Yeah, I understand the concept just find. But in the moment It would take me some time to figure out.
I think it’s been shown that a visual representation, such as an analog clock, takes less processing in the brain than a digital one. When digital technology became widespread and cheap, some car makers thought it would be cool to have digital speedometers. These were soon augmented with some form of analog readout, or replaced entirely by them, because it’s much easier to see your speed at a glance on either an analog dial or some sort of linear strip. In particular, you get used to positions that represent things like “normal for city driving” and “normal for highway driving” and it’s a lot more natural than interpreting numbers. Analog clocks have similar advantages.
I think that is a good example of the visual reasoning/spatial processing mentioned in the article I linked.
More or less time than if she had said “bearing 300 relative” or “60 degrees to port(left)”?
The whole reason nautical/aeronautical/military practice uses clock based bearings is because it is easier to learn that compass bearings. Lack of familiarity with analog clock faces would probably make that a much harder skill to teach new soldiers, sailors, and aviators.
Both representations are useful to those who need to deal with those pesky situations that don’t resolve to a whole number. Beyond that, the principals behind the different representations are fundamental to understanding the pleasures and pitfalls of many other ways of thinking of the real world, not to mention the invisible and imaginary parts. More to the OP’s query, do we need to understand the difference between clockwise and counterclockwise? Widdershins and deosil are clearly too ‘woke’ and lefty-loosy, righty-tighty a wee bit too informal…
Regarding fractions, there are stories on NotAlwaysRight of fast-food customers who don’t understand whether a 1/3 pound burger patty is bigger or smaller than a 1/4 pound patty. In other words, understanding fractions is still important despite the existence of decimals.
As in @Mean_Mr.Mustard’s example, quantitative angle estimation and orientation remains very important in any kind of 2D or 3D spatial direction-finding activity. Even if you don’t use the “o’clock” notation for angle estimation, it’s still really important to have a strong perception of what it means to turn by a half or a quarter circle, to turn clockwise instead of counterclockwise, etc.
Unless we’re just going to assume that everybody will be dependent on their devices at all times for any comprehension of spatial angles. They’ll just go in the direction that the arrow on their screen is pointing, and that’s all they’ll know about it. (Presumably there will still persist some embedded haptic understanding of the difference between “left” and “right” and “forward” and “back”, though.) I don’t think that’s going to produce a net improvement in human cognitive functioning in the day-to-day world.
But I agree that there’s no intrinsic reason that the analog clock in particular has to be the universal spatial-angle-comprehension training device. It’s been effective for that purpose traditionally because everybody always wants to know what time it is. But nowadays, as noted, everybody can always know what time it is in digital format, as long as they have their phone with them.
I think analog clocks give kids a sense of how the days passes. They seldom spend a day outside anymore, so the concept of time gets seriously farbled. It is speeded up and slowed down at the whim of computer generated pixels into the most conveniently addicting rhythms.
But an analog watch shows a kid how the day moves, and gives a good sense of how much of it is left. Especially for an ADHD like me, who lacks any innate sense of time, it is a very useful tool.
Somewhat ironically, we used to use analog clock layout and notation as a familiar everyday referent to help kids understand mathematical concepts like angles and trigonometry. Now we’re using the importance of being able to process mathematical concepts like angles and trigonometry as a motivation for continuing to teach kids how to read analog clocks.
I don’t know about it being absolutely necessary.
However, there’s still a significant segment of the population that likes to wear wristwatches, and even many smartwatches have available analog themes.
Moreover, digital watches, for most people who do want to wear a watch, are largely disdained as looking cheap (which many of them are).
Another great example of the value of familiarity with analog clocks. “Clockwise” and “counterclockwise” are concepts that constantly come up in anything involving rotation.
Yes, it is. You’re just simply wrong about this.
..
Yeah, because glancing up at the wall is such a hassle.
By your standard we shouldn’t teach or learn anything because we can just look up stuff on our stupid phones.
If that’s a picture of a real clock one could buy, I’d actually want one. I’ve never been a fan of clocks as home wall decorations, regardless of tech. But that one is really cool. Thanks for sharing.
I agree that it’s a cool clock design. Doing a reverse image search, it’s apparently the “Redundant Clock” designed by Ji Lee. It was available through Kickstarter a few years ago but doesn’t appear to be available now.
Why is math still a useful skill when everyone has a calculator in their pocket?
I used to work as an RA in a dorm at a Job Corps center. A training center for disadvantaged young people trying to learn a trade and complete their education. Most students really learned a lot in their 2 years there.
Had a student come into the office and ask what time it was. There was an analog clock on each wall, 3 of them. I just pointed at them and he could not tell the time, and I would not tell him. Also asked what the date was and I showed him the calender on the wall. He said he couldn’t tell what day it was unless someone had crossed off all the previous days, I told him it was Thursday and to pick which one. He stormed out and complained to my boss. I did not get in trouble and the student soon left the program.
All for refusing to lean a few simple things that he would need in life, like how to read an analog clock or a calendar. Simple things really. I imagine he is probably in prison by now.
“A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.”
Upside - I’ll bet he’s learned to read a calendar.
I agree that there’s a value to knowing something even if it’s a bit antiquated. It never occurred to me until fairly recently that anyone wouldn’t know how to read a clock. Cursive and Roman Numerals I get, but you still encounter them enough that knowing at least some basics does help. If you can’t write in cursive or don’t like to, that’s fine, but you should be able to read it because you’re going to encounter it occasionally. Analog clocks are so ubiquitous I can’t understand not WANTING to be able to read them any more than not wanting to be able to read or understand the language. Same goes for using a map, sewing a button, addressing an envelope/package, writing a check, using a calendar, or typing (on a real keyboard without looking). You may not need those skills that often, but you will need them at some point. Better than knowing how to put a ball in a net.