My investigations into this subject have led me to believe that there really is a meaningful difference between basic tool use and the use of tools which could only be created by an advanced technological society. There is a difference between throwing a rock and launching and ICBM. Many people seem unwilling to accept this. And the offshoot of this is that all human societies will inevitably develop into an advanced technological society -- as if that's an unquestionably good and necessary thing. I'd also add that "division of labor" becomes dramatically more acute in societies that have become more technologically advanced. If your society's goal is to become technologically advanced in as quick a manner as possible... then you can't have your Einsteins and Nobels spending any more time digging ditches or scrubbing toilets than they absolutely need to. They have effectively become the most advanced processors of technological information and this will give them a place of higher value in a society that wants to develop advanced technologies. This is the rise of technocracy -- perhaps the first real class delineation. The rise of the original priest class involved early understanding of the written word. Similarly, the accounting of mathematics (as simple as that may seem today) gave rise to classes which could -- and would -- amass wealth at the expense of others. Even simple things like these could dramatically change the course of a society. This argument was previously more popular in decades and centuries past, but the internet as the new common medium is not a particularly welcoming place for any sort of critique about advanced technological society.
A side note on Citizen Kane: It was not very successful financially in its time, due to low attendance from low viewer interest. Its status as one of the Greatest Of All Time has to do with fellow filmmakers and later critics noticing its masterful employment and synthesis of many film techniques from that era of film. Some say it marked a new era of modern filmmaking. Citizen Kane is an "Important Film", but I would not say the idea that 1941's popular audiences watched with rapt attention while we squirm in tedium is historically accurate. A good chunk of its viewing value requires knowledge of film history and technique, I can see how some might be underwhelmed. A really great resource on Citizen Kane is Roger Ebert's audio commentary track on the DVD/Blu-ray. Scene by scene he remarks upon the many groundbreaking techniques that make the film "Important." Viewing a few less competent films from around 1941 will also show you how even more tedious and boring films can be compared to Citizen Kane.
Yeah, but probably the same basic logic would apply to pretty much ANY popular film from that era. At least I haven't found one yet that's easy to watch by our standards. Even Casablanca can be somewhat taxing. I just picked Citizen Kane as an example just because it's probably the most famous one from that era, and because I watched it not too long ago. I remember really liking it when I first saw it (around 1980), but I really struggled with it now, despite the fact that I can appreciate a lot of its cinematic innovations (especially relative to the state of the art at the time).
Mainly my critique is of the idea that past general audiences received Citizen Kane significantly better than general audiences today do/would. Historical evidence against that makes it a weak example. Somebody with background knowledge of Citizen Kane will get distracted from your main thesis when they hear that. I certainly was distracted when that example came up. Perhaps your comparison of seeing it in 1980 versus re-watching it today would have sidestepped the whole issue of historical accuracy. A better example might be Gone with the Wind, a 3.5+ hour-long movie that today is quite tedious for its length but was massively, massively popular with 1939/40 audiences. Now, there's a whole rabbit hole to go into as to why that movie was so massively successful, but it certainly fits the example of past audiences being more comfortable with more drawn out experiences. (But one must note that the initial roadshow release of Gone with the Wind featured an intermission. Still, two blocks of nearly 2 hours of movie!)
Nice video. A person "hooked up" on technology can have a subjective experience to withdraw himself more from technology not because of technology, I believe. Every human has human memories that unconscious effect them (sooner or later) to be more. And so after this, help can be given or received. That is, existential or humanistic help that comes from humans themselves.
Thank you Eric, keep up your awesome work!
Excellent study and video. Thank you
Another really good video. Thanks.
My investigations into this subject have led me to believe that there really is a meaningful difference between basic tool use and the use of tools which could only be created by an advanced technological society. There is a difference between throwing a rock and launching and ICBM. Many people seem unwilling to accept this. And the offshoot of this is that all human societies will inevitably develop into an advanced technological society -- as if that's an unquestionably good and necessary thing.
I'd also add that "division of labor" becomes dramatically more acute in societies that have become more technologically advanced. If your society's goal is to become technologically advanced in as quick a manner as possible... then you can't have your Einsteins and Nobels spending any more time digging ditches or scrubbing toilets than they absolutely need to. They have effectively become the most advanced processors of technological information and this will give them a place of higher value in a society that wants to develop advanced technologies.
This is the rise of technocracy -- perhaps the first real class delineation. The rise of the original priest class involved early understanding of the written word. Similarly, the accounting of mathematics (as simple as that may seem today) gave rise to classes which could -- and would -- amass wealth at the expense of others. Even simple things like these could dramatically change the course of a society.
This argument was previously more popular in decades and centuries past, but the internet as the new common medium is not a particularly welcoming place for any sort of critique about advanced technological society.
Keep it up, like the pictures as well!
Very interesting !
Your videos deserve more views.
Great vid. Thanks much.
Nice video !
wonderful
Well, that was terrifying!
A side note on Citizen Kane: It was not very successful financially in its time, due to low attendance from low viewer interest. Its status as one of the Greatest Of All Time has to do with fellow filmmakers and later critics noticing its masterful employment and synthesis of many film techniques from that era of film. Some say it marked a new era of modern filmmaking.
Citizen Kane is an "Important Film", but I would not say the idea that 1941's popular audiences watched with rapt attention while we squirm in tedium is historically accurate. A good chunk of its viewing value requires knowledge of film history and technique, I can see how some might be underwhelmed.
A really great resource on Citizen Kane is Roger Ebert's audio commentary track on the DVD/Blu-ray. Scene by scene he remarks upon the many groundbreaking techniques that make the film "Important." Viewing a few less competent films from around 1941 will also show you how even more tedious and boring films can be compared to Citizen Kane.
Yeah, but probably the same basic logic would apply to pretty much ANY popular film from that era. At least I haven't found one yet that's easy to watch by our standards. Even Casablanca can be somewhat taxing. I just picked Citizen Kane as an example just because it's probably the most famous one from that era, and because I watched it not too long ago. I remember really liking it when I first saw it (around 1980), but I really struggled with it now, despite the fact that I can appreciate a lot of its cinematic innovations (especially relative to the state of the art at the time).
Mainly my critique is of the idea that past general audiences received Citizen Kane significantly better than general audiences today do/would. Historical evidence against that makes it a weak example. Somebody with background knowledge of Citizen Kane will get distracted from your main thesis when they hear that. I certainly was distracted when that example came up. Perhaps your comparison of seeing it in 1980 versus re-watching it today would have sidestepped the whole issue of historical accuracy.
A better example might be Gone with the Wind, a 3.5+ hour-long movie that today is quite tedious for its length but was massively, massively popular with 1939/40 audiences. Now, there's a whole rabbit hole to go into as to why that movie was so massively successful, but it certainly fits the example of past audiences being more comfortable with more drawn out experiences. (But one must note that the initial roadshow release of Gone with the Wind featured an intermission. Still, two blocks of nearly 2 hours of movie!)
How old are you, Mr. Dodson?
Nice video. A person "hooked up" on technology can have a subjective experience to withdraw himself more from technology not because of technology, I believe. Every human has human memories that unconscious effect them (sooner or later) to be more. And so after this, help can be given or received. That is, existential or humanistic help that comes from humans themselves.
talking about patience: i cant watch commentary videos on youtube anymore without using the 1.25 or 1.50 speedsetting x)