I would argue that texting, surfing, and tweeting do not lead to knowledge acquisition. Reading a book does.

According to Steve Jobs, people don’t read anymore. You may not like Mr. Jobs or Apple, but he is an intelligent man and his comment cannot be ignored. I do not take his observation at face value, that Americans don’t read anything. However, garbage in still equals garbage out.

It is better to express your thoughts simply if that creates the most clarity in the reader.

In reference to your continued use of the phrase ad hominem, I cannot argue something on its merits if it has none. The only thing to do in that case is either ignore you (soon to follow), or explain your error, but neither is an emotional or personal attack on you.

Your first mistake: “You generalize way too easily about the nature of these activities, and don’t tell me nobody uses blogs like we’re doing right now.” – An actual ad hominem, you make no effort to relate your statement to any piece of my argument. It is the equivalent of calling me fat and telling me I’m wrong because of it.

Your second mistake: “None of them honestly have real data on the demographics of this society. It’s just sensationalist raving.” – A lie.

Your third mistake: “It’s obvious that there’s data out there about the internet. Even if they did consult the data, the point is that circumstantial correlative bullcrap should be taken with a grain of salt.” – You now admit the data exists, but then dismiss it without any reason. Calling the data bullcrap is unfounded.

Your fourth mistake: “Don’t think you can bluff your way into expecting me to cure cancer.” – Another personal attack on me, you are stating that the motives for my argument are not in eliminating smoking, but in generating profit for myself at your expense.

Lincoln, you might learn the definition of uncommon words if you want to try and use them to debunk another’s argument.

Congratulations on moving the thread away from the topic, but it was probably dead anyway.

To reiterate my rebuttal, It is rare that any blog or forum generates a thread that causes someone to use latin, even if they do so incorrectly. A book provides a better education than the internet. I agree with the author that we are the dumbest generation, in recent history at least, and that is supported by statistics on education. In addition to those statistics, the material that many of us learn is not high quality, not useful, junk.

Finally, your assertion that social interaction is the reason for people being relatively big brained is being challenged. There appears to be significant data that the reason our brains grew to human size is due to the structure of our jaw bones and not, as you suggest, out of necessity from our demanding social lives. In other words, we may be big brained simply due to a physical characteristic, a genetic chance happening.

goodbye.

The nonsequitir you made is obvious. I needed to be actively involved in improving my education system if I dare use it as an example of argument.

I don’t enjoy this panhandling, and you used more ad hominem, damnit.

If by counterpoint you are referring to, “It’s obvious that there’s data out there about the internet. Even if they did consult the data, the point is that circumstantial correlative bullcrap should be taken with a grain of salt.”

Well, that isn’t saying anything. It is equivalent to writing something along the lines of, I see your point and raise it by ten.

I stand by my recommendation. It is much harder to examine thyself than to denounce others.
I stay on point.

For your reference, the term you are using is properly written as non sequitur. I’m not writing this to debase you, simply to inform you since you seem to like big words. In addition, a non sequitur hasn’t been used.

Would you kindly pass the ketchup?

Now it has.

I’m not bluffing you into anything. If you are taking jabs at something then you aren’t interested in solutions.

I don’t understand your point when you diverge into curing cancer.

If you’re stating that we ought to blame the educational system then I’ll direct you to previous arguments in the thread. You’ll fit right in between those who blame the government and those who blame the parents.

Try blaming yourself.

Yes, the primary theory behind exponential encephalization of primates says that in order to make the most of the social environment, we needed intellectual capacity.

I’ll make jabs at the education system all I want. Don’t think you can bluff your way into expecting me to cure cancer. The problem is endemic in human nature. You’re always going to have mediocre teachers. “Garbage in, garbage out” as one would put it.

wut’s wit all the haterz on FB n MS?
1337 4 eva.

I don’t know that social interaction is the impetus of our evolution. It is an interesting thought though.

A google search suggests that there is quite a bit of demographic data about the users of social networking sites, actually.

“http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=demographics+social+networking+sites&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8″

I’d rather we use our energy to fix problems like the exam system than to come up with sarcastic, novel ways of telling each other it is broken.

Not everything will challenge your mind, and neither did everything back in the “good ol’ days.” Ironic that social interaction is the key impetus to our evolution of congition yet people will use that same inclination to be the cause of our destruction. None of them honestly have real data on the demographics of this society. It’s just sensationalist raving.

I’d rather we have our students manipulate the exam system. That’s indicative of intelligent autonomous beings creatively controlling their environment. It’s also indicative of how exams are based off of speed and memorization, rather than development and understanding.