Okay, but my feedback is based on both my intuition and actual findings of scientists and universities that agree with findings of the Google effect is exaggerated. and they're unable to replicate the experiment.
The AI's (not your) feedback is based on a 2020 Nature study with some interpolation stuck in a local minimum.
My feed back. As stated my intuition ( Initial claim of not believing in the Google Effect ) and findings. ( I read pages from scientists in Canada and Germany who are unable to replicate the Google effect experiments and find how the Google effect is exaggerated.
As for Ai Legga, no.
Just because I smacked you down with some Ai the other day doesn't mean I'm using it here. I had to do it though cause you refuse to take it from me.
No, scientists believe in the Google effect insofar as digital amnesia is concerned. Find me the reference that you're talking about and the quote where they say they don't.
Yes Legga there are scientists that believe. But again...... There are ALSO scientists that do not believe in it.
How many times did I mention science is always at odds with itself, as it should be.
The "Google effect" is heavily debated in psychology. Many scientists view it as a dubious claim.
Now you want me to be your search engine cause as usual, you're too lazy.
You're looking for Colin Camerer. American behavioral economist and the Robert Kirby Professor of Behavioral Finance and Economics at the California Institute of Technology. Him and a group of colleagues.
Another group and it says here> The 2018 Reproducibility Coalition: A group of 24 prominent researchers (publishing in journals like Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science) formally categorized the Google effect alongside other social science findings deemed dubious due to repeated failures to find the same results in controlled environments.
This one too > Replication Researchers (2020 & 2024): Follow-up replication attempts, including a 2020 study incorporating the original authors' methodological recommendations, found no conclusive evidence supporting it. Other scholars argue that relying on external data is just standard "cognitive offloading" (a natural coping mechanism) rather than amnesia.
That last one is from McGill University in Montreal.
I reckon the 3 scientists that came up with the Google Effect are outnumbered.
This is the part where you start crying for more proof and want me to go fetch links for you in a last ditch effort in hopes that I can't.
If you thought, instead of letting AI do the thinking for you, you'd connect the dots with cognitive offloading, which your AI tells you to believe in. How you dont recognize the cognitive dissonance that really requires minimal logic leap to connect the dots is puzzling to me. You instead trust AI and dont even think about it. If this isn't evidence of cognitive offloading, I dont know what is.
But Legga, I never went out of my way to ask the Ai if "I believe" in the Google effect. I simply never did believe in it. I also started my reasons maybe twice now and I dropped another example as to why I don't believe in it.
Did you you know the word "Ignorance" is synonymous with the word "Stupidity" ? Despite what I told you, you're narrowing things down to the assumption that I'm using Ai.
Ai doesn't believe in anything Legga. It cannot believe anything.
Why do you think I say that the Google effect is a fact despite the 2020 Nature study which was unable to reproduce the results of the original study?
Because it's popular science. It's been on NBC. You simply have faith in it. But you never proven it to yourself nor did you to others.
Also there are multiple studies.
The day popular science reverses it's stance on the Google Effect, people are going to have a meltdown, and you're easily one of them.
Similar to when Hawkings changed his mind on black hole theory. Scientists attending his presentation went ape shit, cause the leader of black hole theory changed up on them, and they're forced to follow along.
We're still better off with the internet than without it.
Sure, Im not for shutting down the Internet.
My claim that it's a threat to Universities is a valid claim. Universities these days are a threat to themselves if I'm to be frank. It's become a breeding ground for horseshit.
I could have learned how to use Maya simply by reading about it, and mingling on 3D forums, though the process would've been much slower and I'd lose interest.
Im not saying you should cut yourself off from the Internet.
Heh. I know you're not.
I dont know what kind of textbooks they have on Maya. I think having a hub for discussing with people is important for progress. However, if there is something worth writing down, and if you want to master the craft, you should learn it properly. Either it's by textbook or through an Internet resource.
My point is more that if you use an internet resource you better make conscious effort to protect against digital amnesia. Your brain is prone to laziness. That feeling of being adhd enough that you wouldnt be able to focus on reading a book and calming down I think is a side effect of the modern society which drives down everyone's attention span to another new lowest low every year.
Brain isn't lazy. It's very busy even while we're sleeping, and it controls all our vital organs.
.
The man who learns how to use difficult shit by himself can boast. The ones who enter a field without a degree, can also boast. They're very smart people.
Maya's textbook. I don't even know if they make them anymore. It's called The Maya Bible. Over 1200 pages long. This was before Autodesk bought Maya from Alias Wavefront. Like hauling around a block of wood. Never actually read it.
I was smashing the quiz so hard the host started ignoring me so others can have a chance. One quiz they asked what is this from, and they played a fractions of a second of sound. DJ did a click click, that'll we heard. I raised my hand, and the host was like "anyone" while I'm waving away, he had no choice but to come back to me and I said "It's the Dallas intro theme" correct. I can hear the audience start chattering with a low tone of "WTF" The Dallas theme was something I and basically everyone attending never heard since childhood and I never even watched the show, that shit was too uninteresting for a kid. The point I'm making is, I have a really good memory, I seem to see things others don't that turns out to be correct, and I don't believe in the Google Effect. And How do I know ? I've seen the world without the internet. Was totally there. We had little Black Books, and we memorized phone numbers. Not all of them, just the regulars.
That's nice.
Not only is it nice, it's a demonstration of my memory which of course I know it well on an intimate level. Google effect ? Nope. Not in practice, no.
What I think is we can offload memory into anything and that is true, including digital devices. There's nothing special about digital devices that enables cognitive offloading, as the concept itself is nothing new....You do narrow it down to being something exclusive with the use of digital devices, but it really isn't.
You've also offloaded your brain to it imho.
If you (your AI) believes in offloading, ask your AI if it believes also that you can offload memory and if people do that frequently when they can.
Into "it" you say.
Like I said. It's simply offloading. Just because it's digital doesn't make it special, nor should it have it's own category.
All it is. Forgetfulness. Amnesia is simply a symptom. Okay. The concept of digital amnesia would suggest a new symptom the world has never seen. It's magical thinking to think there's Amnesia, then there's digital amnesia.