Ok, that was funny. A good reminder why I keep posting here.
This is what Wikipedia is for. You can find out about a thing instead of having to actually look at it.
I have a co-worker who seems to be actually devoid of any curiosity at all. She never watches the news or checks the weather. She hasn’t opened a book since she finished high school. She will not try a new food or style of food. We deal with machine shop terms and have for about 20 years. She has no idea what annealing or anodizing is. And she doesn’t care. She can write the same phrase over and over and over for nearly a quarter of a century and NEVER stops to think about what it means.
Makes me crazy.
Some people are just content not knowing things, and not knowing how to find the answer.
If there’s something I don’t know, can’t figure it out and I ask someone for help, I do not want them to just do it for me. I want them to show me how to do it, or where I can look to learn to do it myself. Does that make sense?
How do people go through life without wanting to learn?
Hm. I bet if you handed that guy a magazine to read, he uses a finger or pencil to read. It sounds like someone I mentored on my last job who took some damned fake ‘speed reading’ course that made everybody read with using a ruler to block out the lines below what you were reading, and use a finger to follow along the line. This guy could not read anything on the monitor without using his finger to follow along the line, or use a mouse to point at what he was supposed to be reading.
Yeah, I’ve got a dyslexic friend I help out. Because he can’t skim over this and that piece of dross on the page, he feels like he’s missing something important. I feel bad saying ‘yada yada, just click yes’ but jeez there’s some mountains of crap to wade through if you read it all. I think US TV is a similar thing - a sort of ADD encourager, constant ads and shows that repeat themselves and … well, you’ll find out after a message from our sponsors, but first an ad about the show you’re watching right now. :dubious:
I’ve also watched people try to form a question to google. Dude, just slap a few words in and see what comes up - it’s not like you have only one try! I just printed off some passport application forms for someone who obviously thought you had to search pretty hard to find them. When I told her she could find them online she asked me to email her the address … it was easier to just print 'em.
Not really. There is a “Wikipedia is not censored” rule that results in images of all sexual topics. The fact that this particular article doesn’t have an image seems to be more of a fluke based on vagaries of copyright and fair use law.
Sometimes I will ask what is that? And I don’t literally want the dictionary definition, I’m basically asking for some context and background info from the other person to go along with it.
Like if you were talking politics and someone said what is Watergate? And you said a hotel, when really they wanted a quick synopsis of the location’s significance and the scandal surrounding it etc.
Yep, IME the people who can’t read for shite are also the same ones who can’t follow “hot/cold instructions”. You say “a bit further down” when they are one line over their target, and the jump all the way to the upper left corner of the screen.
There are some companies which provide manuals in videorecording form, but the problem is, I’ve never seen one of those that was good at dealing with options; many don’t have chapters you move along using “next” but are a continuous video, and those are the same users who have problems with the pause/play button. So with those people, even if I could put the manuals on youtube it would do no good.
I agree that it’s usually not a good excuse, but as with anything, it depends.
For example, I DID Google this over the weekend, read it, and still have very little idea what any of it means. I don’t know if it’s because I don’t have an instinctive grasp of the math, or it does a poor job of defining the lingo, or what. The graphs weren’t even that helpful, and I’m a visually-oriented person. But looking something up doesn’t necessarily lead to understanding a concept. Some people need more hands-on learning, like a teacher who can answer questions, rather than just reading what you can find.
The Signal Processing section here did a better job of getting the information across, at least to the extent that I have a better idea of which settings to use even if I don’t fully understand what’s happening when I use them. A physicist I am not. My brain is just not oriented that way – I have a creative brain, not a math brain. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that any brain can absorb and understand any information regardless of said brain’s natural strengths and weaknesses.
I appreciate this feature of humanity a lot. It makes all my friends and family think of me as some sort of crazy wizard who can fix any computer problem in record time.
It does confuse me when people say, “Wow, you fixed my computer and Geek Squad couldn’t!” when all I did was do a Google search for their problem and use the first result. I wonder what “tech support” companies actually do if they can’t manage that.
The people I deal with who do this aren’t all being lazy. As mentioned upthread, it just doesn’t occur to them to look online. And if it does, they aren’t even sure how to ask what they want to know. When I do a google and they see how easy it is, some of them ask how I got the result. Usually it is as simple as typing the question they asked. “Where can I buy X thing in (my city?)”
Today I was doing some heavy-duty googling, and I do have to admit that even googling is a learned skill. It’s not just a matter of knowing what key words to search. You also have to have patience, especially if you’re looking up something obscure (as I was).
But I did find my answer. I’m guessing if I weren’t quite so stubborn, I wouldn’t given up and asked for help.
Googling also takes some skill to separate out the sites selling you something from sites informing you about something.
Try asking how many people vacationed in Vail last year. You’ll probably find an answer on results page 12, after 11 pages of travel sites selling Vail vacations.
A person who was unable to read the result blurbs and quickly and accurately filter out the chaff sites to focus on the plausible wheat sites would be stymied.
Since Google, et al, has morphed from being an info-utility to being a selling tool, getting actual knowledge out of it has become more difficult for many topics.
It bothers me that google is used as the generic for search engines. There are others. Duck duck go does not track.
The internet is a selling tool. I’m not sure how that’s Google’s fault.
Anyway, for the specific question (number of vacationers in Vail last year), that’s actually some fairly obscure information, and personally I would email or call someone to get that information before expecting to find it through a Google search. Google isn’t the be-all and end-all of every single fact. Not yet, anyway.
(bracing myself for posts linking to a page with the information, found on page 12 of a Google query)
I deliberately hadn’t actually tried to run that query myself, even though I knew that opened me up to having my example torn to shreds. I didn’t want to be accusable for setting a deliberate trap.
I did just try it for the 2013-2014 season, as the 14-15 season is still officially underway.
On page 1 of the results I learned that the 2104 death toll was 3. Other than that most of the first 6 pages were either selling ad space or condos or vacations. I gave up after that.
First hit with [vail 2013 visitor count] took me to the Vail Valley Partnership statistics page. It has a Tourism Research link that leads to a page listing the number of skiers and snowboarders each season from 1999 to 2011. So, nothing specifically for 2013, but from historical numbers, one might estimate it at ~1.7 million, just for the Vail resort. Second hit says Vail averages 1.6 million visitors each year. Third says the company’s four resorts drew a total of 5.5 million in 2013 (with Vail being the largest draw).
Helping! 
Chances are that what you’re looking for is similar to what thousands of other people have looked for, and a Google search takes this into account. Often the search is eerie in its ability to know what you’re looking for.
I Googled “Watergate” and the first result was the Wikipedia article on the Watergate scandal:
That’s a much more relevant than saying that it’s a hotel, and probably more concise and informative than anything that you would get from asking a person.
Many people just can’t fathom the extent of the information that’s available on the internet and they’re not very good at finding it. Effective searching involves a combination of awareness and skill, along with willingness and desire. The more you know and the better you are at searching, the more likely you will want to look it up yourself. It’s kind of recursive … 