Category: Michael Sales

Jaron Lanier is an old revolutionary, looking back on his radical work and wondering ‘What went wrong.”

In “You Are Not A Gadget”, he waxes quite passionately about his mistrust of ‘The Hive Mind’, his disappointment with internet mash-up culture and the skepticism he directs at the burgeoning techno-faith in computers and software. He rails on and on about the continuing coarseness and lack of creativity he sees in the arts and in programming culture. And he warns that we are being stripped of our humanity as we continue to embrace technology.

There are valid arguments. I’ve thought many of these things myself. But Lanier veers way to often into grumpy nostalgia. It’s a major turn off and it undermines his considerable experience and insider knowledge. My eyes glazed over tvery time he began to wax rhapsodic about the ‘good old days’ of the internet. I remember the ‘internet hey-day’ of the late 90’s, and the internet was decidedly worse (not better.) It was dirt slow – remember the grinding screech of that cheap ‘dial up modem? He remembers harmonious list-serves where heady ideas were bantered about. I remember crude, digital war zones, full of the same long running arguments you find in a current messageboards or comment section. This internet was a remote, barely explored place inhabited by early adopters, scientists and code-heads who loved all things technological. In the late 1990’s, to my Mom or Dad, a list serve on the internet could have been the dark side of the Moon for all they knew.

And that’s part of my main criticism of Lanier. His beef seems mostly based on the fact that the internet has changed in ways that are ‘potentially’ bad. And his man criteria for ‘bad’ seems to be ‘not like it used to be.’ But ultimately I say ‘so what.’ I acknowledge that in the long march of human history, we have lost old wisdom in the pursuit of ‘advancement.’ I am sure that the automobile made the average 20th century human a lot less connected with nature. But I am also sure that I would not exchange the automobile to get back closer to nature. I would not exchange books for the mental accuity necessary to retain knowledge in an oral culture. And if the super-specialized way we work means I don’t know how to build a house by myself from scratch, I’m fine with that if it means I can get super markets, national retail outlets and 7-11’s.

Why? Because we have time machines, there is no point in looking back, as Lanier constantly does. His whole world view seems built on the ‘primacy of the past.’ That’s incredibly ironic – I’d always believed you had to be a futurist to be a technologist. Apparently not, in Lanier’s case. He seems to believe that the answers lie ‘back there somewhere.’

My response? If the past was so great, humanity would not have struggle so hard to get where we are now.

Jaron Lanier is a provocative writer. His book ‘You Are Not a Gadget’ infuriates me, intrigues me, confuses me but more importantly – makes me think. Of all the readings I have done this semester, this one made me sit the book down mid-sentence and just ponder things. A lot. Here are three things I thought about:

1.) Lanier is probably the first Technologist I’ve read link belief in technological extremity (like the Singularity Theory) to belief in religious extremity (like the Rapture.) Are there other Theorist who are believe – as I do – that Silicon Valley Technologists believe in their unproven ideas so strongly that it amount to a kind of faith? And that they have the potential to do as much damage with computer programs as the European Church did with the Bible?

2.) Because Lanier is clearly knowledgeable and connected to the computer industry, his apocalyptic take on technology is sobering. However, how is his Web 2.0 any different from the printing press, the car, fire or the wheel? Lanier seems to have a fundamental problem with ANY change in humanity that makes us more like our technology, but I wonder if that is a reasonable position to take? Humanity once held all knowledge orally. When we converted to linear, paper-based knowledge, I am sure old, oral knowledge was lost. Since we are still here, was that so bad?

3.) There is a strong preference for individualism in Lanier’s work. Extreme collectivism and ‘sameness’ seems to be one of his biggest fears. The ‘Facebooking’ of websites into uniform looks proves to Lanier that the flavor-filled heyday of the 1990’s is gone. But one, Lanier is crazy if he thinks websites looked better or had more individual taste back then. The sheer slowness of webconnections prevented people from fully expressing their artistic side online. Most websites back then were plain and ugly and chock full of overly scientific examinations by the highly techno saavy, not regular people.

Second, what about entities like WordPress, who allow more average, everyday to build custom sites than every before? And despite Lanier’s criticism, the hive minded web outposts called Wikipedia makes it infinitely easier for regular Joes to learn the markup languages and code that help them further customize their own little web worlds.

We’re not living the Matrix yet, bruh. Relax and enjoy some mindless Youtube vids like the rest of us.

I stay concerned about the decentralized nature of the net. My questions earlier this week reflected those concerns. After our discussions this week, I am less concerned. My questions earlier this week were:

…How do sites like Wikileaks play into the conversation? There are clear benefits of having a peer to peer based journalistic outfit that checks government and other media, but who checks THEM?

At this very moment, nobody checks Wikileaks. It is still lurking out there, with its own agenda and no concrete way to monitor or curtail the growing power it exerts. However, Wikileaks seems to be the exception, not the norm. Most of the folks with the nohow and capability to create something like Wikileaks seem to have benign purposes. The @Home supercomputer outfits or the scientists who foster and benefit from the open source culture seem to truly be about the ‘social good.’ And in general, my concern about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ on messageboards and online communities has been eased by my reading. The most respected and sophisticated ones like Slashdot have self regulating protocols built in.

2.) Does the Size of the peer to peer outfit matter? A large, transparent spot like Wikipedia seems to have a better chance at staying true to its early mandate? But what about a small, non-transparent outfit that has an agenda that is not ‘neutral’ – again, like Wikileaks? Is the peer to peer production model cloaked in secrecy any more ethical or empowering that a normal market based model?

It still remains to be seen whether an outfit like Wikileaks is an exception or a trend. What is more clear is that generally, outfits like Wikipedia are more the norm. Transparency is important in internet culture – in some respects open source software is nothing but coding taking to its most transparent extreme. Some of the extreme fringes of internet culture scare me, but the majority of the influential players online understand that transparency and fairness serve the greater good and lead to innovation and a vibrant internet culture. The general trend toward ‘more connectedness’ probably insures that things won’t take a turn for the worse.

3.) As an online comic book producer, how can I best take advantage of the networked nature of this new economy? What examples can I use and apply to my own business pursuits?

I did not get any specific insight into that. Generally, my feeling is that the internet is a stage in front of the whole world. Unfortunately, the whole world has access to that stage, so my voice is one among 2 billion or so. But I am confident that when we study amateurism in our next module, new insight will be gained.

“Wealth of Networks” proposes that the Networked Information Economy is an ‘upgrade’ over the Information Economy, as it relates to individuals seeking to ‘get in the game.’ Getting connected to the new online market is far easier now – instead of upfront money and production needed to make a steam engine prototype, all you need is a personal computer. You can then head out to the ‘online bazaar’ and hock whatever culture, information or art you create to the billion folks surfing past your little outpost.

But I wonder:

1.) The book focuses a lot on the positive examples of peer production, like Slashdot, Wikipedia and Linux. But how do sites like Wikileaks play into the conversation? There are clear benefits of having a peer to peer based journalistic outfit that checks government and other media, but who checks THEM?

2.) Does the Size of the peer to peer outfit matter? A large, transparent spot like Wikipedia seems to have a better chance at staying true to its early mandate? But what about a small, non-transparent outfit that has an agenda that is not ‘neutral’ – again, like Wikileaks? Is the peer to peer production model cloaked in secrecy any more ethical or empowering that a normal market based model?

3.) As an online comic book producer, how can I best take advantage of the networked nature of this new economy? What examples can I use and apply to my own business pursuits?

(A research proposal by Michael Sales)

INTRO

Type ‘cheating on Facebook’ in Google and you get 11 million hits. Type in ‘cheating on Myspace’ and you get another 1.7 hits. 81% of divorce lawyers report an uptick of cases where social networking was presented as evidence, according to a recent study by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. And of those attorneys, 66% sited Facebook as the number one site used as evidence. Divorce-Online.com surveyed over 5,000 attorneys. The results? Facebook was mentioned in about 20 percent of divorce cases.
Do these statistics indicate a growing trend? There are most likely too many variables to adequately prove social media causes infidelity. But is it possible that the technology that gives us unprecedented access to quick, private and media rich interactions on sites like Facebook and Myspace could also encourage infidelity? That is the question this proposal will seek to study.

RELEVANCE

Infidelity – defined in this study as a married spouse having sex with someone that is not his or her spouse – has been around long before the explosion of social media. However, the ability to transmit words, images and sound privately and at any time adds a completely new twist to ‘secret rendezvous.’ Ken Savage, the founder of FacebookCheating.com acknowledges that Facebook does not create problems in a marriage, but says if a spouse is going to cheat, Facebook ‘makes it much easier.’ Folks over 35 are the fastest growing demographic on Facebook, which currently has over 400 million registered users. This demographic could be particularly impacted by this growing trend. Moreover, the swift advance of smart-phone technology and wi-fi access gives even more access to online communities. With growing numbers being potentially affected, the study of this subject seems quite warranted and necessary.

RESEARCH

Definitions

The study will define social media and social media technology. For our purposes, social media will be defined as any internet based website that functions as a community and contains built in infrastructure that allows easy networking. This would then include most recent messageboards and other online discussion groups, as well as the sites like Facebook and Mysace.
Social media technology, on the other hand, is any technology that allows a user to access these communities. This would include web connected desktops, laptops and any handheld communication device – like phones or music players – that connect online. When examining this new technology, attention will be paid to the specific technological changes that now allow unique, unprecedented opportunities for infidelity. Does the unique amount of personal power found in internet enabled mobile phones encourage infidelity in ways unknown to previous generations? And could these new opportunities contribute to new cases of infidelity and divorce?

The chief area of research will be journals and surveys like those done by AAML. In addition, divorce lawyers and psychiatrists will be interviewed – lawyers to discuss why social media is a unique, new way of cheating and psychiatrists to shed light on the mental aspect of online cheating. Questions to mental health professionals might be:

1.) Do instances of Facebook infidelity tend to be with established romantic interests, or new people that were met after marriage?
2.) If a new person, the question becomes: How can a virtual world offer enough emotional stimulus to facilitate infidelity?

Answers to these questions may refute social information theory, which generally suggest that online relationships take more time to develop than face- to face relationships. Moreover, this data – coupled with observations regarding the unique way current technology transmits media rich data – may suggest that online relationships incite strong emotional responses in less time.

It will also be important to find out of there is new technology to warn a spouse about Facebook cheating. For example, BrickHouse Security has software called the Stealth iBot tool that can snap up to 10,000 screen shots from a user’s online accounts. An expert from BrickHouse Security could also add context for the clandestine nature of online cheating.

I expect the research to show that social media encourages infidelity because of the unprecedented, super convenient and extremely media rich access it allows to private interaction. Researchers often study how the internet has effects interpersonal relationships. This study seeks to go deeper, specifically looking at this new subset of the internet called ‘social media’ and how it may be changing our culture faster than we realize.

The first week of Theory and Audience Analysis was illuminating.  I was very surprised to learn that a theory has a specific, scientific meaning and that many people simply consider it a tool to refine study. I also learned that their is a specific criteria based on evaluating a theory. Of the many categories in that criteria, ‘scope’ intrigues me the most.

Despite the straightforward criteria, I came away from class feeling like theory evaluation is a subjective guessing game. When one asks ‘Is the scope too wide?’ the only reasonable answer can be ‘it depends.’ And what it ‘depends on’ carries many variables: the general feeling of the larger academic community that evaluates the theory as well as the other evaluation criteria. If you ask ‘Is the scope of this theory too broad’, the response could easily be: “Yes, because it is too broad to ever be proved ‘Falsifiable.’ Or someone could say ‘This theory is  not ‘Appropriate’ – nobody cares if DIGG users are also HUGE fans of 30 Minute Meals. That scope is too narrow.’ Obviously, time sorts out the wheat from the chafe, so eventually ‘good’ theories rise above ‘bad’. But in the short term, the inter-related nature of all the categories makes evaluating theories exponentially more subjective. Ho,w then, do you determine the right ‘scope’ – or any criteria when putting together a theory?

That answer will probably come to me over time. As I engage in this class, I will get a working framework for this field – what is acceptable and what isn’t, what’s reasonable and what’s crazy. After that I will have to just go with my gut.  My professor is giving me the tools, but I have to be able to make a strong enough case and argue my point on my own.

1.) Scope seems to be an important criteria for judging the validity of research. Make it too narrow, and it has less impact on policy, further research, business agendas and popular culture. Make it too broad, and nobody can relate to it or it will be impossible to prove or disprove. How then, can I insure that the scope for my research paper maintains the proper balance ?

2.) Quantitative research – the type based in scientific method – is the most popular type of research. Does that reflect a feeling that quantitative research renders the most accurate ‘truthful’ answers? Or is a reflection of the bias Western culture places on that method, which is rooted in our history?

3.) Qualitative research is becoming more and more popular as a valid form of study. In our ‘Visual Aesthetics’ class, we discuss how ‘right brained rooted visual based storytelling’ is replacing ‘left brained, word based storytelling.’ This idea is also backed up in ‘A Whole New Mind’, a new book by David pink. The book posits that the storytelling techniques generally favored by the ‘creative/artist’ class is becoming more popular and gaining validity even among more left brained sectors like corporate business and law.

Is the growing acceptance of qualitative research in the ‘hard sciences’ related to the acceptance of ‘right brained thinking’ in the ‘hard business sector?’ Or is there no relationship in these trends at all.