Double-edged. For some, surely that'll be the case. For most, they know what they know and that's all they can go on. In this way, most people probably just have more deep-seated and identity-forming notions of history, regardless of accuracy or holistic thinking.

It's probably better for institutions and worse for individuals, but I understand the opposite is the intuitive take, probably.

I suspect it all provides more content for people to apply their well-developed or undeveloped judgment. There is no resolution better than the present moment’s resolution, and people get these present things wrong often, so with more and more content to sift through and learn from, I agree there is an opportunity for broader and just better thinking, but who among us will learn how to take advantage of that? We have to think well at all to think better with more content to think about. Will we just spend more time looking for that cat video?

this translate into an instantiated ability to project our thoughts and ideas further into the future as well as the past — I like sushi

I can't quite say I understand or agree with this. There's some buzzword Latin term for it, I'm sure. I don't know it. But, in simple words, everything that goes on inside your mind is completely detached and non-relevant to the world outside it. I mean, unless you're some sort of super being. If so, how nice. But generally speaking, seeing videos of events of the past, while it can offer insight and a true (albeit ultimately vicarious) sense of insight into those events that spoken words, stories and even photos and illustrations cannot, it's more sensory than actual, I'd argue.

Photo albums have existed since the 1800s. People could gather around and view one's family tree (or anyone's, for that matter) and suddenly become transported into a world much like their own yet entirely unique. That's what images do. That's what words can do, actually. Do you think the first person who uncovered a diary of a person who lived through an interesting and exciting period of time didn't feel a connection to that person, despite never knowing them or even knowing for certain they even ever existed, other than by the words or images that purport they did?

As an aside, sure. We see graphic photos and videos of war and conflict and suffering and it often speaks to us on a deep level that mere typographical descriptions seem to be unable to reach. Perhaps I misunderstand, but a truly well-written account of an event and a video of an event are not necessarily unequal or inherently unable to convey the emotions, meanings, and human experiences contained therein.

It has been shown that our use of tense in language does influence how we appreciate time and plan ahead.

Whether more detailed media sources provide more lived exposure to historical events is certainly up for debate. I am sure there have been studies done on something related to this.

It has been shown that our use of tense in language does influence how we appreciate time and plan ahead. — I like sushi

To what degree? Help me understand. Some examples. Let's say: "I climbed Mt. Everest last year." Where the person has extensive video documentation of his expedition from start to finish. Now, compare or contrast that to a person who has never climbed a mountain but has watched the first person's video journals religiously. Now compare a third person, who has done neither but simply walked by Mt. Everest once or twice in their life.

What is the relationship or ability (or perhaps disability) between the three individuals in relation to the idea or premise your OP is discussing or otherwise wishes to explore?

In terms of the frequency of how we use different tenses. There is evidence that it effects foward planning.

What is the relationship or ability (or perhaps disability) between the three individuals in relation to the idea or premise your OP is discussing or otherwise wishes to explore? — Outlander

None. I was considering this more broadly as effecting future language as having a more visceral relation to historical events could perhaps lead to a better appreciation of an individuals place. A bit like the difference between reading something happened 10 years ago is quite different to seeing it play out before your eyes -- it has a more immediate and real impact on you as it is sensory rather than conceptual.

Actually the main difference is where in 100 yrs time someone watched the video, read the journal or simply knew someone climbed a mountain and no more.

There are distinct differences in term of resolution in how the history of those three people are recorded.

We have only lived at the start of this trajectory having access to written words for a century or so in a global sense. I am speculating about how current media technologies -- projected forwards a few centuries or millenia -- could influence our overall perception of time due to the historical access we will have receding into the past.

In terms of the frequency of how we use different tenses. There is evidence that it effects foward planning. — I like sushi

Huh. Never noticed that before. Interesting. So, like, to use the previous example of mine, the frequency (or perhaps dispersion) of how one speaks (or watches themself speak?) "climbed" (past tense), "climbs" (active), or "(will) climb" (future) will result in a noticeable affect on the choices a person will make in regards to that idea, event, or topic? Or is that not right?

Is this evidence anecdotal or does it have some sort of reputable thesis or point of independent origin? It's interesting, just never heard of it before is all.

A bit like the difference between reading something happened 10 years ago is quite different to seeing it play out before your eyes -- it has a more immediate and real impact on you as it is sensory rather than conceptual. — I like sushi

Hmm. Well, if I understand it right, it seems only natural for their to be a difference in reception to, I don't know, say a man being killed in a hit and run that happened 10 years ago versus seeing a man literally killed in front of you, I mean, of course it would be more dramatic. That much seems common sense. But how does that relate to the premise or central focal point of your OP?

Psychologically, plenty of us go through life with the "bad things happen all over the world all the time but they could never happen to me" sort of skewed mindset, sure. It's the realization, during an event, tragedy, for one, that makes one realize "wow, that could have happened to me." Or I suppose as an inverse, if you read about someone winning the lottery or a friend posting on social media that they just have, for example.

Pardon any rambling, it's just really early where I come from and I'm trying to better understand the discussion in a more accurate and intimate detail.

So, let's take whatever fictional event (be it positive or negative, would the two be different?) say a volcano erupting or a man winning the lottery. When we read about either event 10 years ago, we consciously shrug it off as "yeah well that was a long time ago, I shouldn't have to worry about or be concerned about that." But if, of course, either of the two events were to occur in front of us, we would obviously come to realize "wow, these things could happen, perhaps I should be thinking more along the lines of these events as not just unlikely outliers of reality but real possibilities that can occur at any given moment." Is that a fair or at least relevant observation in regards to the topic you've brought up?

We have only lived at the start of this trajectory having access to written words for a century or so in a global sense. I am speculating about how current media technologies -- projected forwards a few centuries or millenia -- could influence our overall perception of time due to the historical access we will have receding into the past. — I like sushi

Okay, this I can understand (I think?) and actually think about fairly often myself! Though not directly related, some studies amount such to phenomenon that only exists in the modern age, concepts such as information overload, information explosion, analysis paralysis among others. But again that's more of an aside.

As I understand it, you believe (rather, it has been proven), the proliferation of intimate and highly-engaging historical data will kind of "cheapen" or, no, let me use a more neutral word, "skew" the perception of the world we live in (time as it relates to one's lifespan), in a negative (or at least possibly less than conducive to the human experience) way?

As I understand it, you believe (rather, it has been proven), the proliferation of intimate and highly-engaging historical data will kind of "cheapen" or, no, let me use a more neutral word, "skew" the perception of the world we live in (time as it relates to one's lifespan), in a negative (or at least possibly less than conducive to the human experience) way? — Outlander

Will answert to rest, just gotta dash to work in 5 mins.

Anyway, no. I was pondering a thought and it wondered over into thinking about how we appreciate certain aspects of our world and it threw up this idea. I think there might be something to it, but it is not something we can judge for a few centuries or millenia yet as far as I can see!