The only science referenced in the article is a study that showed less hippocampus activity when utilizing a GPS vs when you're not utilizing one. Not a detrimental lack of activity, just less...
Exemplary
The only science referenced in the article is a study that showed less hippocampus activity when utilizing a GPS vs when you're not utilizing one. Not a detrimental lack of activity, just less during an incredibly specific activity that most people spend around an hour doing 5 days a week. Even then, don't most people drive places by memory after the first few drives?
I could see how someone who makes a career out of driving to unfamiliar places could be at potential risk, but the clickbait title seems to suggest everyone's at risk of brain damage for using GPS from time to time. The article also makes the ridiculous jump from "GPS = less hippocampus activity" to "hippocampus atrophy is related to alzheimer's and PTSD". As if there's any science showing a link between GPS use and those conditions.
So... what about us public transit types who navigate based on where the bus/train stops are? Is that a problem 'cause I'm not memorizing the physical layout of the city? I feel like over time...
So... what about us public transit types who navigate based on where the bus/train stops are? Is that a problem 'cause I'm not memorizing the physical layout of the city?
I feel like over time we've been offloading brain load onto things like computers, maps, books, etc. I know I don't learn paths and area structure when I'm not the one pathfinding, but I generally don't view that as a problem. I do a lot of math, and I frequently use wolfram alpha to handle some of it. Engineers used to have books dedicated to solving stock problems. Humans are good at using external things to reduce what their brain needs to do.
I think my take on it is
Make sure to keep your brain active with something
If you want to specifically learn how to do something, make sure you do it yourself, and don't ONLY offload it onto a computer/book/friend.
You're still learning a network, just not the same one that pedestrians and cars take.
So... what about us public transit types who navigate based on where the bus/train stops are? Is that a problem 'cause I'm not memorizing the physical layout of the city?
You're still learning a network, just not the same one that pedestrians and cars take.
I also wonder what effect this has when interacting with a virtual world. It's standard for large, open-world games to have a mini-map and onscreen quest markers but I find it takes something away...
I also wonder what effect this has when interacting with a virtual world. It's standard for large, open-world games to have a mini-map and onscreen quest markers but I find it takes something away from the experience. If I try to navigate without fast travel and without maps (beyond bringing one up full screen like an old-fashioned paper map) then I get lost and sidetracked but I feel like it's a more immersive experience and I get a better sense of the game world itself.
The article mentions possible negative effects of relying on direction-giving devices in our every day life and how we start to navigate by habit instead of spatial memory strategies, but I wonder if games can help fill this gap. Even without GPS enabled devices many people probably fall into a habit of going to the same few places over and over and there's hardly any need to learn new areas. Our ability to navigate atrophies. With games though, there's the possibility to be constantly introduced to new places to explore and learn our way around in. Maybe that's a good reason to fire up an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game with some realism mods.
I talk about this game at every opportunity it feels like, but I loved this about hollow knight. You have to find or buy the map for areas, and even then they aren't complete. You fill them out to...
I talk about this game at every opportunity it feels like, but I loved this about hollow knight. You have to find or buy the map for areas, and even then they aren't complete. You fill them out to completion by adventuring to uncharted areas and then getting to a bench (game's save point). Additionally, your character icon doesn't appear on the map unless you have an item attached that takes up a spot in your power ups so you have to weigh it against other charms that make you fight better or more evasive or have better defenses. As a result I can navigate a lot of the game without needing the map. I'm actually about to start a challenge for myself where I beat the game without using the charm that gives me my location on the map. It's a design that won't work for every game, but that I like a lot where it is right.
This is one of my favourite things about Hollow Knight! Also the total anxiety of entering an area you don't have the map for, getting deeper and deeper in and not knowing if you'll be able to...
This is one of my favourite things about Hollow Knight! Also the total anxiety of entering an area you don't have the map for, getting deeper and deeper in and not knowing if you'll be able to find your way back if you die... And then suddenly, you hear the cartographer humming to himself, and you know it's going to be all right... God, it's such a good game!
I can’t deal with no mini-maps in open world games. In the real world I have 5 senses to operate with instead of just 2 (really 1.5 if you don’t have surround sound) and all the flora and fauna...
I can’t deal with no mini-maps in open world games. In the real world I have 5 senses to operate with instead of just 2 (really 1.5 if you don’t have surround sound) and all the flora and fauna and rock formations look distinct rather than being fractal permutations of the same handful of types (if we’re lucky enough to have a game where they individually tailored the map).
Navigation in a game just doesn’t work the same way without a minimap. The landmarks aren’t as good and you have none of the general magnetic sense of direction that we do in real space. It’s how you make up for the absence of a sense of touch, smell, and reliable surround sound. That said, part of the reason game design doesn’t prioritize making a navigable world with a clear sense of direction and landmarks is because they’re lazy and rely on minimaps as a crutch.
I always thought a fun concept would be to have a Daredevil game where all the graphics are rough abstractions that only manage to give you a fuzzy, impressionistic portrait of what the scene looks like that only refreshes in a strobelike fashion based on the soundscape.
You’d hear heartbeats and footsteps and stuff that would ping your minimap, but the visual would just be blobs that give you a sense of direction of motion and speed, but no actual resolution on how it looks.
The ONLY way to get around would be by and surround sound and the minimap. And rather than fighting by reading the animations characters are making, you HAVE to blindly (heh) obey the GUI prompts the game gives you to figure out when to dodge, strike, block, etc.
I agree entirely with your point about games. I find that in games like GTA V or Forza Horizon 4, I navigate just by looking at the minimap and miss both a lot of world design, and completely fail...
I agree entirely with your point about games. I find that in games like GTA V or Forza Horizon 4, I navigate just by looking at the minimap and miss both a lot of world design, and completely fail to learn the map. Yet in real life, I have a very clear mental map of places I've driven -- probably because you're forced to actually observe your surroundings in the real world. I will note that games often don't seem to have clear signage or in-world navigation hints because they have the map/minimap to rely on.
Not really a properly sized study, but Mind Field had an episode that tested whether 3D video games improved people's spacial memory. The results did show a positive correlation, albeit among ~5...
Not really a properly sized study, but Mind Field had an episode that tested whether 3D video games improved people's spacial memory. The results did show a positive correlation, albeit among ~5 test subjects.
Ancient Greece: manuscripts will make you dumb 15th century: printing will make you dumb 19th century: film and photograph will make you dumb 20th century: television will make you dumb Later 20th...
Ancient Greece: manuscripts will make you dumb
15th century: printing will make you dumb
19th century: film and photograph will make you dumb
Manuscripts, print, computers and such probably also decreased activity in the areas of the brain responsible for memory. In ancient times, memorization techniques such as the method of loci were...
Manuscripts, print, computers and such probably also decreased activity in the areas of the brain responsible for memory. In ancient times, memorization techniques such as the method of loci were a big deal. Today we have devices that free our time and mental energy to other endeavors. We're not necessarily getting dumber, maybe we're transitioning our focus. It happened before.
Awww I thought this article was going to be more social engineering than actual biochemistry pseudoscience. I dunno about hippocampus activity but I did watch my friend repeatedly exit and enter a...
Awww I thought this article was going to be more social engineering than actual biochemistry pseudoscience.
I dunno about hippocampus activity but I did watch my friend repeatedly exit and enter a freeway while following WAZE (back when it first started and honestly wasn't all that good) and she didn't even register what she was doing. I had to point it out to her and tell her 'stop, the app clearly isn't working correctly'. I told her to simply choose freeway traffic or surface street traffic after about 3-4 re-entries lol
Never. Ever. Consider something a scientist says that isn't directly published in a peer reviewed journal or conference as anything more than the opinion of a layman. Specifically I'm referring...
Never. Ever. Consider something a scientist says that isn't directly published in a peer reviewed journal or conference as anything more than the opinion of a layman. Specifically I'm referring to:
“If we are paying attention to our environment, we are stimulating our hippocampus, and a bigger hippocampus seems to be protective against Alzheimer’s disease,” Bohbot told me in an email. “When we get lost, it activates the hippocampus, it gets us completely out of the habit mode. Getting lost is good!” Done safely, getting lost could be a good thing.
Which is the absolute WORST kind of bullshit 'science'. What you will find published in peer reviewed journals and conferences is that there is a correlation between a bigger hippocampus and a low incidence of alzheimer's disease. There is ZERO evidence that hippocampus stimulation is a protective, causative intervention. Which is why you don't find this claim in the paper, because Nature would kick that shit to the curb.
There is a massive amount of research on the way humans are opening up new orders of magnitude of higher level cognition through using tools from paper to computers to take over the lower levels like memorisation. There is nothing in this article or backing paper to suggest that this isn't simply more of the same - and with the same pros and cons. Take away the internet, and I suddenly can't perform 95% of my job (IT/Eng research) - even the parts of my job that don't have anything inherent to the internet about them. But go up maybe 1 to 3 research supervisors up in the chain from me and you would find someone who did my job with things like index cards and snail mail. The difference is with the internet I am light years faster than they were, and can spend a far greater % of my time on higher level cognition. Add in a reference and resource manager like Mendeley and I don't even need to remember what paper I read about xyz in, I can just let the software remember for me (and save hours of time making tabbed folders of printed papers).
So yes, there are downsides to letting a computer system manage our navigation - in that we're royally fucked when it doesn't work. But if the general trend of digital 'outsourcing' holds here we are likely to have more time to spend on things computer systems can't do. Imagine what we might be capable of as we push more and more of our current cognitive load onto machines! Brains despise idleness, properly supported we might end up with a world of philosophers.
The only science referenced in the article is a study that showed less hippocampus activity when utilizing a GPS vs when you're not utilizing one. Not a detrimental lack of activity, just less during an incredibly specific activity that most people spend around an hour doing 5 days a week. Even then, don't most people drive places by memory after the first few drives?
I could see how someone who makes a career out of driving to unfamiliar places could be at potential risk, but the clickbait title seems to suggest everyone's at risk of brain damage for using GPS from time to time. The article also makes the ridiculous jump from "GPS = less hippocampus activity" to "hippocampus atrophy is related to alzheimer's and PTSD". As if there's any science showing a link between GPS use and those conditions.
So... what about us public transit types who navigate based on where the bus/train stops are? Is that a problem 'cause I'm not memorizing the physical layout of the city?
I feel like over time we've been offloading brain load onto things like computers, maps, books, etc. I know I don't learn paths and area structure when I'm not the one pathfinding, but I generally don't view that as a problem. I do a lot of math, and I frequently use wolfram alpha to handle some of it. Engineers used to have books dedicated to solving stock problems. Humans are good at using external things to reduce what their brain needs to do.
I think my take on it is
You're still learning a network, just not the same one that pedestrians and cars take.
I also wonder what effect this has when interacting with a virtual world. It's standard for large, open-world games to have a mini-map and onscreen quest markers but I find it takes something away from the experience. If I try to navigate without fast travel and without maps (beyond bringing one up full screen like an old-fashioned paper map) then I get lost and sidetracked but I feel like it's a more immersive experience and I get a better sense of the game world itself.
The article mentions possible negative effects of relying on direction-giving devices in our every day life and how we start to navigate by habit instead of spatial memory strategies, but I wonder if games can help fill this gap. Even without GPS enabled devices many people probably fall into a habit of going to the same few places over and over and there's hardly any need to learn new areas. Our ability to navigate atrophies. With games though, there's the possibility to be constantly introduced to new places to explore and learn our way around in. Maybe that's a good reason to fire up an Elder Scrolls or Fallout game with some realism mods.
I talk about this game at every opportunity it feels like, but I loved this about hollow knight. You have to find or buy the map for areas, and even then they aren't complete. You fill them out to completion by adventuring to uncharted areas and then getting to a bench (game's save point). Additionally, your character icon doesn't appear on the map unless you have an item attached that takes up a spot in your power ups so you have to weigh it against other charms that make you fight better or more evasive or have better defenses. As a result I can navigate a lot of the game without needing the map. I'm actually about to start a challenge for myself where I beat the game without using the charm that gives me my location on the map. It's a design that won't work for every game, but that I like a lot where it is right.
This is one of my favourite things about Hollow Knight! Also the total anxiety of entering an area you don't have the map for, getting deeper and deeper in and not knowing if you'll be able to find your way back if you die... And then suddenly, you hear the cartographer humming to himself, and you know it's going to be all right... God, it's such a good game!
Wonderful game indeed. There's a new one on the works, hope it's just as good or better.
I can’t deal with no mini-maps in open world games. In the real world I have 5 senses to operate with instead of just 2 (really 1.5 if you don’t have surround sound) and all the flora and fauna and rock formations look distinct rather than being fractal permutations of the same handful of types (if we’re lucky enough to have a game where they individually tailored the map).
Navigation in a game just doesn’t work the same way without a minimap. The landmarks aren’t as good and you have none of the general magnetic sense of direction that we do in real space. It’s how you make up for the absence of a sense of touch, smell, and reliable surround sound. That said, part of the reason game design doesn’t prioritize making a navigable world with a clear sense of direction and landmarks is because they’re lazy and rely on minimaps as a crutch.
I always thought a fun concept would be to have a Daredevil game where all the graphics are rough abstractions that only manage to give you a fuzzy, impressionistic portrait of what the scene looks like that only refreshes in a strobelike fashion based on the soundscape.
You’d hear heartbeats and footsteps and stuff that would ping your minimap, but the visual would just be blobs that give you a sense of direction of motion and speed, but no actual resolution on how it looks.
The ONLY way to get around would be by and surround sound and the minimap. And rather than fighting by reading the animations characters are making, you HAVE to blindly (heh) obey the GUI prompts the game gives you to figure out when to dodge, strike, block, etc.
I agree entirely with your point about games. I find that in games like GTA V or Forza Horizon 4, I navigate just by looking at the minimap and miss both a lot of world design, and completely fail to learn the map. Yet in real life, I have a very clear mental map of places I've driven -- probably because you're forced to actually observe your surroundings in the real world. I will note that games often don't seem to have clear signage or in-world navigation hints because they have the map/minimap to rely on.
Not really a properly sized study, but Mind Field had an episode that tested whether 3D video games improved people's spacial memory. The results did show a positive correlation, albeit among ~5 test subjects.
Manuscripts, print, computers and such probably also decreased activity in the areas of the brain responsible for memory. In ancient times, memorization techniques such as the method of loci were a big deal. Today we have devices that free our time and mental energy to other endeavors. We're not necessarily getting dumber, maybe we're transitioning our focus. It happened before.
Awww I thought this article was going to be more social engineering than actual biochemistry pseudoscience.
I dunno about hippocampus activity but I did watch my friend repeatedly exit and enter a freeway while following WAZE (back when it first started and honestly wasn't all that good) and she didn't even register what she was doing. I had to point it out to her and tell her 'stop, the app clearly isn't working correctly'. I told her to simply choose freeway traffic or surface street traffic after about 3-4 re-entries lol
Never. Ever. Consider something a scientist says that isn't directly published in a peer reviewed journal or conference as anything more than the opinion of a layman. Specifically I'm referring to:
Which is the absolute WORST kind of bullshit 'science'. What you will find published in peer reviewed journals and conferences is that there is a correlation between a bigger hippocampus and a low incidence of alzheimer's disease. There is ZERO evidence that hippocampus stimulation is a protective, causative intervention. Which is why you don't find this claim in the paper, because Nature would kick that shit to the curb.
There is a massive amount of research on the way humans are opening up new orders of magnitude of higher level cognition through using tools from paper to computers to take over the lower levels like memorisation. There is nothing in this article or backing paper to suggest that this isn't simply more of the same - and with the same pros and cons. Take away the internet, and I suddenly can't perform 95% of my job (IT/Eng research) - even the parts of my job that don't have anything inherent to the internet about them. But go up maybe 1 to 3 research supervisors up in the chain from me and you would find someone who did my job with things like index cards and snail mail. The difference is with the internet I am light years faster than they were, and can spend a far greater % of my time on higher level cognition. Add in a reference and resource manager like Mendeley and I don't even need to remember what paper I read about xyz in, I can just let the software remember for me (and save hours of time making tabbed folders of printed papers).
So yes, there are downsides to letting a computer system manage our navigation - in that we're royally fucked when it doesn't work. But if the general trend of digital 'outsourcing' holds here we are likely to have more time to spend on things computer systems can't do. Imagine what we might be capable of as we push more and more of our current cognitive load onto machines! Brains despise idleness, properly supported we might end up with a world of philosophers.