“Dad?” Question. Some concern and an edge of rising annoyance. Familiarity.
“Mmm?” Emerging but not committed. Acknowledgement. Hopeful with a tang of inevitable resignation.
“Dad. You weren’t listening to a word I said. Were you?” Accusation. Definite annoyance with wide latitude. Family.
“Yeah yeah. Sure I was.” Feed off. Reviewing Llog. 3x speed makes everyone sound like a chipmunk.
“You did not! You’re just listening to the backup right now!” More accusation. Attempted push download of guilt. Not accepting these connections now.
“Yes dear, I am.” Calm with an edge of annoyance to match target’s. Downgrade tone to understanding and fatherly. “You know there’s no reason to get upset. Reviewing my Llog is no different from remembering the old fashioned way. It’s just not as fast, yet.”
“Oooh!” Exclamation. “It DOES make me upset, and it’s NOT the same!” So much for suggesting application of reason. “I need your attention when I’m talking to you. I need to talk to my father, not voicemail!”
“You are talking to your father. Now stop squawking and talk.” Firm.
“You know that isn’t the same, Dad.” Manouvering. Retreat. Regroup. “So, what’s the answer?”
“No.” Simple. Calculated. Amusing.
“DAD!” Dad dad dad.
Is it relative, or is it Memorex?
Good stuff, dude! I think that the fear that we would become nothing more than operators when memory is augmented by externalized storage is genuine and frequent. I think that we need to be aware of that pitfall and find a new comfortable medium between immediate memory and reference memory, and figure out how we train the two properly. Right now, we only train with the assumption that everything is stored in immediate memory, and that is clearly also very wrong. Sometimes we adapt methods to allow the transition (mnemonics, acronyms, memory paths, imagination-led story memory, etc), but not always..
Uh…..what Encaf said. Yah.
That and I liked it. I thought it was a good read.