Is technological regression a thing?

[1995hoo]

What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?

I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.

http://youtu.be/rKiQqxHp5E8

[kalvado]

My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.

So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)

It is definitely not a matter of technology as in society's ability to perform technical tasks.

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat  or milk a cow,  make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.
Flintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs  and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions. Those who love some noise in their music, loose gunpowder all over their home  and some rot in their steak are free to feel their superiority.

we do have a somewhat different set of survival skills than 200, 100 or even 50 years ago. This is natural.
I think I know one skill that is more or less lost over time, but even explaining what it is would take too much room as it is really a very niche thing. 

[Scott5114]

See my avatar. Technological regression is real.

Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.

[empirestate]

What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?

I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how those two clauses relate; and besides, I can't corroborate the second part. As the person on the other end of the line, it has indeed happened to me.

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat  or milk a cow,  make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.

No...no, I would not want you to believe that; that would be a different subject than what I'm thinking of here.

Flintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs  and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions.

Right, but this topic isn't about that; it's about when the older system was more adequate than the modern one. Or, more precisely, when an older version of a system still currently in use was a better technological solution to the problem.

Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.

That would be technological regression, absolutely. (Assuming that's a thing...but at any rate, it's definitely the phenomenon I'm describing.) Capitalism would be the cause of the technological regression, but it wouldn't be capitalism itself that's regressing.

[Scott5114]

Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.

That would be technological regression, absolutely. (Assuming that's a thing...but at any rate, it's definitely the phenomenon I'm describing.) Capitalism would be the cause of the technological regression, but it wouldn't be capitalism itself that's regressing.

I disagree. In the example of the Concorde, it's not that technology has regressed to the point that we can't build Concordes anymore, but that there is no profit in it, so nobody actually does it. Theoretically some non-profit organization could put together a supersonic jet, but without the profit motive there's little practical reason to do so.

It's like going to the Moon. We have the capability and the materials. We just don't have a pressing non-profit reason to, and nobody's figured out how to profit off of it, so we haven't gone there.

[kalvado]

See my avatar. Technological regression is real.

Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.

Thanks for bringing a good point. And is that a regression to begin with?
I don't know when was the last time you experienced a re-usable sterilized syringe needle, as sharp as your old kitchen knife? Manual sharpening isn't cheap - high volume electropolishing is cheaper, as well as gamma-sterilizing. 
We do have different metrics we use today, price definitely being a major one. Pride (Apollo project; COncorde - which some call European version of Apollo project) may be a good driving force - if it works. Price consciousness is not always for better, but definitely not always for the worse. 
And a very good example: 

See my avatar. Technological regression is real.

OK, and how many people over here would afford $8k tickets (BA supersonic fare I remember from 1999)?
We had someone in another thread talking about fuel savings as an advantage of lower speed driving. Savings averaging $4.50/hour.  I, for myself, can put up for 10-20 hours of some discomfort for 4-digit savings..
And as for purely technological aspect of it - there are more F-35's flying than total Concordes built.

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat  or milk a cow,  make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.

No…no, I would not want you to believe that; that would be a different subject than what I'm thinking of here.

Flintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs  and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions.

Right, but this topic isn't about that; it's about when the older system was more adequate than the modern one. Or, more precisely, when an older version of a system still currently in use was a better technological solution to the problem.

An in light of all above... of course different technology can have drawbacks, real or perceived.
One of aspects of digital phone system is virtual disappearance of long distant call fees - and more long distance communication overall. Exhibit 1: http://aaroads.com
That is, actually, another aspect of call handling quality: there are no longer per-minute call costs; and calls are often a second tier communication methods. How often you can solve the problem by looking up solution on google - as opposed to a call? On a similar note, I often find e-mail handling to be higher quality compared to calls. And no problems with forwarding...  Talking about more adequate technologies...


Overall, people seems to value small advantages (real or not) of old tech while taking improvements for granted - see long distance fees passage above.
Two of hot topics where this shows are immunizations (when was last large scale epidemics?) and GMO (what does "starve to death" means?)

[kalvado]

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

Oh, and to touch on TV specifically.. That is, again, a victim of proliferation of digital communications.
Main driving force behind elimination of analog TV is attempt to get more frequency bands available - in particular for cell data service. Digital is really an elephant in the room...

Or the other way of looking at it is that there is single irreplaceable resource, frequency spectrum, and use of it need to be controlled. Sort of similar to air - ozone holes, global wa..climate change, acid rains, all that. And do you think going back to windmills for power generation is also a sign of technological degradation?

[1995hoo]

See my avatar. Technological regression is real.

Is that technological regression, or capitalistic regression? Which I think is maybe a distinction this thread needs to make. There's a lot of things where things technically work just fine, but over time we've gotten so price-conscious that it's no longer feasible to do things a certain way. Think of how many things we have that are made of plastic that were made of metal 50 years ago. It's not that we don't have the ability to make them out of metal anymore, it's that it's cheaper to use plastic.

I think it's some of each. Concorde was never intended to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight. They intended it to be the first generation design. The unbuilt second generation would have used less fuel due to not needing afterburners, for example, and would have had improved subsonic fuel efficiency due to wing modifications. I think, like with other aircraft and with cars and computers, the design would and should have continued to evolve and improve, resulting also in increased range, which in turn should have led to a market among the Asian carriers had there been an SST with transpacific nonstop capability. CNN had an article the other day about current SSTs in development and the heavy Asian interest in those. As it was, I believe a Tokyo-to-LA flight would have required fuel stops in Honolulu and Guam, which in turn would have been a hassle for US-bound passengers because the US handles immigration control differently from most other countries (you have to clear immigration and re-clear security at the first US airport you reach). Eliminate that problem and the transpacific market is potentially huge (emphasis on "potentially,"  of course).

Concorde had the horrible misfortune of coming into service between the two oil shocks of the 1970s, too. So that certainly hurt the commercial side at the time.

[abefroman329]

Concorde had the horrible misfortune of coming into service between the two oil shocks of the 1970s, too. So that certainly hurt the commercial side at the time.

I apologize if I've mentioned this on this board previously, but I read a theory that what actually killed Concorde was the fax machine.  It would make its money by being the fastest way to get a document from New York to London, and then suddenly we were able to send documents from New York to London almost instantly.  I think that theory is fascinating.

[abefroman329]

What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?

I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how those two clauses relate; and besides, I can't corroborate the second part. As the person on the other end of the line, it has indeed happened to me.

I should clarify that an automated system that transfers calls just doesn't transfer the call to the wrong place.  Nor would a scenario where a CSR clicks "transfer to customer retention" on their computer and the call doesn't transfer.  It's possible that someone could click "disconnect" when they meant to click "transfer to customer retention," but systems are designed to ensure that couldn't happen easily.

[Beltway]

Concorde was never intended to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight. They intended it to be the first generation design. The unbuilt second generation would have used less fuel due to not needing afterburners, for example, and would have had improved subsonic fuel efficiency due to wing modifications.

The American SST would have been much larger and much faster.  The Boeing 2707 (actually Model 733) would have cruised at Mach 2.7 and carried about 250 passengers.  Its development advanced to the point where it had over 100 ordered by the airlines.  Cancelled because of the combination of increasing fuel prices, unacceptable sonic boom issues over land, construction complexity due to the amount of titanium needed for those speeds, maintenance complexity, and the fact that it still didn't have the range for a Pacific non-stop flight.

Supersonic airliners in general suffer from those issues. 

[jon daly]

A friend of mine elsewhere online just read a book called FAXED by Jonathan Coopersmith. I'll have to ask him if he came across anything about its SST-killing capabilites.

I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.

PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?

[empirestate]

That would be technological regression, absolutely. (Assuming that's a thing...but at any rate, it's definitely the phenomenon I'm describing.) Capitalism would be the cause of the technological regression, but it wouldn't be capitalism itself that's regressing.

I disagree. In the example of the Concorde, it's not that technology has regressed to the point that we can't build Concordes anymore, but that there is no profit in it, so nobody actually does it. Theoretically some non-profit organization could put together a supersonic jet, but without the profit motive there's little practical reason to do so.

You don't disagree at all, you're just using a different name for it. But we're both talking about precisely the same thing. If it will move things along, we can just call it "Elmer" and be done with it.

(That being said, I've already found a couple articles on the subject that also use the name "technological regression", or in some cases simply "technological regress".)

OK, and how many people over here would afford $8k tickets (BA supersonic fare I remember from 1999)?
We had someone in another thread talking about fuel savings as an advantage of lower speed driving. Savings averaging $4.50/hour.  I, for myself, can put up for 10-20 hours of some discomfort for 4-digit savings..
And as for purely technological aspect of it - there are more F-35's flying than total Concordes built.

I think that point's clear; nobody seems to dispute that economic forces are the cause of the phenomenon, so no need to persuade us of it. But that's not quite what I was wondering. I'm asking if technological regression (or Elmer, if you prefer) is an observed, known principle or law–something that's gained scholarly acceptance or at least analysis by those who study these things. It may be all caused by economic forces, or may be just a collection of different examples with unrelated causes, but is it something we can observe, and predict to occur with a fair degree of certainty?

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

Well, if you want me to believe that most people forgetting how to make bread, grind wheat  or milk a cow,  make a simple stone axe or even ride a horse are all signs of degradation... I am not the one who would buy it easily.

No...no, I would not want you to believe that; that would be a different subject than what I'm thinking of here.

Flintlocks are no longer made (even crossbows are more common!), tape recorders, phonographs  and film cameras are on extinction list... who cares? There are adequate substitutions.

Right, but this topic isn't about that; it's about when the older system was more adequate than the modern one. Or, more precisely, when an older version of a system still currently in use was a better technological solution to the problem.

On a similar note, I often find e-mail handling to be higher quality compared to calls. And no problems with forwarding...  Talking about more adequate technologies...

Yes, another excellent example! If we compare telephone with email, the older method transmits both words and their inflection across long distances. The newer method transmits only the words, without inflection (as did the now-obsolete telegraph). E-mail adds new capabilities, of course, most notably data, but as for the simple technological problem of moving words across long distances, it is less functional than the older telephone.

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

And do you think going back to windmills for power generation is also a sign of technological degradation

No; you may be confusing my use of "regression" with technological reversion. I'm not talking about reverting to older technologies when newer ones are more adequate. I'm talking about adopting new technologies, even though the older ones are more adequate.

I should clarify that an automated system that transfers calls just doesn't transfer the call to the wrong place.  Nor would a scenario where a CSR clicks "transfer to customer retention" on their computer and the call doesn't transfer.  It's possible that someone could click "disconnect" when they meant to click "transfer to customer retention," but systems are designed to ensure that couldn't happen easily.

Oh, yeah, I didn't know you were talking about specific causes for the failed transfer. I wasn't talking about the specific reasons for the error, just saying that they do, indeed, happen. Which is counter-intuitive since, as you say, technology allows us to design for greater avoidance of these errors, yet they actually seem to be increasing.

[abefroman329]

I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.

PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?

Judges still use fax machines, probably to save their clerks the trouble of printing briefs attached to emails (all they have to do is make sure the fax machine is on and full of paper and toner and they can go about their business).

And even digital cameras have lens caps.

[seicer]

My main role at the university I work for is to enhance business productivity. One of my first major projects was using Nolji (Knowledge) - a way for clients to mass upload documents, add metadata and keep it in a cloud-based secure-storage facility for retention purposes (laws vary, but most of our documents need to be stored for 10 years maximum). When the project started years before me, they had a tractor-trailer back up to a building and empty out six rooms full of documents, where a company went through and scanned the documents en masse. Impressive to say the least.

But now that software is at the end of its life cycle and it's not being renewed. So now we are in a year-long procurement process to find a replacement. But in the end, it rid us of inefficient practices of having to sort through countless documents, allowed us to add metadata, add in OCR scanning for text searches, and helped us remain compliant with all federal and state regulations.

Someone mentioned phone systems earlier - which is an interesting topic. We currently run copper-based phone systems, but the equipment is well overdue for replacement. It doesn't allow for many of the functions people want or desire these days - video calling, group conferencing, etc. We looked into a VOIP system - even ones that essentially had an Android device built in as part of the handset. But why bother? We, as an organization, are testing out Microsoft Teams for team-based communication and collaboration. It's always available, works on every PC, Mac, iPhone, and Android device. And it integrates with VOIP systems. Teams is part of our A3 Office 365 package, so it's something that we already have, is "free," and can deploy rapidly with just orientation and light training. No wires, no fuss.

[jon daly]

I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.

PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?

Judges still use fax machines, probably to save their clerks the trouble of printing briefs attached to emails (all they have to do is make sure the fax machine is on and full of paper and toner and they can go about their business).

And even digital cameras have lens caps.

My friend does not recall seeing the theory you mentioned in the book he read. That doesn't mean that it's not true, though; or fascinating.

[abefroman329]

I know that the Japanese love the mojo-wire (As Hunter S Thompson called it.) We still use it for documents in the financial service subsector I'm in. Ditto, doctors, from what I understand. It's seen as more secure as the internet.

PS -- CDs may've not been an upgrade over vinyl, but they sure beat cassettes; KMart notwithstanding. What's a dusty lenscap?

Judges still use fax machines, probably to save their clerks the trouble of printing briefs attached to emails (all they have to do is make sure the fax machine is on and full of paper and toner and they can go about their business).

And even digital cameras have lens caps.

My friend does not recall seeing the theory you mentioned in the book he read. That doesn't mean that it's not true, though; or fascinating.

I wish I could remember where I saw or heard it. 

I also wonder if three-hour delivery would've really commanded that much of a premium over overnight delivery, or how much demand there would have been for it.

[jon daly]

Were there other enviro concerns beyond noise pollution wrt SST?

[kalvado]

I think that point's clear; nobody seems to dispute that economic forces are the cause of the phenomenon, [..]

Yes, another excellent example! If we compare telephone with email, the older method transmits both words and their inflection across long distances. The newer method transmits only the words, without inflection (as did the now-obsolete telegraph). E-mail adds new capabilities, of course, most notably data, but as for the simple technological problem of moving words across long distances, it is less functional than the older telephone.

[..]
No; you may be confusing my use of "regression" with technological reversion. I'm not talking about reverting to older technologies when newer ones are more adequate. I'm talking about adopting new technologies, even though the older ones are more adequate.

How adequate something is - and what is better what is worse - is determined by some set of metrics (even if that happens on a non-formal level), and those metrics do change over time. And there are different metrics for different situations.
You want voices and intonations of loved one; great. Customer service don't need that - they need clear and condensed problem description. Yes, ma'am, your dog is a wonderful little creature - but is Friday 11 AM appointment good for you? Oh, your doggie really hates rain you say? But Friday 11 AM.. 
It also allows better time allocation, no wait on hold and no idle CSRs..  No accents, no background noise..
You may say "personal touch" - which seem to become less important by now..  Cost is a much bigger point.
So my impression is that text communication is more adequate for modern business.

Another thing is that old system often comes with some handycap. Like lot of manual labor, or unfit for increased volume, or high use of resources.. Or once again, priority changes - by now getting documents from London City to Wall Street within few hours is less of an issue.  And overnight delivery within single continent works just fine (FedEx, UPS, DHL) - and  role of digital system behind it is not to be underestimated.

[seicer]

I get that impression too - but each individual should be adaptable to the changing needs of a workplace. I know some people are still turned off by instant communication, such as chat, but it offers many of us the gratification of shorter reply cycles. And in team environments within, say, Microsoft Teams, we can get richer communication that can be lost in a threaded and dreaded email chain.

We had one guy interview for a director position here. Needless to say, he turned -everyone- off when he said he prefers face-to-face communication. Deliberately not using or answering chat communications. Disliked answering phones. He actually just enjoyed walking around and seeing what's up and if they needed anything. While I get some people like face-to-face talks, most of us in the grind really would just prefer to be reached in more convenient and efficient manners.

[abefroman329]

And in team environments within, say, Microsoft Teams, we can get richer communication that can be lost in a threaded and dreaded email chain.

You can also get richer communication by meeting face-to-face, or picking up the phone and calling them.  The problem is when people attempt a one-size-fits-all approach to communication.  Each situation has its own best solution.

[Beltway]

Were there other enviro concerns beyond noise pollution wrt SST?

The noise issues were both that of sonic booms as well as at takeoff.  A heavily loaded B-2707 would use afterburners on takeoff and could easily produce 3 times the noise as a B-747.  Concorde itself is much noisier on takeoff than other airliners.

The cruising altitudes of about 65,000 to 72,000 feet presented several issues not seen at the current 28,000 to about 37,000 feet.  The current altitudes are in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere, depending on how that transition varies by season and part of the world, and there is enough vertical circulation there to remove contrails and particulate matter produced by jet engines. 

The SST altitudes are well into the stratosphere and there is much less vertical circulation there, and there were concerns that large amount of air traffic there could cause serious and persistent long lasting problems with contrails and particulate matter.   There were also concerns that could damage the ozone layer.

[abefroman329]

Concorde was unbelievably noisy.  I was at the University of Reading while BA was operating it between Heathrow and JFK, and the noise from the departures was so bad, they practically had to stop lecturing while it flew overhead.

[HazMatt]

I get that impression too - but each individual should be adaptable to the changing needs of a workplace. I know some people are still turned off by instant communication, such as chat, but it offers many of us the gratification of shorter reply cycles. And in team environments within, say, Microsoft Teams, we can get richer communication that can be lost in a threaded and dreaded email chain.

We had one guy interview for a director position here. Needless to say, he turned -everyone- off when he said he prefers face-to-face communication. Deliberately not using or answering chat communications. Disliked answering phones. He actually just enjoyed walking around and seeing what's up and if they needed anything. While I get some people like face-to-face talks, most of us in the grind really would just prefer to be reached in more convenient and efficient manners.

I understand the preference, but actively avoiding other types of communication?  Wonder if he ever found work that way.

IM/email allows me to multitask and triage anything that needs my focus.  Phone calls or face-to-face meetings require me to drop everything else usually and focus entirely on the other person(s), which will tick me off if for something trivial.  Makes sense in the modern world to start small (and cheap) and work your way up if need be.

[kkt]

Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.

Now, office phone systems were highly sophisticated and reliable, well into and through the '90s–technologically, this issue was long solved. Yet today, although we've made much greater and newer advances in technology, we still frequently use these older systems, except they now exhibit these problems that were formerly solved.

Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.

So my question is, is technological regression an actual thing? I don't mean just from a crotchety "back in my day/get off my lawn" standpoint. Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state? Has this been written about? What causes it?

Phones that do a million and one things but are confusing to learn, and staff turnover so many staff haven't mastered them by the time they've moved on.