Posts Tagged ‘smartphones’

Mechanomorphism

June 16, 2019

This is the sixth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the sixth section of this book. Rushkoff begins, “When autonomous technologies appear to be calling all the shots, it’s only logical for humans to conclude that if we can’t beat them, we may as well join them. Whenever people are captivated—be they excited or enslaved—by a new technology, it becomes their new role model, too. “

“In the Industrial Age, as mechanical clocks dictated human time, we began to think of ourselves in very mechanical terms. We described ourselves as living in a ‘clockwork universe,’ in which the human body was one of the machines.” Mechanical metaphors emerged in our language. We needed to grease the wheels, crank up the business, dig deeper, or turn a company into a well-oiled machine.

In the digital age we view our world as computational. Humans are processors; everything is data. Logic does not compute. He multitasks so well he’s capable of interfacing with more than one person in his network at a time.

Projecting human qualities onto machines is called anthropomorphism, but we are projecting machine qualities onto humans. Seeing a human being as a machine or computer is called mechanomorphism. This is not just treating machines as living humans; it’s treating humans as machines.

When we multitask we are assuming that, just like computers, we can do more than one task at a time. But research has been shown, and related in healthy memory blog posts, that when we multitask, our performance suffers. Sometimes this multitasking, such as when we talk, or even worse, text, while we are driving, we can die.

It is both curious and interesting that drone pilots, who monitor and neutralize people by remote control from thousands of miles away, experience higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder than “real” pilots. An explanation for these high rates of distress is that, unlike regular pilots, drone pilots often observe their targets for weeks before killing them. These stress rates remain disproportionately high even for missions in which the pilots had no prior contact with the victims.

Rushkoff writes that a more likely reason for the psychic damage is that this drone pilots are trying to exist in more than one location at a time. They might be in a facility in Nevada operating a lethal weapon system deployed on the other side of the planet. After dropping ordnance and killing a few dozen people, the pilots don’t land their planes, climb out, and return to the mess hall to debrief over beers with their fellow pilots. They just log out, get into their cars, and drive home to the suburbs for dinner with their families. It’s like being two different people in different places in the same day. But none of us is two people or can be in more than one place. Unlike a computer program, which can be copied and run from several different machines simultaneously, human beings have one “instance” of themselves running at a time.
Rushkoff writes, “We may want to be like the machines of our era, but we can never be as good at being digital devices as the digital devices themselves. This is a good thing, and maybe the only way to remember that by aspiring to imitate our machines, we leave something even more important behind: our humanity.’

The smartphone, along with all the other smartphones, create an environment: a world where anyone can reach us at any time, where people walk down public sidewalks in private bubbles, and where our movements are tracked by GPS and stored in marketing and government databases for future analysis. In turn, these environmental factors promote particular states of mind, such as paranoia about be tracked, a constant state of distraction, and fear of missing out.

The digital media environment impacts us collectively, as an economy and as a society. Investors’ expectations of what a stock’s chart should look like given the breathtaking pace at which a digital company can reach “scale” has changed, as well as how a CEO should surrender the long-term health of a company for the short-term growth of shares. Rushkoff notes that the internet’s emphasis on metrics and quantity over depth and quality has engendered a society that values celebrity, sensationalism, an numeric measures of success. The digital media environment expresses itself in the physical environment s well; the production, use, and disposal of digital technologies depletes scarce resources, expends massive amount of energy, and pollutes vast regions of the planet.

Rushkoff concludes, “Knowing the particular impacts of a media environment on our behaviors doesn’t excuse our complicity, but it helps us understand what we’re up against—which way things are tilted. This enables us to combat their effects, as well as the darker aspects of our own nature that they provoke.”

If one assumes that humanity is a pure mechanistic affair, explicable entirely in the language of data processing then what’s the difference whether human beings or computers are doing that processing. Transhumanists hope to transcend biological existence. Kurzweil’s notion of a singularity in which human consciousness is uploaded into a computer has been written off in previous posts. The argument that these previous posts has made is that biology and silicon are two different media that operate in different ways. Although they can interact they cannot become one.

Rushkoff’s concludes, “It’s not that wanting to improve ourselves, even with seemingly invasive technology, is so wrong. It’s that we humans should be making active choices about what it is we want to do to ourselves, rather than letting the machines, or the markets propelling them, decide for us.

The Digital Media Environment

June 15, 2019

This is the fifth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the fifth section of this book. Rushkoff writes, whoever controls media controls society.

“Each new media revolution appears to offer people a new opportunity to wrest control from an elite few and reestablish the social bonds that media has compromised.” But the people have always remained one entire media revolution behind those who would dominate them.

Rushkoff cites the example of ancient Egypt that was organized under the presumption that the pharaoh could directly hear the words of the gods, as if he were a god himself. On the other hand, the masses could not hear the gods at all; they could only believe.

The invention of text might have led to a literate culture. Instead text was used just to keep track of possessions and slaves. When writing eventually was used by religion, only the priests could read the texts and understand the Hebrew or Greek in which they were written. The masses could hear the Scriptures being read aloud, thus they could hear the putative words of God, but the priests kept the elites’ capability of literacy.

During the Renaissance when the printing press was invented, the people gained the ability to read, but only the king and his selected allies could produce texts. Similarly, radio and television were controlled by corporations or repressive states. So people could only listen or watch passively.

Rushkoff writes, “The problem with media revolutions is that we too easily lose sight of what is truly revolutionary. By focusing on the shiny new toys and ignoring the human empowerment potentiated by these new media—the political and social capabilities they are retrieving—we end up surrendering them to the powers that be. Then we and our new inventions become mere instruments for some other agenda.

The early internet enabled new conversations between people who might never have connected in real life. The networks compressed distance between physicists in California, hackers in Holland, philosophers in eastern Europe, and animators in Japan. These early discussion platforms leveraged the fact that unlike TV or the telephone, internet messaging didn’t happen in real time. Users would download net discussions, read them on their own time, offline, and compose a response after an evening of thought and editing. Then they would log back onto the net, upload he contribution, and wait to see what others thought. The internet was a place where people sounded and acted smarter than they do in real life. This was a virtual space where people brought their best selves, and where the high quality of the conversations was so valued that communities governed these spaces the way a farmer’s cooperative protects a common water supply. To gain access to the early internet, users had to digitally sign an agreement not to engage in any commercial activity. Rushkoff writes “Even the corporate search and social platforms that later came to monopolize the net originally vowed never to allow advertising because it would tain the humanistic cultures they were creating.”

Consider how much better this was when people actually thought for a time, rather than responding immediately. Previously, System 2 processes were involved. Currently, responses are immediate, emotional System 1 processes.

Rushkoff writes, “ Living in a digitally enforced attention economy means being subjected to a constant assault of automated manipulations. Persuasive technology is a design technology taught and developed at some of America’s leading universities and then implemented on platforms from e-commerce sites and social networks to smartphones and fitness wristbands. The goal is to generate ‘behavioral change’ and ‘habit formation,’ most often without the user’s knowledge or consent. Behavioral design theory holds that people don’t change their behavior because of shifts in their attitudes and opinions. On the contrary, people change their attitudes to match their behaviors. In this model, we are more like machines than thinking, autonomous beings.”

Much or this has been discussed in previous health memory posts, especially those based on the book “Zucked.”

Rushkof writes, “Instead of designing technologies that promote autonomy and help us make informed decisions, the persuasion engineers in charge of our biggest digital companies are hard at work creating interfaces that thwart our thinking and push us into an impulsive response where thoughtful choice—or thought itself—are nearly impossible.” This explains how Russia was able to promote successfully its own choice to be President of the United States.

Previous healthy memory blog posts have argued that we are dumber when we are using smartphones and social media. We understand and retain less information. We comprehend with less depth, and make impulsive decisions. We become less capable of distinguishing the real from the fake, the compassionate from the cruel, and the human and the non-human. Rushkoff writes, “Team Human’s real enemies, if we can call them that, are not just the people who are trying to program us into submission, but the algorithms they’ve unleashed to help them do it.”

Rushkoff concludes this section as follows: “Human ideals such as autonomy, social contact, and learning are again written out of the equation, as the algorithms’ programming steers everyone and everything toward instrumental ends. When human beings are in a digital environment they become more like machines, entities composed of digital materials—the algorithms—become more like living entities. They act as if they are our evolutionary successors. No wonder we ape their behavior.”

Addicted to Tech? A Brain Chemical Imbalance May Be to Blame

December 26, 2017

The title to this post is identical to the title of a News & Technology piece by Timothy Revell in the 9 December 2017 Issue of the New Scientist.

Hung Suk Seo at Korea University and his team scanned the brains of 19 teenagers who answered in surveys that their tech usage was detrimental to their lives, and compared the results with 19 others of similar age who said that had no problems with tech. The initial scans showed that those who said they were addicted had more of a neurotransmitter called GABA, which slows signals and is thought to help regulate anxiety, but less of a chemical glutamate, which caused neurons to become electrically excited.

Of the 19 tech addicts they examined, 12 undertook a course of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) designed to reduce the amount of time spent using technology. These participants then underwent a second scan. The relative amounts of GABA and glutamate converged to more normal levels after CBT. The amount of time spent using technology also moved to more normal levels.

Although the direction of cause and effect is unclear here (whether the abnormal levels caused the abnormal use, or whether abnormal use caused the abnormal levels) is not really important. What is important is that CBT can bring technology use to normal levels.

Although the term technology addiction is predominately used, and technology companies use insights from psychology to increase usage, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder task force, which is used in the United States has yet to include internet addiction as a diagnosis for fear of mislabeling many of the 3 billion people around the world who are attached to their smartphones.

What is important is how the individual feels about their own technology use. Unless they feel that they are addicted, it is doubtful that they will free themselves of their perceived addiction. However, we all would do well to objectively consider if we are suffering adverse effects from technology use and respond accordingly.

Infovores

September 12, 2017

Infovores is a term that has been coined to characterize we humans as information-seeking creatures. Drs. Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen, the authors of “The Distracted Mind”, note that as we are information-seeking creatures, behaviors that maximize information accumulation are optimal. This notion is supported by findings that molecular and physiological mechanisms that originally developed in our brain to support food foraging for survival have now involved in primates to include information foraging. Data that support this assertion are based on observations that the dopaminergic stream, which is crucial for all reward processing, plays a key role in both basic food-foraging behavior in lower vertebrates and higher-order cognitive behaviors in monkeys and humans that are often dissociated from clear survival benefits. The role of the dopamine system has been shown to relate directly to information-seeking behavior in primates. For example, macaque monkeys respond to receiving information similarly to the way they respond to primitive rewards such as food or water. Moreover, “single dopamine neurons process both primitive and cognitive rewards, and suggest that current theories of reward-seeking must be revised to include information-seeking. From this perspective behaviors that are intended to maximize exposure and consumption of new information, but end up causing interference, can be thought of as optimal.

So does this explain why, according to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 96% of all US adults own a mobile phone, and 68% own a smartphone? Among these smartphone users, 97% regularly use their phones to send text messages, 89% to access the Internet, and 88% send and receive email. Worldwide estimates are that 3.2 billion people, 45% of the world’s population, own a mobile phone. Smartphones, desktops, and laptops support multiple apps while web browsers allow numerous simultaneously open tabs and windows, which make it increasingly difficult to attend to a single website or app without having our attention lured away.

So, we can blame our dopamine neurons for our being drawn to all these new sources of information. But it does not appear that we are using these sources of information optimally. Perhaps insights from behavioral ecology. a field that explores the evolutionary basis of behavior by studying interactions between animals and their environments might shed light on our interference inducing behavior.

An important contribution to the field of behavioral ecology has been the development of optimal foraging theories. These theories are built on findings that animals do not forage for food randomly, but rather optimize their foraging activities based on the drive to survive. Shaped by natural selection, foraging behaviors that successfully maximize energy intake are selected and persist over time. Mathematical models of foraging behavior have been developed that can be used to predict the action given their environmental conditions. They describe how an “optimal forager” would behave in any given situation. Although actual behaviors deviate from predictions made from these models, these models are frequently not far off the mark and have served as useful tools to understand the complex interplay between behavior and the environment.

In 1976 evolutionary biologist Eric Charnel developed an optimal foraging model known as the “marginal value theorem” (MVT). This theorem was formulated to predict the behavior of animals that forage for food in “patchy” environments. MVT models predict how much time an animal will spend in a current patch before moving on to a new patch, given environmental conditions.

Optimal foraging theories have already been applied to human information foraging to help us understand how we search the Internet and our own memories, as well as how scholars and physicians search the research literature. Drs. Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen state that to the best of their knowledge, such theories have not been used to address the critical question of why we engage in interference-inducing behaviors, even when they are self-destructive. The answer to this question will be pursued in future posts.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Pedestrian Deaths Soar in the Uneven Battles with Cars

April 2, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article written by Ashley Halsey III in the 30 March 2017 issue of the Washington Post.  Pedestrian deaths soared by 25% nationally between 2010 and 2015.  Pedestrians now account for 15% of all traffic deaths.  Preliminary data for 2016 indicate that a the number of pedestrian deaths increased by 11% over 2015, with 6,000 people being killed in collisions with vehicles.  A number of reasons for this increase were noted, but the one that caught HM’s eyes was the use of smartphones—both by drivers and people on foot.

The article includes engineering and safety measures that need to be undertaken to reduce pedestrian deaths.  HM applauds these efforts, but this post is devoted to the measures pedestrians need to take to protect themselves.

The first is to not use smartphones, both as drivers and pedestrians.   Many, many healthy memory posts have been written on the dangers of distracted driving.  The personal risks to smartphone use by pedestrians are even greater.  I’ve seen pedestrians walking, engrossed in their smartphones, who step into traffic without checking for oncoming vehicles.  The HM has almost hit several of these pedestrians.  Fortunately he did not.  But an accident with one of these pedestrians would have haunted him for the rest of his life even though he would not have been at fault.

There are a couple of reasons pedestrians might be so careless.  One is that they have never ever been hit by a vehicle, so they think vehicles are not going to hit them.  What they fail to realize is that drivers certainly do not want to hit drivers, but drivers need to be given sufficient time to respond to avoid a collision.

Pedestrians also seem to assume a symmetry between their perception of automobiles and the automobile drivers’ perception of them.  This problem is particularly acute at night.  Although it is easy for pedestrians to see cars with their blazing lights, pedestrians are small usually dressed in dark clothing, which can make them almost impossible to see.

When HM was in public schools there were posters that were prominently displayed, “Where white at night.”  What has happened to these signs?  They need to be resurrected and placed in many prominent places.  Today reflectors are more readily available, but why don’t pedestrians make more use of them?

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Notes on “Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age”

December 26, 2015

“Reclaiming Conversation” is a book by Sherry Turkle.  She focuses on smartphones in particular.  As a matter of personal edification, and as the user of a dumb cell phone I  found this book valuable in understanding the popularity of smartphone and texting.  There are several reasons I do not use a smartphone.  I find the screen size much to small.  I require much more context in what I view.  I also need a conventional keyboard, those on smartphones are much too small.  Similarly I refuse to text and do not read texts.  I also find that smartphones add to an already existing information overload.  Consequently, I do not like interruptions and live in a world where timeliness will not suffer if I wait until a time when I am free to devote full attention to messages and material which is important to process.  Having read Turkle’s book, I have no desire for a smartphone, and should I ever purchase a smartphone, I’ll use it sparingly.

I’ve long been baffled trying to understand why people text when it is so much easier to talk.  Most teenagers send around 100 texts per day, so there must be some reason this is so popular.  Apparently, there is a sense of control when one texts.  One can read what one has written before it is sent, and once it is sent, one can wait to see if and who, if anyone responds.  So many feel that texting provides a sense of control that they feel is important.

In addition to needing to feel in control, there also seems to be a compulsion to be connected.  According to Turkle, 44% of users never turn off their phones.  Although I understand the data indicating that people feel a need to be connected most of the time, I still fail to see why they feel this necessity.  The healthy memory blog has written posts about FACEBOOK and Dunbar’s number.  See the healthy memory blog post “How Many Friends is Too Many.”  Dunbar is an evolutionary biologist who calculated the maximum number of relationships our brain can keep track of at one time to be 150.  Before smartphones Dunbar estimated that there are about five people who are close and who we speak with frequently, and  about 100 acquaintances we speak with about once a year.  With the exception of the 150 number, which is a biological constraint, the other numbers have apparently gone up drastically since the advent of the cell phone.  Friendship requires an investment of time.  We can only afford a limited number of good friends.  A large number of friends implies a large number of superficial relationships.  It appears that in the smartphone era, quantity is valued over quality.

There also appears to be an aversion to solitude.  An experiment was run in which participants were asked to sit by themselves for fifteen minutes.  They were provided a device which they could use to shock themselves, although all the participants indicated that they would not use the device.  Nevertheless, many of the participants shocked themselves after only six minutes.  I find this result extremely depressing, to think that people would find solitude that they chose to give themselves an aversive shock to cope with loneliness.  Solitude is important for both personal and intellectual development.  We need to spend time with ourselves.

One researcher reports a 40% loss of empathy in the past 20 years.  The healthy memory blog post “A Single Shifting Mega-Organism noted that throughout our lives our brain circuitry decodes the emotions of others based on extremely subtle facial cues.  Geoff Colvin and many others regard empathy as a uniquely human skill that will prevent computers from pushing humans out of the job market.  Well, empathy apps are being developed.  But empathy is developed best during conversations with our fellow humans.  This excessive use of smartphones are inhibiting, if not precluding this development.

Smartphone use implies multitasking, and whenever we multitask the performance on component tasks declines.  If you do not believe this, then read the 18 healthy memory blog posts on the topic.  The use of smartphones during classes detracts from the lecture or the topic being discussed.  Were I still teaching I would not allow the use of smartphones during classes.

There is a chapter on smartphones and romance that I found extremely depressing.  Most of the time I am envious of the young in this digital age, but not in the case of romance.  In short, smartphones take the romance out of romance.

I disagree with what Turkle writes about Massively Online Open Courses.  She puts conversations against  these courses and ignores the genuine benefits of these courses.  First of all, a Massively Online Open Course does not preclude conversations.  Secondly, conversations, as important as they are, need not be a necessary component of all courses.

At the end of the book Turtle writes about humanoid robots and robotic pets.  I did not see the relevance of these topics to the central thesis regarding conversations.

So having stated the problem, what can be done about it.

First of all, having recognized the costs of multi-tasking and do a cost benefit analysis of where smartphone use is appropriate.  Then establish rules or guidelines.

It is noted that many employees of social media companies make it a point to send their children to technology free schools.  And there is the following quotation from Steve Jobs biographer.  “Every evening Steve made a point of having dinner at the big long table in their kitchen, discussing books and history and variety of things.  No one ever pulled out an iPAD or computer.  He did not encourage his own children’s use of iPADS or iPHONES.

“Restoring Conversations” is extensively documented.  Touching them takes you to the notes.  Unfortunately, there is no DONE enabling an easy return to the text.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Cell Phone Distraction

September 21, 2015

I was surprised to read an article by Krystal D’Costa titled “We’ve Modified Our Behavior So We Can Walk and Talk”  in the online  August 5 Scientific American  Mind and Brain.  I don’t object to the title of the article.  Undoubtedly we have modified our behavior as the result of cell and smartphone technology.  However, I do object to some conclusions in the article.  The basic conclusion she comes to is that we’ve adapted and there are no problems.  As you shall read below, there are problems.  Please let me disabuse you of her Panglossian conclusion.

There have been many, many posts on the healthy memory blog, regarding the risks of driving while either talking or texting on a cell phone.  On May 27th, an article in the Washington Post by Ashley Halsey III summarized the result of a report from the National Safety Council.  Between 2000 and 2011 more than 11,000 people were injured while walking and talking on their cell phones.  Most of these people were women younger than 40.  Nearly 80 percent of injuries were the results of falls, and 9% of those who suffered injuries simply walked into something with enough force to hurt themselves.

Although 42% of the injured were younger than 30, these injuries were not exclusively a young person’s affliction.  20% of the injuries happened to individuals 71 years or older.

The council reported that 26% of all traffic accidents were attributable to drivers’  talking on their cell phones, while 5% of drivers involved in accidents were writing or reading text messages.  Please do not conclude from these statistics that texting is safer than talking on a cell phone.  I believe that the correct conclusion is that fortunately there are many fewer people who are foolish enough to text while driving.  It should be alarming that there are drivers foolish enough to do this.

Other research by Dr. Lee Hadlington of De Montfort University in Leicester, England and reported in the Huffington Post found that frequent users of mobile technology are more likely to experience cognitive failures, such as forgetting one’s wallet, missing an appointment, or bumping into someone in the street.  This research involved 210 British mobile phone users between the ages of 18 and 65.  Their average weekly Internet use was about 25 hours.  The participants answered questions about the amount of time they spend using the internet and mobile devices, and about their behaviors related to perception, motor function, and memory.  There was a significant correlation between the amount of time an individual spends using the internet or a mobile phone and their likelihood of experiencing cognitive failures in their rail lives.  These failures included memory error, physical blunders and daydreaming while others are talking.

The statistic I wanted to find, but could not, was the number of walkers distracted by their cell phones who were hit by cars.  I know there had to be some such cases.  I have seen people walking, distracted with their cells phones, who step out into the street or cross the street neglecting to look for traffic.  I do fear hitting one of these individuals who step in front of my car before I have time enough to stop.
© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Smartphone Usability

February 1, 2014

I confess to not having a smartphone. Before the advent of personal computers, complaints were being heard about information overload, there being too much information to process. This problem was significantly increased by the advent of personal computers, significantly exacerbated by the internet, and has become much worse with smartphones. I don’t have a smartphone, and I was recently encouraged when I bought a new dumb phone that came with the warning to not use while driving. I don’t feel a need for a smartphone and find not having one helps me deal with the problem of information overload. I’d rather wait until I can conveniently get to my laptop rather than deal with the minute keyboards and displays.

An article1 in the Washington Post further raised the issue of usability. According to a Gallup Poll, 62% of Americans now own a smartphone. But according to the Pew Research Center only half of these users download apps and read or send e-mail. A 2012 Harris Interactive Poll found that just 5% of Americans used their smartphones to show codes for movie admission or to show an airline boarding pass. Moreover, these problems are not limited to the older generation. Experts who study smartphone use, as well as tech-support professionals who work with the confused say that smartphone usability problems at all ages and for all kinds of reasons. The Genius Bar at Apple2 stores sometimes require that desperate iPhone users make their appointments days in advance.

Clearly the issue of usability is missing. Absent are design guidelines for smartphones that emphasis usability. Here are some design principles from an Adroid developer’s Web site: “Enchant me, simplify my life, make me amazing.” What about making my smartphone easy to use rather than complicating my life?

Back in the old days of command line interfaces, usability was a key requirement for government users. With the advent of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), that requirement is missing. Unfortunately, the government appears to have bought Apple’s propaganda that GUIs are intuitive. GUIs can and should be made intuitive, but a GUI without usability guidelines usually will not.

Please weigh in with your comments on this topic.

1Rosenwald, M.S. (2013). Phones getting smarter, but their users aren’t. Washington Post, 19 January C1..

2Apple promoted their intuitive point and click interface. There is ample research to prove that this claim was a lie.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.