Since the emergence of modern man some 200,000 years ago, people and technologyhave been inextricably linked to each other. However, unlike traditional technology -such as leverage (and derivative applications such as hammers, wheels and crankshafts),and control of fire - smart technology is equipped with adaptive capacity. Whereas intraditional technology people have to think and handle in terms of technology in orderto apply technology successfully and purposefully, technology with, for example, itsown learning ability adapts to humans. This means that smart technology influencesdevelopment in a different way than traditional technology. Changes in the relationship between human development (brain) and smarttechnology - technology with its own learning capacity and adaptability - have led tothe articulation of 4 requirements technology should meet: 1. it must be sustainable, 2. it must not block development and if it does it must be clear how, 3. there must bea logical argument why the technique can be used and how it can be explained, also in terms of psychological development and, finally, 4. the social and ethical discoursemust be stated in a transparent way. At a fast pace, futurologists and management gurus are presenting “theories” abouthow smart technology will change us permanently as individuals. Requirements 1(sustainability) and 2 (technology influencing human development) are at stake here.However, these ideas cannot be substantiated by scientific research. Psychology(and the other social and human sciences) have not yet been able to generate a convincing interpretation of what is going on in the area of brain and technology (living technology). In fact, there is a need for argumentation. In order to arrive at an argument-based psychology, insight into the non-linearityof processes is indispensable. The Brain & Technology research group is exploring the great possibilities to bridge the distance between people and their limitations by using smart technology, or possibilities, especially when it comes to argument based applied psychology! In this document, mainly the argument requirement is considered, because in the rapidly changing technological processes, the argument often does not sufficiently develop and the argument lies pre-eminently at the level of applied psychology, brain and technology.
MULTIFILE
The “Creating Age-friendly Communities: Housing and Technology” publication presents contemporary, innovative, and insightful narratives, debates, and frameworks based on an international collection of papers from scholars spanning the fields of gerontology, social sciences, architecture, computer science, and gerontechnology. This extensive collection of papers aims to move the narrative and debates forward in this interdisciplinary field of age-friendly cities and communities. (This book is a reprint of the Special Issue Creating Age-friendly Communities: Housing and Technology that was published in Healthcare)
MULTIFILE
![Creating age-friendly communities: Housing and technology [book]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20250506132407955076.b97102b7-5bdc-4b75-a293-4281df36ef73-thumbnail-400x300.png)
This study aims to help professionals in the field of running and running-related technology (i.e., sports watches and smartphone applications) to address the needs of runners. It investigates the various runner types—in terms of their attitudes, interests, and opinions (AIOs) with regard to running—and studies how they differ in the technology they use. Data used in this study were drawn from the standardized online Eindhoven Running Survey 2016 (ERS2016). In total, 3723 participants completed the questionnaire. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to identify the different running types, and crosstabs obtained insights into the use of technology between different typologies. Based on the AIOs, four distinct runner types were identified: casual individual, social competitive, individual competitive, and devoted runners. Subsequently, we related the types to their use of sports watches and apps. Our results show a difference in the kinds of technology used by different runner types. Differentiation between types of runners can be useful for health professionals, policymakers involved in public health, engineers, and trainers or coaches to adapt their services to specific segments, in order to make use of the full potential of running-related systems to support runners to stay active and injury-free and contribute to a healthy lifestyle.
