as opposed to the old stuff.
The credible replacements is everything. If you commute by car, you need either:
-Some audiotapes/audiobooks/podcasts
-Someone to carpool with
-Some way of not driving any more (car service if you're wealthy enough, taking the train or bus otherwise)
...otherwise you're going to listen to the radio. What else is there to do while driving?
So it takes some effort. Totally doable though. I just calculated out how much time I spent on pop culture this year - Only one movie (Robin Hood, meh - I would've seen Inception except I was in the back provinces of China when it was released, and then it was gone from theaters when I was back in civilization), less than ten hours of TV (mostly tennis), no pop music except what was on when I was wandering through stores playing music or at a bar, no newspapers, and a few hours of trashy magazines while sitting in an aeronautical engineer friend's bathroom (why he reads them is beyond me, but it wasn't a terrible use of time while in his bathroom).
But this is only possible because I've got a list of stuff to do - a Kindle loaded with good books, an mp3 player loaded with audiobooks/podcasts, Hacker News/LessWrong/Google Reader loaded with good blogs, Lichess.org for when I want to play a game of Chess, and a list of temples/mosques/ruins/parks/beaches to go to.
It's not enough to just "opt out" - you need to "opt in" to some comparable activity to fill your time.
You're also in a different country, where you don't understand the pop culture around you, and you're far removed from yours. When I spent a month in Thailand I didn't even have to try, but back in the states it's not quite so easy.
I spend a fair amount on ITunes every month and I only recently found out that Bieber is a singer (I thought he was some internet guy). I don't know if I've heard a song of his or not.
And how many times would you care to have seen pictures of him, or heard anything about him? Probably zero. So it isn't exactly entirely voluntary, right?
I can't know that I wouldn't care if I haven't heard anything. I do not desire that level of disconnection from culture, merely the ability to control my participation. Which is actually rather easy, I'm finding. Perhaps when my kids get to be teenagers I'll find it a bit more of a challenge, but then, I doubt that's exactly what you mean. (I certainly don't desire that level of disconnection from my family!)
I chose to learn what I did about the guy because I encountered an friend's histrionic dislike of the singer and was curious.
So yes, entirely voluntary.
Now, if you'd like to argue that I was "forced" to encounter information by talking to someone I know, then you're going beyond even trying to make victimization out of exposure to media and just showing yourself to long for a hermitage. :)
Of course. It is important and useful to be a part of society, be conversant with the issues of the day, etc. The author's point seemed to simply be that constantly being conversant with popular culture is capable of becoming a timesink.
How many times would I care to read about yet another 'Facebook is evil!' 'Down with The Man!' 'We're sheep who are being lived by Big Corp' idiotic 'privacy' drivel? None, and yet they show up quite regularly here. I just accept that that's the price to pay to, you know, participating in a broader community where not everybodies ideas and interests are going to 100% overlap with mine, and I skip those articles. Or are you suggesting that any time you run across something that you do not want or are not interested in is somehow a symptom of a general decline in control of our lives, caused by technology?
I have, to the best of my knowledge, never either seen or heard Justin Bieber. I have not made a conscious effort to avoid his face or his music; I just don't consume a lot of mass media.
Definitely true (referring to the quote). My girlfriend is in graduate school. Whens she comes home, she tells me about everything that happened to her during the day. I code and write blogposts. When she asks what I did, I say "went to the coffee shop and worked. That was about it."
I think this is just that people are wired differently. My gf and I are the same way, but it's just a matter of her feeling the need to recap her day to keep me apprised vs my desire to not waste time talking about things that just happened a couple hours ago. I don't see anything deeper to it.
I like (or rather, dislike, but find strange enjoyment in spotting yet another instance) how ignorance of popular culture is a status symbol in some circles, to be flashed as often as possible. It's exactly what is so greatly parodied in http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mention..., down to the picture with the goatee of the typical person exhibiting this behavior.
Justin Bieber, just so you know, is a Canadian teenage singer who has over the last few year build a large mass of rather devoted fans. He makes very 'poppy' music ('mierzoet' as we'd say in Dutch, I'm not aware of an English term capturing the essence of that word) and is therefore widely reviled by those who consider their own musical interests more refined or otherwise better.
Maybe I do; it would be folly for me to claim to know you, based on a few HN posts. Maybe you did mean these two words in the same way that others here inquire about a linked list or the Riemann hypothesis; with a genuine desire to be explained and to know; topics that in these circles would be considered 'Worthy' of knowing, I feel. Wanting to know about things, all sorts of things, is the quintessential trait of the Hacker, after all.
That said, the tone (as far as there can reasonably be understood a 'tone' from two words) and the upvote the post had when I posted my comment did not, prima facie, lead me to believe that the purpose of the post was to be informed about who actually Justin Bieber is. A 5 second google search would've shown more than enough to be able to understand what the GP (and following posts) are complaining about. So, all these circumstances combined, lead me to believe that there is at least a core of truth to my post, even if it's not as dramatic as spelling it out like I did makes it seem.
Then again, me making these ridiculous multi-paragraph posts on a topic that is wholly devoid of any intellectual value would probably rationally be considered indicative of me taking pride in some sort of meta-pseudo-intellectual snobbery; so am I sticking up for pop culture because for the right reasons or for vain self-gratification? Does it matter? I don't know. And I think it doesn't matter that I don't know, either ;)
"Maybe you did mean these two words in the same way that others here inquire about a linked list or the Riemann hypothesis; with a genuine desire to be explained and to know; topics that in these circles would be considered 'Worthy' of knowing, I feel."
More likely he was pointing out to bobf, the user whose post to which he was replying, that participation in pop-culture is entirely voluntary. I think to assume that he was passing judgment on Justin Bieber fans out of some 'pseudo-intellectual snobbery' is just a little bit presumptuous.
Maybe, although I find that hard to read into it. From here on it's just a 'he said she said' or interpretation thing, I guess.
Anyway I'm just posting to point out that that last paragraph with the 'pseudo-intellectual snobbery' was a sneer at myself, and not at Jacques; to point out that these things are relative and that I'm not above it. Just sayin' to make it clear - like I said before, I can't presume to be able to pass judgment on Jacques as a person from a few HN posts.
We're only catching up to Japan, that's all. ;) For better or worse....
"It used to be you would get on the train with junior-high-school girls and it would be noisy as hell with all their chatting,” Yumiko Sugiura, a journalist who writes about Japanese youth culture, told me. “Now it’s very quiet—just the little tapping of thumbs.”
When N+1 hosts writers just out of college, this is what we get. It happens.
This is your typical "we're special because of xyz" conceit.
We all know what that is. We've all been there, and fortunately many of of have noticed and the next time is less severe.
The "we're special because humans never before did x" has been around since the beginning of time, and it's always right on some vapid level. The exciting thing is, we all still have blood, and thin skins, and bacteria who want to live in us but also want to eat us, and viruses who just want to subvert us. That doesn't change that much. Sure, lifespan doubles, hurrah.
This conceit is a cousin of ludditism, a 1st cousin that is, just with a different twist.
Enjoy your college writers. They are great entertainment. Nothing more.
my post discusses exceptionalism, a conceit which blinds us from reality by convincing us that we are different, a notion frequently addressed:
-- everything is new again just like before
-- there is nothing new under the sun ~ all is vanity
-- the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn
for a more culturally correct critique, though less direct, i.e. more metaphorical: this article is a micro-benchmark with a sample size of 1 and not having adequate controls when measuring in a noisy environment.
this is more or less a cousin of what you're saying to me. although it's humorous that you're making it as a critique of me and not of the article when in fact it and i are both painted with that brush.
and while i can just as easily make the same critique, i dispute it as a another conceit: the physical sciences' over-reliance on rationality in a universe that is not fully understood. an old philosophical problem, and one at the core of feynman's overestimated notions of superiority, brilliant as he was, he'll gladly cut down the social sciences and simultaneously provide us with high-quality tools for mass devastation.
ah, the fraternal sciences, one of whom is convinced it is no sibling, but rather the ubermensch already come.
but, yeah, that sort of micro-benchmark metaphor can be popular when misapplied to the humanities. and what do we get out of that?: economics. woohoo! i'm on fire! now, peeps, hurry with the down votes.
This is Gametalk[1], and you are a Loser (a term from [1]: basically one who is not Playing to Win[2] in the game of life.) You are finding no meaning in what you see around you because the things you are likely surrounded with are not real, raw art with messages to communicate, but rather tranquilizers and peptics to calm mutual nerves.
Do not do for what will happen if you do not—acting in fear to return the dial from its painful drift back to the sacred reference point[3]; instead, simply do for what will happen if you do, moving the dial to a new place and observing the change.
[1] http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
[2] http://www.sirlin.net/ptw
[3] http://lesswrong.com/lw/dj/what_is_control_theory_and_why_do...