• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Using Paper & Pencil Vs. Computer / Digital Tools

lupinwick

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,653
This may upset those in education and industry who spend millions on computer systems and related software.

Paper, pencil and books are the key to developing one's creativity and maximizing one's intelligence, says Dutch psychologist Christof van Nimwegen.

The Dutch researcher recently completed a PhD dissertation at the University of Utrecht about the effects of software on the functioning of the human brain.

In "The Paradox of the guided user: assistance can be counter- effective," van Nimwegen asked two groups to perform the same tasks.

The first was allowed use a computer; the second group only got a pen and pencil.

The second group executed all tasks faster and performed substantially better. In addition, their solutions to complicated problems were more creative.

Van Nimwegen says this difference can be explained from the set-up of contemporary software.

"Present-day software must be user-friendly. Indeed, train ticket machines at railway stations should be simple and provide us with a ticket quickly," van Nimwegen told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.

"But in other situations, I think we should not be assisted as much as graphic software interfaces like Microsoft Windows or Apple OSX are doing today," he added.

Van Nimwegen says much software turns us into passive beings, subjected to the whims of computers, randomly clicking on icons and menu options. In the long run, this hinders our creativity and memory, he says.

Van Nimwegen also investigated what happened if, during a task his two groups were working on, their computers suddenly crashed.

"The group that used a computer throughout, felt lost instantly and immediately performed badly when completing the task. The second group, who has used only pen and pencil, simply carried on with its work."

Van Nimwegen says his study demonstrates people may benefit if they continue to study new information by using books and the spoken word.

"Listening to someone is the best guarantee to absorb information and store it permanently in one's memory," van Nimwegen says.

Van Nimwegen's pioneering research about the effect of software on the functioning of the human brain, has raised interest in academic world as well as in the commercial industry.

Upon completion of his PhD dissertation, the researcher has started a position at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.

But the medical division of Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips has also shown interest in him.

"Subconsciously, many of us know that computers can make our brains lazy," van Nimwegen says.

"Just think about GPS navigation systems. In certain situations the consequences can be far-reaching," van Nimwegen says, explaining that businesses are increasingly becoming aware of the problem.

He referred to an incident with the Terac 500 radiation machine, used worldwide to treat cancer patients.

"The software of this machine contained a fundamental error. If the user would insert the patient's data by typing quickly, then the machine would send the maximum dosage of radiation to the patient.

The development of the software only focused on functionality of the machine, not on the user of the machine and the interaction between the two," van Nimwegen explained.

Future software should consider the interaction between software and user. Present-day programmers and computer developers, he says, do not deal at all with this, but, van Nimwegen thinks, this will change.

"Computers gained popularity in the last decades because they prevent human mistakes. Now we see that it is more complicated.

"Sometimes, if computers take over too much from people, their brains get lazy and people become less attentive. They miss out on problems. Sometimes the consequences can be enormous," he warned.

The Dutch researcher thinks educational software might be the first field where software developers will apply their new ideas about the interaction between software and user and the effect of software on the human brain.

"In contemporary Dutch education, teenagers study mathematics using software and perform tests for their science class on the computer. This is easy, time-saving and cost-effective. It means you can practice everywhere and anywhere."

"But," van Nimegen adds, "we now know that working on a problem ourselves is the key to absorbing information and storing it solidly in our brain."

Source
Link is dead. The MIA article can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/2008100...cil_not_computer_boosts_creativity_12353.html


I'd guess that reliance on computers can be a hindrance (for example kids not being able to look things up in a book index or cope without google). I can only hope that this kind of thinking may see the death of shite such as powerpoint and all its demonic variations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've waxed prosaic elsewhere about kids relying on technology, particularly phones, to do everything for them. Ask them a really basic sum, say five times five, and a lot of them will immediately start tapping away at the Nokia, not even pausing to even try to remember if they already know the answer, let alone work it out. As for language, txtspeak actively encourages bad spelling.

It's as much the fault of tech companies, though: "Kids! Still using the Yadayada 1.0? SADDO! You MUST have the Yadayada 2.0 NOW, or you won't be able to play or even talk with your friends, or learn, or think for yourself. You'll be an outcast! You, you, you.. PEN USER!"
 
What 'tasks' exactly? That article is way too vague.

Plus, I think we keep forgetting that home computers are still only at the Model T stage. They're actually still pretty crap at a lot of things. For example, text is easier to read from a book than from a screen. You can draw far more precisely using a pen than a mouse. And so on. But all this will change with time...
 
lupinwick said:
This may upset those in education and industry who spend millions on computer systems and related software.

I'd guess that reliance on computers can be a hindrance (for example kids not being able to look things up in a book index or cope without google). I can only hope that this kind of thinking may see the death of shite such as powerpoint and all its demonic variations.
'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan mess
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 6:23 PM on 28th April 2010

Its coloured charts, graphs and bullet-points are supposed to make the most incomprehensible data crystal clear.
But even the sharpest military minds in American were left baffled by this PowerPoint slide, a mind-boggling attempt to explain the situation in Afghanistan.
'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, remarked wryly when confronted by the sprawling spaghetti diagram in a briefing.

PowerPoint has become public enemy number one for many US officers who find themselves battling slide presentations rather than insurgents.
Some have gone as far as to declare all-out war on the software after the military command was over-run with mind-numbing 30-slide presentations.

General James N. Mattis, the Joint Forces Commander, isn't taking any prisoners in his approach.
'PowerPoint makes us stupid,' he growled at a military conference in North Carolina. :twisted:

Brigadier General H.R. McMaster went one step further and banned the presentation package when he led an offensive in Tal Afar, Iraq, in 2005.
'It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,' he told the New York Times. 'Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.'

There is growing concern about the insiduous spread of PowerPoint which has come to dominate the lives of many junior officers.
Dubbed the PowerPoint Rangers :roll: , they spend hours slaving away on slides to illustrate every Afghan scenario.

Lieutenant Sam Nuxoll, a platoon leader posted in Iraq, told military website Company Command how he spent most of his time making PowerPoint presentations.
'I have to make a storyboard complete with digital pictures, diagrams and text summaries on just about anything that happens,' he added.
'Conduct a key leader engagement? Make a storyboard. Award a microgrant? Make a storyboard.'

General McChrystal views two PowerPoint presentations a day in Kabul with three more during the course of each week.
PowerPoint was launched in 1987 and bought by Microsoft shortly afterwards.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... z0mU89zSk3
 
This may upset those in education and industry who spend millions on computer systems and related software.

Paper, pencil and books are the key to developing one's creativity and maximizing one's intelligence, says Dutch psychologist Christof van Nimwegen.
The Dutch researcher recently completed a PhD dissertation at the University of Utrecht about the effects of software on the functioning of the human brain.

There's a big problem with this article - it grossly distorts the research and publication it purports to review and explain.

Who says so? The author whose dissertation was the subject of this article. If you follow the updated link (above) to the archived version of the article you'll see the following comment posted by the researcher / author within 5 days of publication:
PLEASE READ THIS
By Christof van Nimwegen, (2008-10-08 10:25)

To All,

Hi, I'm Christof van Nimwegen. I have indeed done research at Utrecht University, it did involve computer interfaces, and my doctoral thesis was indeed called "The paradox of the guided user: assistance can be counter-effective". With great astonishment I am looking at this entry and the comments (over which I stumbled just by accident).

Never, ever in my life have I investigated the use of paper and pens/pencil, nor did I ever mention any of these. NOT ONCE, leave alone that I have done experiments with them! I do indeed mention the issue that under certain circumstances software can make us act "passive" and the text string "randomly clicking on icons and menu options". But this is completely out of context as it stands here, most of it is really nonsense. I am extremely curious where this comes from, because this is an impressive piece of inferior journalism, who can help me out? I sincerely hope that this "article" will be removed from this website, it can only do damage.

For an example of a piece of text from this same week of someone who DID read my thesis, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7656843.stm

Of course, if you'd like to know what I did research there is my PhD. thesis, but for a quick idea:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?...tal&dl;=GUIDE&CFID;=5593186&CFTOKEN;=57525477

Best regards,
Christof van Nimwegen
 
Brigadier General H.R. McMaster went one step further and banned the presentation package when he led an offensive in Tal Afar, Iraq, in 2005.
'It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,' he told the New York Times. 'Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.'
A refreshing view from a soldier!
 
'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan mess ...

That particular slide became a popular press laughing stock in 2010. By the way - here it is:

AfghanistanConceptMap.jpg

See, for example:

Afghanistan: the battle for hearts and bullet points
https://web.archive.org/web/2011042...tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7109711.ece

The problem illustrated by this grotesque example isn't a problem specific to PowerPoint. PowerPoint is merely the vehicle for producing presentation material. No software is going to turn a data visualization mess like this into usefully expressed insight without analysis and / or inference. Neither of these value-adding processes are evident in this spaghetti chart.

Such massive - and massively useless - charts were quite the fad in the 1990s and early 2000s. The basic scheme of a directed graph or semantic network was transformed into the craptastic management playthings labeled mind maps or concept maps.

The really relevant point of criticism is the mistaken presumption that putting something on a PowerPoint chart automatically invests it with value. This sort of grab bag containing all the conceivable dots and all the conceivable arrows interconnecting them represents no value added beyond collecting everything anyone can suggest into one place. The only message it conveys is, "It's all quite complicated." Most clients already know this before commissioning a consultant to look into the matter.
 
Now here's some actual scientific research into the differences induced between performing tasks in the old school analog way (pen and paper) versus doing it digitally on a computer workstation or tablet (etc.). It turns out the old school approach yields improved memory recall and richer information retention in documentation tasks.
Study shows stronger brain activity after writing on paper than on tablet or smartphone

Unique, complex information in analog methods likely gives brain more details to trigger memory

A study of Japanese university students and recent graduates has revealed that writing on physical paper can lead to more brain activity when remembering the information an hour later. Researchers say that the unique, complex, spatial and tactile information associated with writing by hand on physical paper is likely what leads to improved memory.

"Actually, paper is more advanced and useful compared to electronic documents because paper contains more one-of-a-kind information for stronger memory recall," said Professor Kuniyoshi L. Sakai, a neuroscientist at the University of Tokyo and corresponding author of the research recently published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. The research was completed with collaborators from the NTT Data Institute of Management Consulting.

Contrary to the popular belief that digital tools increase efficiency, volunteers who used paper completed the note-taking task about 25% faster than those who used digital tablets or smartphones. ...

FULL STORY: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/uot-sss031821.php

PUBLISHED REPORT:
Keita Umejima, Takuya Ibaraki, Takahiro Yamazaki, and Kuniyoshi L. Sakai. 19 March 2021.
Paper Notebooks vs. Mobile Devices: Brain Activation Differences During Memory Retrieval.
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158

Full Report Accessible At:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.634158/full
 
That particular slide became a popular press laughing stock in 2010. By the way - here it is...
As someone who has to produce presentations for a living, I have to say that's the absolute zenith of useless :) . Official use of PowerPoint always causes pain/hilarity (just FYI - the more you put on the slide, the less they're listening to you. The slide needs to illustrate what you're saying, rather than you narrating the pretty cartoon they're watching. And distribute handouts after you've finished otherwise they won't listen to you or look at the slides, they'll be busily reading the handouts. You're welcome.)
 
To be fair ... One's slides should be both the backdrop and the focus of the presentation "show" you perform. Without knowing the context of the overall show there's a limit to how final a judgment can be rendered on a single slide in isolation. If the spaghetti slide above were presented as the culmination of the show, the show would almost certainly be a failure.

If, on the other hand, the spaghetti slide were shown as an intermediate result illustrating how complicated the subject matter (data collected, etc.) was it can serve a useful purpose in cueing the audience to what subsequent slides (hopefully) disentangle, refine and explain.
 
Yeah, I know - out of context it could be anything, really. The slides need to balance the message, but as a rule of thumb the less complicated the more effective. I've seen some so ridiculously over-elaborate that nobody took in any of the intended meaning as their brains were too busy trying to work out what they were looking at.
 
To be fair ... One's slides should be both the backdrop and the focus of the presentation "show" you perform. Without knowing the context of the overall show there's a limit to how final a judgment can be rendered on a single slide in isolation. If the spaghetti slide above were presented as the culmination of the show, the show would almost certainly be a failure.

If, on the other hand, the spaghetti slide were shown as an intermediate result illustrating how complicated the subject matter (data collected, etc.) was it can serve a useful purpose in cueing the audience to what subsequent slides (hopefully) disentangle, refine and explain.
of course you could end you presentation with the spaghetti slide and the comment “and this is the f’ing mess we are in now”.
 
of course you could end you presentation with the spaghetti slide and the comment “and this is the f’ing mess we are in now”.

True ... In my own experience / context it's always been more appropriate to show 'em the horrendous mess up front, then lead them to the ways it can be overcome or at least rendered more manageable.
 
A few years ago we had a summer student, a very good summer student, who tried to get us all to start using a digital lab book app. Although I know some of my colleagues do keep their work on computer, we've all got good old-fashioned paper books to record our work in as well. The summer student was listened to politely, and then ignored!

I've also met people from other, much better funded labs, who had been given electronic tablets to use in the lab. I'd rather not. My haphazard calculations of concentrations (cells, chemicals) are so much easier to do with a pen, paper and calculator.
 
I just use pen & paper to take notes for my book reviews. Also use pen to complete cryptic crossword puzzles.
 
the more you put on the slide, the less they're listening to you. The slide needs to illustrate what you're saying, rather than you narrating the pretty cartoon they're watching. And distribute handouts after you've finished otherwise they won't listen to you or look at the slides, they'll be busily reading the handouts.

I learned this in speech class at college. It's sound advice.

That being said, I'm a digital fabricator, so doing things on actual computers is a necessary evil. Though I do like to hand-draft from time to time, just to have some fun.
 
I've also met people from other, much better funded labs, who had been given electronic tablets to use in the lab. I'd rather not. My haphazard calculations of concentrations (cells, chemicals) are so much easier to do with a pen, paper and calculator.
Many years since I was in a Lab but remember when note books had to be signed off by the Supervisor, especially before you were given a new one. I like exotic synthetic steps written out with a marker pen on the fume hood glass.
 
Many years since I was in a Lab but remember when note books had to be signed off by the Supervisor, especially before you were given a new one. I like exotic synthetic steps written out with a marker pen on the fume hood glass.

We were supposed to have our notebooks signed off by our Supervisor regularly, but halfway through my PhD she stopped asking and I stopped offering!

I'm a big fan pf writing scraps of information on your glove, and then forgetting it's there and shooting them into he bin...
 
Halfway through my PhD my Supervisor drank himself to death - did more avoiding than supervising anyway. Nowadays I'm drowning under post-it notes and my screen is plastered with electronic post-it notes. Ah the dream of the future paperless office.
 
Death by Powerpoint.

Yup, use with discretion.

But, presenting papers at conferences, I regard as useful.

Illustrative (i.e. relevant) pictures, which also form a psychoprompt for my talk.

Have I got it right?
 
Love computers and any technology.

I came from a world of carbon paper for an extra copy, messy blue ink ditto machines that could not copy worth anything, messy typewriter ribbons, and messy white out.

To think you can instantly correct a written mistake on a computer, that is heaven : and print immediately !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That particular slide became a popular press laughing stock in 2010. By the way - here it is:

I can see several excellent ways of using that!

I do an "Austistic Me" talk where I have about one slide every 15 seconds for 10 minutes. It illustrates the steps my mind takes when thinking about something - we are often accused of butterfly minds :rolleyes: - so that people can see how reticulated logic connections work.
 
Now here's some actual scientific research into the differences induced between performing tasks in the old school analog way (pen and paper) versus doing it digitally on a computer workstation or tablet (etc.). It turns out the old school approach yields improved memory recall and richer information retention in documentation tasks...

For practical reasons I use CAD for design work, especially the large-scale stuff - but as undoubtedly convenient as that method is, I've always liked sitting down with a scale rule and some graph paper.

Using the latter seems to induce a kind of wider contemplation of the process - almost a meditation; the mental process seems somehow broader - if that makes sense - the actual engagement in the arrangement of line and space somehow more submersive. This often flags up related issues that are not necessarily contained within the structure of the drawing - I sometimes find that I extrapolate potential future problems and errors in a way that using CAD, or other drawing programs, does not seem to induce.

I'm not at all a technophobe, and totally appreciate what technology can do for me in this area. However, virtually all my own design projects end up with a history of plans and sketches in both computerised and old-school formats. In my case, initial sketch ups tend to be on the computer - as it's so quick and easy to mess around with measurements and proportions: you can magic up five visualisations of - for instance - a set of bookshelves in a fraction of the time it would take to draw a single one to scale by hand. However, generally speaking, once I've decided on the one I'm going for, I'll then redraw the old school way. For some reason - especially in regard to things like cutting lists and routing plans - a final hand drawing seems to result in less mistakes.
 
Last edited:



Afghanistan: the battle for hearts and bullet points
https://web.archive.org/web/2011042...tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7109711.ece

The only message it conveys is, "It's all quite complicated." Most clients already know this before commissioning a consultant to look into the matter.

I once saw a Powerpoint diagram almost as complex as that at a Morris Dance Fools' convention. I was unsure whether it was Foolishly ironic, or genuinely overthought.

The article linked above includes the dreadful neologism, "bulletize-able".

In a word where people increasingly demand simple solutions to complex problems such as the response to Covid 19, or international relations, or the environment, there may be some value in showing the complex in a complex manner. The simple message, "It's bloody complicated" is one that people need to hear.

However, in most cases, simplicity gets the message across more clearly.

A diagram such as the one shown is often very carefully thought out and coherent, but impossible for someone else to understand without sitting down and making the effort — just like the famous "unknown unknowns" speech, which made perfect sense, but only if you bothered to work through it.

In a previous role, I had to design and present training materials using Powerpoint. There is a constant tension between what you could do, and what you should do with the technology. Many people seem incapable of understanding 2 ideas at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top