" @ZenAndTonic: If people need to use some sort of technology on the job that's a bit different than using technology off the job. The technology that they use on the job is a form of skill, a part of training. It is necessary for them to do the job, and just because it's technology, and they're proficient at it, doesn't make them proficient at technology. Using your example, I don't think anyone without a necessity to use that program would use it for example. If it wasn't a program, it was say, some sort of packing procedure it would be just as necessary to learn it. Therefore in your example I think it's more about being proficient at a job-related skill rather than being proficient in technology as a whole. My mother can operate an MRI machine for example but at home she can barely use email; the MRI machine is necessary for her to do the job, and that's why she needs to be good at it, the fact that it's technology (and rather high-end tech at that) is merely incidental. "
It doesn't matter if it's on the job or not - it's still technology. You're saying that a person who's versed in the use of MRI is not proficient in the use of technology? Do you have any idea of how absurd that sounds?
So, let me ask you - do you know how to use an online database for identifying genes and protein fragments from public databases? Do you know how to operate a modern yeast brewer, complete with computerized quality parameter monitoring? Can you write scripts in SAS? Can you repair the onboard navigation system of a car? Can you use a scanning electron microscope? Can you use a air traffic controller console to make sure planes don't smash into each other? Do you know how to drive a tractor? Can you disassemble an industrial-scale grinder, clean out all of its parts, and put it back together again? Do you know how to identify a murderer using forensic techniques? Do you know how to maintain a gaming rig and download games on Steam?
Well, you know how to do the last one. That's just one technology among many. Well, obviously, if you were proficient at technology, you should be able to do all of those things, right? No, wait, you can only do one or a few of those, therefore, you must be out of touch of technology.
Do you see why I think your line of reasoning is absurd, now? You are taking an arbitrary, narrow set of technology that you are skilled at, and declaring that adults must be "out-of-touch" of technology because they can't use the same technology you can. By that logic, I can say that teenagers are out-of-touch of technology because most of them cannot, from start-to-finish, design a gene therapy that will treat cystic fibrosis. See what I did there? I took an arbitrary technology, and made a blanket statement about teenagers. Epiphany achieved, time to post about it on the Internet!
Let's pursue that further, then. This USA Today article states that "45-54 year olds are 36 percent more likely than average to visit Twitter, making them the highest indexing age group, followed by 25-34 year olds, who are 30 percent more likely." You know what this means? Adults are the biggest user of Twitter, and teenagers are lagging behind. This must mean that teenagers are out-of-touch of social networking technology.
That's a completely ridiculous thing to say, isn't it? It's the kind of absurdity anyone can come up with by making grand conclusions based on a narrow set of data. Please consider that.
Log in to comment