Skip Navigation

The "just google it" mantra has probably held back quite a lot of interesting conversations and debate

I've always been a "lurker" on all platforms and communities because when I do have a question or would like to contribute my first thought has become:

Actually, let me google it first

In which case I'll usually have some answer. Usually it isn't a complete answer but enough for me to not want to share my question anymore.

118 comments
  • The problem with this mantra for me is that in a discussion, I don't want to know what website x thinks the definition or answer is, I want to know what you think it is. If the term/issue is uncontroversial then googling is fine, but if it's vague, confusing or has different interpretations, Google could make things worse.

    E.g. someone complains that cultural marxism is bringing down western civilization. I could Google this and find out it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory espoused by the Nazis and now the American right. But will this definition help me understand the person I'm talking to and what they mean? Will it help the conversation? Absolutely not.

    But if I asked, "what do you mean by that" nd the person responded, e.g. "how the left is pushing diversity in society against the will of ordinary people" (or whatever), then we can have an actual conversation about what is bothering this person.

    • And another problem with it is it prevents talking.

      Some anthropologists liken human speech to chimpanzee grooming. To bond, a chimpanzee will sit there and pick through another chimpanzee’s back hair. Time spent doing this builds a bond between them.

      Conversation works that way for humans. It’s just an instinctual emotional need: to put energy into activities that create bonds with other people.

      I’m autistic, and learning the above was a sort of breakthrough moment for me in terms of respecting small talk, respecting the real value of a conversation even when there’s no practical need for knowledge transfer.

      Of course, I’d rather bond by snuggling because it low-key hurts to talk, but our culture really only permits that with animals, lovers, and family.

      Incidentally, that connects with another interesting fact about the Dunbar number.

      As some may know that’s the number of people who can live in a tribe or community where everyone’s brain still has the capacity to remember (a) how they feel about each other person and (b) how each other person feels about each other person.

      It’s about 120 individuals, for humans. Once it gets beyond 120 people, you start encountering “strangers”. People you might have seen, but you don’t know who they’re tight with, what they’re up to.

      For chimps it’s 40 individuals. Chimps can’t keep track of more than 40 nodes in an interrelationship graph of relationships.

      So 120 and 40. It’s a ratio of three. Some speculate this ratio is because chimps’ bonding behavior permits bonding with one other individual at a time, and humans’ bonding behavior permits bonding with three individuals at a time.

      For chimps, that’s grooming. You can groom one other chimp’s back at a time, allowing you to bond with one other chimp.

      With humans it’s talking. So why three people? (This is where it gets really interesting, at least for me.) It’s three people because when one person is speaking to three or fewer people, it’s intimate enough to be a bonding experience. And when a person is speaking to four or more people, it doesn’t feel intimate enough to be a bonding experience.

      The really fun part is you can see this happening at social gatherings. Because one speaker can engage three listeners while maintaining intimacy, this means conversations can be two to four people. As soon as a fifth person walks up, beer in hand, to join the conversation, it will split into two conversations. You’ll have a 2 and a 3, instead of one big 5.

      Or, if the conversation does stay stable at 5 people, it morphs into more of a “presentation” that separates the group into speakers and audience, and that’s not a bonding experience.

      At most social gatherings, people want to connect, so instead of that switch to audience mode the conversation will split when it reaches 5, into separate 2- and 3-person conversations.

      So the other problem with the google mantra is it removes an excuse to talk from society, and we need excuses to verbalize at each other so we don’t feel alienated. Asking for directions, bumming a cigarette, talking about the weather or sports, saying good morning and how-are-you-im-fine and hello, these are all cultural scaffolds that make excuses to hear each other’s voices.

      And asking for basic info is part of that. In conversations, we get more things to say if we normalize asking for and providing basic background info. It helps people get their voices warmed up, to say things that aren’t that deep, to present easily-found knowledge, just warm up the vocal chords with the basic stuff.

      • Very insightful and not something I'd have thought of. A large part of me feels as though many of the issues of today can be blamed on the fact that nobody actually talks to eachother anymore. Socializing has been replaced with social media, where you see curated snapshots of your "friend's" lives which only show the good, and get invested in the curated snapshots of the lives of celebrities. You look at your friends and random celebrities doing things instead of doing them yourself or with your friends. And in turn, you post your own curated snapshots to make yourself look good and feel like you're participating, thus continuing the cycle.

        This state of knowing only about the cool and fun things other people are doing while simultaneously never actually speaking to them causes you to feel left out because your life isn't anywhere near as fun as their lives look, and the fact that people tend to only post good looking pictures of themselves online makes you feel bad about your own appearance, because you don't look anywhere near as good as they make themselves look.

        With how pervasive the atomization caused by the internet is, I should've known that even its greatest strength, its ability to deliver information, might have harmful side effects. Indeed, I wonder how many conversations I've not had the opportunity to partake in because I found what I wanted out of them on Google. Or books I haven't read because I got what I wanted out of them on Google. Convenient, for sure, but perhaps it takes a little bit of the joy out of finding new information, whether that joy comes from the other stuff you learn along the way or the human interaction which occurs in the process.

      • great post

        I feel like a similar thing happens because of social media like Instagram. people constantly lose the opportunity to tell others all about the things they do because they already did that in batch. what could easily become dozens of small conversations with different people, where one could add their own flavour to the story and improve it, making it ever more interesting each time it is told, ends up not happening at all. silent scrolling and tapping instead

        on top of that, multimedia usually translates real moments badly - for the better or worse: that giant hill becomes tiny and boring or that perfect angle hides the ugly part of the scene and looks beautiful. not to mention the fact that they are taking away part of enjoying real moments for the sake of creating online content

        I, myself, don't do this. but I often travel with people who do and I lost track of the times I meet someone afterwards and start talking about it, only to be stopped with a "oh I saw it all already". and I really can't blame anyone, since it's a very easy trap to fall into and it's even expected of you in some social circles

    • antisemitic conspiracy theory espoused by the Nazis and now the American right. But will this definition help me understand the person

      Well... If you know where someone is getting their information, it actually does say a lot about a person.

      When I run across an argument like that, I know to back out of it and reassess if it's worth it in the first place.

    • Why I started to ask those questions here. And I have gotten back way better responses than I ever gotten from a Google search.

  • Don't ask a question, post a wrong answer to the question you have.

    That'll give you many answers.

    Of course you can always start by RTFM you lazy sod.

    • IF your post doesn't get deletet for being obviously wrong. You need a little bit of knowlege in the field your asking in for this method in my experience.

  • My favorite is when I would use a google search for something, and several of the top results would be posts detailing the exact question I have, with the only responses being "just google it" and the post locked/closed to further responses.

    • Interesting, I've never seen that. The opposite happens quite often, though; the question is the same as mine and there's 5 other people in the comments also not finding an answer.

      Maybe I'm just Googling for too many obscure missing .dll files and such.

      • same for me, google filter sucks sometimes.. or those sites who had the answers is down 🫠

        i always search before askin' in a forum.. maybe i just didn't know how to search it? let it be because my native language doesn't have the answers on google?

        so how am i supposed to know what i should search for as a non native english speaker on english? and a few more reasons ofc 😅 (applies if u still learn english)

        so it is quite disappointing if i get a answer and realize.. oh it is just a.. "google has the answer" answer.. well how about f u self? it's even better if u try to explain that u already did and how u did it.. and get another reply like, "uninstall your browser, the web isn't for you" or some type of shi.. yes that's something that happened 🤐

        is it that hard to take those few seconds you had to comment for and help me to answer the question if you seem to know "everything"???

  • google question reddit thread with exact question as title one comment ”just google it”

  • I always try to answer even though I know the answer is on Google.

    Either because it may be a more up-to-date version or because you simply never know when other websites will stop being available and therefore that source of information will be lost. Also because many times no matter how hard one searches before asking, sometimes we do not know the concepts we want to reach and our search is limited.

    Imagine if everyone responded with "Just Google It", we would never find an answer to anything.

    I really hate that mantra and it should be part of "If you don't have anything to contribute, don't comment."

  • Now we don't have to discuss facts because we can look them up but rather discuss whether things are good or bad or certain aspects of them. We don't have to discuss "is there climate change?" But we can discuss what to do

  • I really hate the "just google it" responses to questions online. Not only are they rude, they also actively damage the internet as a growing document. Even if you DO want to be an arrogant prick and say "you are a moron and google has the answer", you can do that AND post the answer. Whatever you post online is not a discussion in the moment but rather instantly becomes a part of the internet that will age with it.

    Comments will sit forever unchanged, but google results will change. Oftentimes the thread being written in that very moment will become the top google result down the line.

    The correct response to a question to which you know the answer, no matter how stupid it is, is:

    Optional remark about how the OP should have googled

    Single sentence stating the correct answer

    A few sentences providing more detail, if more detail is needed

    Link to the source, optional but recommended especially if the link has even more detail to read about and especially if you included the "you could have googled this" remark.

    (this applies to matters of fact; opinions you usually don't need to cite etc)

    If the link isn't to a self-archiving site like wikipedia, and you want to be really thorough, go to https://web.archive.org/ and plug the link into the "save page now" module on the bottom right -- that way if the page goes down or changes in the future, someone who finds the thread in the future can go to the wayback machine and see your link as it was when you made the post


    In a similar way, proper etiquette if you post a question and it gets answered in the thread, especially if it gets answered in pieces in multiple replies, OR if you find the solution outside the thread (especially in this case), is to edit your post with a summary of what you found.

  • I rarely tell people to just Google something, and when I do it's usually in addition to me giving an explanation, telling them exactly what to google and which results to look for, and it's to provide additional examples or visual references of the thing I just explained after I have vetted those google results myself.

    I'd generally rather participate in the conversation and help make someone into one of today's "lucky 10,000" (I'm gonna be an asshole and tell you to google that and click the link to XKCD if you don't get the reference)

    But some of the things that people will turn to reddit (and now probably now Lemmy,) yahoo answers (is that still a thing?) Facebook, etc. instead of just googling does baffle me sometimes. One example that bugs me whenever there's an election coming up, is people on Facebook asking about voting - where their polling place is, how to register, when the deadline for mail-in ballots is, etc. It's all pretty straightforward information that shouldn't need a whole lot of explaining, and is very easily Google-able. Half the time you don't even need to click a link and the information is right there on the Google result page. And don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're showing interest and wanting to participate in democracy, but it does worry me a little because if they can't even research that much themselves, how much research are they going to put into the candidates and issues to make an informed decision?

    Personally I like to google things, I like going on my own personal little journey of discovery and falling down a rabbit hole clicking links and learning more about everything. I love having so much information at my fingertips and my first instinct when I encounter something I don't know, or am curious about, etc. is to start googling it. It's wild to me that not everyone has that same little spark of curiosity driving them to learn more as quickly as possible and would rather ask a question and have to wait for an answer. I also like sharing that knowledge, there have been times I've seen someone ask a question online, thought it was a good question so I googled it myself and shared what I came up with, but it still kind of burned at the back of my mind "why didn't they Google it themselves?"

  • Something I've noticed as I've shifted more of my conversations from Reddit to Discord (even before the garbage fire over at the site) is that I'm not looking up stuff as much during instant, short-form communication. Just casual conversation really is okay sometimes. I'll be trying to keep that in mind as I spend more time on Reddit alternatives.

    I also have a theory that message board conversations spend as much time on opinion as they do because all the little shit has been solved now that we have esoteric information at our fingertips. Some people don't even know what it was like to be sitting around with friends all trying to figure out what 80's film you saw Robert Loggia in because you couldn't just look it up on-demand.

  • Whenever I debate for fun with some friends we kinda have this unspoken agreement of googling is cheating.

  • True. And just as true is that there sure have been a lot of long, time-consuming, non-productive, non-entertaining, maybe even destructive discussions that could have been completely avoided or diverted into a completely different direction if someone would have said "google it" right at the beginning.

118 comments