Recently, John Dvorak wrote about trends and trend killers, and he talked about Web 2.0, the concept which comprises social computing and the blogosphere. Interestingly, he cited fragmentation as the biggest threat to this thing that is social computing. The theory goes that the more destinations there are for social networking, the more fragmented the social web will remain.
This makes a lot of sense. The value of social networking sites like linked in and del.icio.us derives not just from the "collective intelligence" of the contributors, but also from the individual intelligence and experices shared by those contributors, and, just as important, who they are. This brings us back to the identity question. There is no single authority that can vouch for a person's identity on the web. So regardless of whether a person claims to hold a Ph.D, we still have no real idea of who that person is, or how to gauge the value of the information they offer.
I am unlikely to got to multiple social websites on a daily basis; I am more likely to find one that has other people "like me" and register there. But that means that I may never connect with other people with similar interests and pursuits simply because they chose to register with a different site. So just like in the real world, there will remain numerous fragmented and duplicative networks, possibly existing without knowledge of each other.
As far as identity and collective stupidity goes, I am still trying to wrap my head around this idea of collective intelligence and online content ratings. On a music sharing website recently, I ran across an album "review". In this case, the person simply stated one word, "boo". But this word took up three lines, and was spelled with about 30 of each letter, plus an entire line of exclamation points. This was a singularly unhelpful and unenlightening review, and added nothing to the body of comments about this album. However, the review remains posted, and the 1 star out of 5 the reviewer awarded remains included in the averages. Obviously, this review adds very little discernable value to a reader, and provides no meaningful information which could be used to make a decision.
This led me to think that ratings without context, without the opportunity to comment, can lead to collective stupidity; it seems that some best practices regarding the usage of online ratings can be extrapolated. First, ratings without support or comments are only as helpful as those providing the ratings, a quality that cannot be directly observed. Second, identity adds credibility to any ratings system, or more generally, any mechanism of social networking. Third, having a way to "sanity check" ratings and comments ensures accuracy, and may control for the ulterior motives of those submitting ratings and comments. Since one of the most appealing aspects of the social web is the ability to maintain anonymity if so desired, we should probably remember the first and third practices when identity is not available.
At any rate, I have found that having the ability to see "other comments by same reviewer" is very beneficial...and perhaps in some cases, it might be helpful to have ratings for contributors. For instance, if all of your comments are marked as "unhelpful" by other site users, maybe that gives you a bad rating as a contributor to the site, or at least a mechanism to make sure that those type of reviews are ALWAYS at the bottom of the list.
Just a thought....maybe I am just contributing to the collective stupidity of the social web.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Who do you trust?
My friend has a new job, and it struck me as very interesting what she is going to be doing. She will be a "content analyst", reviewing product reviews submitted by end users on various websites before they are posted; the her job is to ensure that the reviews discuss the products themselves, and do not make profane or irrelevant statements, or discuss competitors products by name. Ideally, the idea is that the product reviews should be helpful to potential buyers.
I really like the idea of feedback being vetted before it's generally available to users wanting to make an informed decision. I'll give you an example of why. A singer/songwriter I like recently released a new album, and this album is available from a well-known legal music download site. This site allows users to post reviews. There are about 10 reviews of this album, and 2 of them mention nothing about the album; they only talk about the artist's involvement in a recent reality television show. Those reviews are entirely unhelpful, and frankly just make the people who submitted them look stupid. However, there were other reviews that talked about the songs, the artist, and the album. But out of the 10 reviews that are posted, only about half of them are actually helpful; the rest are about as helpful as someone you don't know telling you they like or dislike an album, but without telling you why, and without telling you anything about the song or album in support of their endorsement. Which is exactly what the idea of online reviews is.
So I ask you, if you were in a strange city, would you walk up to a random person on the street and ask, where should I eat? Most of us are more likely to ask people we come into contact with while visiting that city -- people we know who have been to or live in the city, people we are working with, people who work at the hotel where we are staying -- than a complete and total random stranger on the street. Why is that? Because it's nice to know the source of the information you are soliciting. Perhaps the "random stranger" is just as accurate as the person we work with, but there's a "safety factor" that comes into play when soliciting recommendations from people who are known. I have one friend who is a total food snob, and not in a good way. He has no appreciation for burger joints and holes-in-the-wall. He is not someone I would ask where to go for an informal meal with friends, because his perspective is so biased against informal places. But, if I needed a really nice place to go on a date or for a really special occasion, I would ask him. I might not choose a place he recommends, but I would definitely want to know his opinion. I have another friend who does appreciate informal restaurants, but I would never ask him for a recommendation on a restaurant because I know he likes the food at some places that really don't impress me.
So, let's get back to the idea of online ratings. Some people call this type of social computing activity "collective intelligence", but I have also heard it referred to as "collective stupidity". How do you control for Groupthink? And how do you know if the 5 out of 8 that liked that new restaurant you are considering going to for dinner tonight are really one person with 5 screen names? And oh, by the way, that person owns the restaurant? And how do you know that the seller on that auction side from whom you are about to buy a $10,000 item, the seller that has really good feedback from every person she's ever sold a $3 beanie baby to, is really a grifter who has patiently sold low value items and delivered them with the intent of building up her good feedback, but is about to take your money and walk away?
In short, you can never know the agenda of a person posting feedback, so you have to use some common sense. Look at the feedback they've posted before, if possible, before trusting someone's advice on a purchase, major or minor. And use some common sense. If everyone is complaining about battery life, maybe that digital camera really does eat batteries. But if only a few are, maybe there's a reason.
But what about American Idol? You may or may not be aware of Sanjaya, a young man who managed to survive week after week despite repeated lackluster vocals. Is this really because of a campaign by votefortheworst.com to have people call in and vote for him, because these people wanted, essentially, to call into question Idol's credibility? The interesting part about this is that we will never know how many people voted for Sanjaya out of spite, and how many voted for him because they really liked him. On one episode, there was an 11-year old girl who reacted to Sanjaya the way teenagers all over the US reacted to the beatles 40 years ago.
Back to that online auction site....last year, I was going to buy something from a seller I had not bought from previously. It wasn't an expensive item, just a child's toy. I looked at the feedback, because this person had only sold to about 10 people so far. The first piece of feedback I read was very negative. I was a bit curious. The other 9 pieces of feedback were either positive or neutral, and no one complained about anything like excessive delivery time, or not getting what they ordered. But this one piece of negative feedback really stood out. It had profanity in it, and questioned the integrity of the seller. We are talking about feedback on a $10 transaction for a barbie. Out of curiosity, I looked at the feedback this person had left for others. All of it was negative, and the person had said things like "Won't buy from that b_tch again", and used other profanity. Frankly, the reviews were the rantings of a person who was paranoid and insane, and I do not mean either of those figuratively. Obviously, in that case, it was clear that the feedback was untrustworthy, but that's probably an exception.
Again, we come back to the question of whether the person providing feedback, either through digg this or del.icio.us, or through any online rating service, has an agenda, and how you control for that if you do not moderate your feedback. And if you do moderate your feedback, do you leave yourself open to criticism that you are only letting "washed" criticism through?
What's nice about the company my friend is going to work for is that it is a service provider, ostensibly not vested in the material contents of the feedback, only whether or not the feedback meets their criteria: must talk about the actual product, must not talk about competitors, must not contain profanity, and must provide meaningful information; there no stipulation that the feedback must be favorable. Note that my friend will not be editing the reviews, only marking them as "pass" or "fail".
On another occasion, we shall discuss who should be reading, and reacting to, online feedback. And at that time, I'll relate the story of my parents' recent purchase of a minivan. Until then, remember to participate in life; there's nothing visceral about watching something on a TV screen or a computer monitor.
I really like the idea of feedback being vetted before it's generally available to users wanting to make an informed decision. I'll give you an example of why. A singer/songwriter I like recently released a new album, and this album is available from a well-known legal music download site. This site allows users to post reviews. There are about 10 reviews of this album, and 2 of them mention nothing about the album; they only talk about the artist's involvement in a recent reality television show. Those reviews are entirely unhelpful, and frankly just make the people who submitted them look stupid. However, there were other reviews that talked about the songs, the artist, and the album. But out of the 10 reviews that are posted, only about half of them are actually helpful; the rest are about as helpful as someone you don't know telling you they like or dislike an album, but without telling you why, and without telling you anything about the song or album in support of their endorsement. Which is exactly what the idea of online reviews is.
So I ask you, if you were in a strange city, would you walk up to a random person on the street and ask, where should I eat? Most of us are more likely to ask people we come into contact with while visiting that city -- people we know who have been to or live in the city, people we are working with, people who work at the hotel where we are staying -- than a complete and total random stranger on the street. Why is that? Because it's nice to know the source of the information you are soliciting. Perhaps the "random stranger" is just as accurate as the person we work with, but there's a "safety factor" that comes into play when soliciting recommendations from people who are known. I have one friend who is a total food snob, and not in a good way. He has no appreciation for burger joints and holes-in-the-wall. He is not someone I would ask where to go for an informal meal with friends, because his perspective is so biased against informal places. But, if I needed a really nice place to go on a date or for a really special occasion, I would ask him. I might not choose a place he recommends, but I would definitely want to know his opinion. I have another friend who does appreciate informal restaurants, but I would never ask him for a recommendation on a restaurant because I know he likes the food at some places that really don't impress me.
So, let's get back to the idea of online ratings. Some people call this type of social computing activity "collective intelligence", but I have also heard it referred to as "collective stupidity". How do you control for Groupthink? And how do you know if the 5 out of 8 that liked that new restaurant you are considering going to for dinner tonight are really one person with 5 screen names? And oh, by the way, that person owns the restaurant? And how do you know that the seller on that auction side from whom you are about to buy a $10,000 item, the seller that has really good feedback from every person she's ever sold a $3 beanie baby to, is really a grifter who has patiently sold low value items and delivered them with the intent of building up her good feedback, but is about to take your money and walk away?
In short, you can never know the agenda of a person posting feedback, so you have to use some common sense. Look at the feedback they've posted before, if possible, before trusting someone's advice on a purchase, major or minor. And use some common sense. If everyone is complaining about battery life, maybe that digital camera really does eat batteries. But if only a few are, maybe there's a reason.
But what about American Idol? You may or may not be aware of Sanjaya, a young man who managed to survive week after week despite repeated lackluster vocals. Is this really because of a campaign by votefortheworst.com to have people call in and vote for him, because these people wanted, essentially, to call into question Idol's credibility? The interesting part about this is that we will never know how many people voted for Sanjaya out of spite, and how many voted for him because they really liked him. On one episode, there was an 11-year old girl who reacted to Sanjaya the way teenagers all over the US reacted to the beatles 40 years ago.
Back to that online auction site....last year, I was going to buy something from a seller I had not bought from previously. It wasn't an expensive item, just a child's toy. I looked at the feedback, because this person had only sold to about 10 people so far. The first piece of feedback I read was very negative. I was a bit curious. The other 9 pieces of feedback were either positive or neutral, and no one complained about anything like excessive delivery time, or not getting what they ordered. But this one piece of negative feedback really stood out. It had profanity in it, and questioned the integrity of the seller. We are talking about feedback on a $10 transaction for a barbie. Out of curiosity, I looked at the feedback this person had left for others. All of it was negative, and the person had said things like "Won't buy from that b_tch again", and used other profanity. Frankly, the reviews were the rantings of a person who was paranoid and insane, and I do not mean either of those figuratively. Obviously, in that case, it was clear that the feedback was untrustworthy, but that's probably an exception.
Again, we come back to the question of whether the person providing feedback, either through digg this or del.icio.us, or through any online rating service, has an agenda, and how you control for that if you do not moderate your feedback. And if you do moderate your feedback, do you leave yourself open to criticism that you are only letting "washed" criticism through?
What's nice about the company my friend is going to work for is that it is a service provider, ostensibly not vested in the material contents of the feedback, only whether or not the feedback meets their criteria: must talk about the actual product, must not talk about competitors, must not contain profanity, and must provide meaningful information; there no stipulation that the feedback must be favorable. Note that my friend will not be editing the reviews, only marking them as "pass" or "fail".
On another occasion, we shall discuss who should be reading, and reacting to, online feedback. And at that time, I'll relate the story of my parents' recent purchase of a minivan. Until then, remember to participate in life; there's nothing visceral about watching something on a TV screen or a computer monitor.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Technology codependency
I got an iPod recently. It was a gift, actually, or more precisely, an award given to everyone in my "group" at work in recognition for outstanding performance in 2006. I've actually had it almost 3 months now, but I had been too busy participating in life, and futilely pursuing the ever-elusive snipe called "work/life balance". Last week, though, was different. I was "out of town" on business, and due to the cost of flights, I had to arrive at the conference a day early. So, I enjoyed myself in this other town, and then found that I had some time on my hands. What to do, what to do?
So I pulled out this package with this little tiny piece of technology, and I find a credit-card size quick-start guide. No software, just the device, the quick-start guide, the earbuds, and the "dock". I have since learned that what I received was a 1 GB 2nd Generation iPod Shuffle. So, I went to the itunes website, and I downloaded and installed itunes, and signed up for an account. And within a few minutes, I had downloaded about 35 songs.
OK, OK, I know I am a late-comer to the 'pod phenomenon. I do have another mp3 player, but I did not use it with a download service. And it didn't clip to my shirt and weigh nothing. I am actually something of a technophile, or in the vernacular, a gearhead. I am not necessarily bleeding edge, but I generally the Jones's are trying to keep up with me. I am that "go to" person for everything technical or computer-related for my friends and family. Buying a new computer? Buying a new digital camera? Questions on how to set up your email? Questions how to configure your wireless network? Problems with software package XYZ? Trouble hooking up your DVR? Fill in the blank, I'm that person.
OK, dad, do you see a bar across the top of your screen that has a line of words on it? Good. You see the word "File" on that line? OK, that's your menu bar. Now, click once on the word "File." No, you don't need to double click. Yes, that's right. Now, do you see that a menu has popped out from under the word file? Good. Do you see wher it says Exit, at the bottom? Yes, click once on the word Exit. No, EXIT. What, your email went away? Then you did it right. That's what we were trying to accomplish.
So my point is, I am no technological neophyte. I'm not a cynic, and I embrace new technologies that fill a need in my life. I just never new I had a need to have my own personal, portable, radio station. So, I've totally fallen in love with this thing called iPod. Who knew how great it was to eat breakfast, or write emails, or create reports, or review documentation, with your own private unicast, designed for you, and by you, and only playing songs you like. Yeah, I am old enough that I made mix tapes, and later, mix CDs. But this is orders of magnitude easier and faster. Anyone can be a DJ.
So I found myself, walking around this city in which I was staying, in my own little bubble. Now, I should also tell you that I am a safety minded person. I always make sure my car radio is low enough to allow me to hear audio cues to which I need to respond, like emergency vehicles, squealing brakes, or sounds of breaking glass and crashing steel; I completely understand the importance of the concept of situational awareness, which is even more important when travelling alone, by foot, in a strange city, than it is while driving a car. I am also wary of loud music played on personal music devices through headphones, and am old enough to think that if I can hear the music from your earbuds when I am 5 feet away well enough to recognize the song, the music is too loud.
So, I have my earbuds in, and I am listening to my music, but I am still aware of my surroundings. I can still hear when someone talks to me, and I can still respond. I make eye contact with those around me. And I turn off the iPod and remove my earbuds when the situation calls for more than a passing "hello" or "thank you". I also continue to scan the area around me, to ensure that I do not become an easy mark for those on the lookout for those of us completely insulated from the outside world, with a false sense of safety inside our bubbles.
Still, I love the intimacy of having a singer sing directly in my ear, where I can hear their breath. It's a very comforting, satisfying feeling. And being able to take that with me (just about) everywhere is incredibly liberating. From a practical perspective, when trying to work in a noisy coffeehouse or other public place, hearing my own familiar music allows me to focus better, without the sights and sounds of the coffee shop constantly distracting me.
But then I think about, at that moment, how many machines, how much technology, I am depending on. OK, so at that moment, there's the iPod, my laptop, the wireless router in the coffeeshop and all the servers and routers between me and my work, the electrical generating equipment at the electric plant, the air handling systems in the building, the lighting systems...not to mention everything that went in to getting me to that coffeehouse. Planes, tranes, and automobiles. Refineries. Electronic looms that wove the cloth for my clothing, sewing machines that sewed the clothes......It's mind boggling. and that's just to get me to where I am, clothed, and plugged in to the wall. Our lives are more and more dependent on more and more advanced technology, and the easier we want things, the smaller and more advanced every piece of technology becomes. But with a price.
For instance, there is very little place for yesteryear's "shade-tree mechanic" in the 21st century. Cars are very complex now, and their engine compartments are so tightly packed that specialized equipment and tools are needed for even the simplest act of maintenance, the oil change. Yes, I, in my youth, changed the oil in my 1979 Chevy Impala. Not so in my vehicle of today. Even checking the air pressure in tires has gone high-tech; my aunt gave me a digital tire pressure gauge for Christmas last year.
There are many great things that come of this constant forward march of technology. Miniaturization has allowed the creation of a portable insulin pump that's the size of a pager, and worn on the belt; this is a great boon to those with diabetes, and frees them to lead lives of less encumbrance. Miniaturization has enabled car manufacturers to distribute "smart" keys, with door lock controls build right into the key, and ID chips embedded in keys to allow the car "authenticate" the key before starting. These are truly safety and security measures; I can find my car easily in a parking lot, quickly lock and unlock doors, and make my car be my personal alarm with a panic button on my key in case I find myself under threat. And miniaturization has enabled me to immerse myself in my own bubble, with my iPod, which is smaller than a book of matches.
But do we depend too much on technology? Do we put enough attention on learning to do without? I mean, what on earth is there to do when the power is off? Most of this technology is dependent in some way on electricity. Computers, televisions, telephones, cell phones, gameboys, ipods, cars, light bulbs, radios, flashlights, fans and air conditioners. Just watch kids on a plane between leaving the gate and reaching an altitude of 10,000 feet; you would think they had been banished to purgatory, having to turn off mr ipod and ms gameboy for 15 minutes. Books, cards, and boardgames? Apparently those went the way of the T-Rex, but they are not nearly so interesting.....
Studies have continually shown that despite the availability and effectiveness of "labor saving devices", we have no more freetime today than we did 50 or 60 years ago. That's quite a perspective. Where does that time go? Well, I'll ask you, how much time did YOU spend fighting with technology last week? Oh, complexity may not be the only thing sucking up your time, but doubtless it is in the top 5 time wasters in your life.
Technology offers some amazing benefits, but we should not embrace technology to the exclusion of everything else, and we should embrace it with eyes wide open. We must be mindful of the dangers, and the allure, of technical codependency, where people literally cannot function without their technology, where technology becomes an enabler in the truest sense. We must remember that sometimes the best solution is a low-tech or no-tech solution.
My company "encourages" its employees to find work/life balance. I contend that we all need to work to find technology/life balance, or we may find that the life experiences we have worked so hard to preserve have become a distant memory, usurped by the infinitely cleaner and safer virtual version.
Imagine sky diving without the possibility of chute failure and death? Imagine visiting the Grand Canyon, but not having to deal with the dust and the heat and the threat of death if you go beyond a certain point without water? Imagine if all of our messy, dangerous, visceral experience were replaced by safe and sanitized virtual versions of themselves? Or if we could truly simulate people? Now, there's some virtual insanity.
So I pulled out this package with this little tiny piece of technology, and I find a credit-card size quick-start guide. No software, just the device, the quick-start guide, the earbuds, and the "dock". I have since learned that what I received was a 1 GB 2nd Generation iPod Shuffle. So, I went to the itunes website, and I downloaded and installed itunes, and signed up for an account. And within a few minutes, I had downloaded about 35 songs.
OK, OK, I know I am a late-comer to the 'pod phenomenon. I do have another mp3 player, but I did not use it with a download service. And it didn't clip to my shirt and weigh nothing. I am actually something of a technophile, or in the vernacular, a gearhead. I am not necessarily bleeding edge, but I generally the Jones's are trying to keep up with me. I am that "go to" person for everything technical or computer-related for my friends and family. Buying a new computer? Buying a new digital camera? Questions on how to set up your email? Questions how to configure your wireless network? Problems with software package XYZ? Trouble hooking up your DVR? Fill in the blank, I'm that person.
OK, dad, do you see a bar across the top of your screen that has a line of words on it? Good. You see the word "File" on that line? OK, that's your menu bar. Now, click once on the word "File." No, you don't need to double click. Yes, that's right. Now, do you see that a menu has popped out from under the word file? Good. Do you see wher it says Exit, at the bottom? Yes, click once on the word Exit. No, EXIT. What, your email went away? Then you did it right. That's what we were trying to accomplish.
So my point is, I am no technological neophyte. I'm not a cynic, and I embrace new technologies that fill a need in my life. I just never new I had a need to have my own personal, portable, radio station. So, I've totally fallen in love with this thing called iPod. Who knew how great it was to eat breakfast, or write emails, or create reports, or review documentation, with your own private unicast, designed for you, and by you, and only playing songs you like. Yeah, I am old enough that I made mix tapes, and later, mix CDs. But this is orders of magnitude easier and faster. Anyone can be a DJ.
So I found myself, walking around this city in which I was staying, in my own little bubble. Now, I should also tell you that I am a safety minded person. I always make sure my car radio is low enough to allow me to hear audio cues to which I need to respond, like emergency vehicles, squealing brakes, or sounds of breaking glass and crashing steel; I completely understand the importance of the concept of situational awareness, which is even more important when travelling alone, by foot, in a strange city, than it is while driving a car. I am also wary of loud music played on personal music devices through headphones, and am old enough to think that if I can hear the music from your earbuds when I am 5 feet away well enough to recognize the song, the music is too loud.
So, I have my earbuds in, and I am listening to my music, but I am still aware of my surroundings. I can still hear when someone talks to me, and I can still respond. I make eye contact with those around me. And I turn off the iPod and remove my earbuds when the situation calls for more than a passing "hello" or "thank you". I also continue to scan the area around me, to ensure that I do not become an easy mark for those on the lookout for those of us completely insulated from the outside world, with a false sense of safety inside our bubbles.
Still, I love the intimacy of having a singer sing directly in my ear, where I can hear their breath. It's a very comforting, satisfying feeling. And being able to take that with me (just about) everywhere is incredibly liberating. From a practical perspective, when trying to work in a noisy coffeehouse or other public place, hearing my own familiar music allows me to focus better, without the sights and sounds of the coffee shop constantly distracting me.
But then I think about, at that moment, how many machines, how much technology, I am depending on. OK, so at that moment, there's the iPod, my laptop, the wireless router in the coffeeshop and all the servers and routers between me and my work, the electrical generating equipment at the electric plant, the air handling systems in the building, the lighting systems...not to mention everything that went in to getting me to that coffeehouse. Planes, tranes, and automobiles. Refineries. Electronic looms that wove the cloth for my clothing, sewing machines that sewed the clothes......It's mind boggling. and that's just to get me to where I am, clothed, and plugged in to the wall. Our lives are more and more dependent on more and more advanced technology, and the easier we want things, the smaller and more advanced every piece of technology becomes. But with a price.
For instance, there is very little place for yesteryear's "shade-tree mechanic" in the 21st century. Cars are very complex now, and their engine compartments are so tightly packed that specialized equipment and tools are needed for even the simplest act of maintenance, the oil change. Yes, I, in my youth, changed the oil in my 1979 Chevy Impala. Not so in my vehicle of today. Even checking the air pressure in tires has gone high-tech; my aunt gave me a digital tire pressure gauge for Christmas last year.
There are many great things that come of this constant forward march of technology. Miniaturization has allowed the creation of a portable insulin pump that's the size of a pager, and worn on the belt; this is a great boon to those with diabetes, and frees them to lead lives of less encumbrance. Miniaturization has enabled car manufacturers to distribute "smart" keys, with door lock controls build right into the key, and ID chips embedded in keys to allow the car "authenticate" the key before starting. These are truly safety and security measures; I can find my car easily in a parking lot, quickly lock and unlock doors, and make my car be my personal alarm with a panic button on my key in case I find myself under threat. And miniaturization has enabled me to immerse myself in my own bubble, with my iPod, which is smaller than a book of matches.
But do we depend too much on technology? Do we put enough attention on learning to do without? I mean, what on earth is there to do when the power is off? Most of this technology is dependent in some way on electricity. Computers, televisions, telephones, cell phones, gameboys, ipods, cars, light bulbs, radios, flashlights, fans and air conditioners. Just watch kids on a plane between leaving the gate and reaching an altitude of 10,000 feet; you would think they had been banished to purgatory, having to turn off mr ipod and ms gameboy for 15 minutes. Books, cards, and boardgames? Apparently those went the way of the T-Rex, but they are not nearly so interesting.....
Studies have continually shown that despite the availability and effectiveness of "labor saving devices", we have no more freetime today than we did 50 or 60 years ago. That's quite a perspective. Where does that time go? Well, I'll ask you, how much time did YOU spend fighting with technology last week? Oh, complexity may not be the only thing sucking up your time, but doubtless it is in the top 5 time wasters in your life.
Technology offers some amazing benefits, but we should not embrace technology to the exclusion of everything else, and we should embrace it with eyes wide open. We must be mindful of the dangers, and the allure, of technical codependency, where people literally cannot function without their technology, where technology becomes an enabler in the truest sense. We must remember that sometimes the best solution is a low-tech or no-tech solution.
My company "encourages" its employees to find work/life balance. I contend that we all need to work to find technology/life balance, or we may find that the life experiences we have worked so hard to preserve have become a distant memory, usurped by the infinitely cleaner and safer virtual version.
Imagine sky diving without the possibility of chute failure and death? Imagine visiting the Grand Canyon, but not having to deal with the dust and the heat and the threat of death if you go beyond a certain point without water? Imagine if all of our messy, dangerous, visceral experience were replaced by safe and sanitized virtual versions of themselves? Or if we could truly simulate people? Now, there's some virtual insanity.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Open Missive to the World
So many things have happened recently that I thought it was time to say something. It's an odd situation, really. A study in contradictions. At a time when the world is accessible to more and more people, and we have collected so much knowledge, the people of the world are becoming more isolated. The technology that has served to open up the world has also served to shut it in. The boundless opportunities of our "first life" are being passed over, more and more, in favor of a second life, and I don't just mean the eponymous online world, but the whole concept we used to call cyberspace....and which seems to me more and more like the matrix.
Not that I think the endeavors of virtual reality are immoral or banal; there are real applications that can benefit those of us in the real world. Star Trek:The Next Generation envisioned this 20 years ago, with the Holodeck, and more lasciviously, with the HoloSuite in ST:Deep Space 9. Those were true virtual worlds, were you could build simulations that looked and felt and operated like the real thing. Sort of combining the technologies of simulation and modeling software for complex systems (weather systems, human processes, network traffic) with graphic design and gaming, ergonomics, philosophy, psychology, and myriad other disciplines.
Imagine, if you will, that the warp core is about to explode, and you don't really understand why. Sensor readings don't tell you enough. But you can build a fully functioning virtual mockup, using the technical specifications (like maybe CADD/CAM data files), technical documentation, metallurgy reports, maintenance logs, and even, say, the design logs and project plans of the designer. Put all of this into a computer system, wave your magic wand, and walk into a simulation of your engine room. And talk with the designer. And look at and touch the components. And figure out that there's a misalignment, very minor, in the plasma conduit, due to a change in the metallurgical properties of one critical component, which affects the magnetic field, which affects the magnetic "pipe" directing your plasma flow. And you adjust the current to that component, fixing the magnetic field, and suddenly the plasma flow is correct again, and you've just saved everyone on the enterprise. That's really interesting stuff.
Now, let's say you are Boeing, and you are using 21st century technology to not only design your latest airliner (they did that with the 777) but you are also using virtual technology to put it together, walk through it, test tools, check locations, determine if things can be reached by humans, and even stress test the aircraft. Saving you millions on redesigns and retrofits that might have had to happen during construction, or worse, after deployment. (Remember the Comet? You probably don't, it was before my time by a short lifetime, but it was the first pressurized passenger liner, and it had a design flaw with it's square windows; it seems that metal fatigue caused microscopic cracks at the corners of the square windows. When those cracks expanded when the passenger cabin was pressurized, explosive decompression would occur at altitude. The Comet was grounded after two aircraft were lost with all souls. This was something that had to be fixed "after deployment".) That's really powerful stuff, and it will affect all of the flying public in the next 5 years.
To far away or specialized to wrap your head around? Ok, let's take the dilemma of the perfect pair of jeans. Do they exist? What if I find that ONE PERFECT PAIR and then I wear them so much, they wear out, and I NEVER find them again?????? Well, what if I told you you could have your body scanned, and that Levi's will make you a custom pair of jeans, fit just for you. This exists today. Read more about it at the website for Cornell University: http://www.bodyscan.human.cornell.edu/scene0605.html
So, let's look 5 years into the future. Your avatar will walk in to a clothing store in second life, and using your body, because you scanned it, it will try on clothes. And you will see how they fit you, how they drape, and if they make you look thinner. Maybe you will even be able to "feel" the weight and texture of the fabric. Don't like the way it fits? For a few dollars more, customize it. Change the fit. Change the fabric. And have the "salesperson" give you an opinion on how the clothes look on you. Oh, and you can have a special avatar that's just for clothes shopping, and looks like you to you, but looks "tall, thin, and blonde" to everyone else in the virtual world. Then pull out your virtual credit card, and order your real goods with real money. And have them shipped to you in the real world. Or test out the controls on that new, fancy, cell phone to see if you like the buttons, or the menu, or the screen, or the features. Or any number of "try it before you buy it" options that might dramatically improve customer satisfaction, cut down on returns, and, hopefully, impact the design process, so the manufacturer does not produce 1 million copies of a product with a serious ergonomic or feature flaw.
These are all great things, and they will contribute to safety, and to making things better and more affordable.
So, to use a coin metaphore, that's the obverse, the front of the coin. What about the reverse? What about people who never leave home, who go to a virtual grocery store, and have their groceries delivered to their brick and mortar home? who totally isolate themselves from the world by immersing themselves in their second life, completely abdicating claim on their first life? It's happened before. With TV -- couch potatoes. With computer bulletin boards. With PC games. With game consoles. With online gambling. With the Sims. And now with Warcraft and Second life. Even with non-technological pursuits, like Dungeons and Dragons. And of course, with the origins of all addictive behavior, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex. There has been and will continue to be a segment of the population that is vulnerable to addiction to the type of escapism these things represent. But in the past, you had to go to the real store to buy your booze. As technology becomes more pervasive, so too do the temptations of escapism that technology can offer.
I can foresee a schizm in the development of the human race, much the same way finches differentiated themselves in the Galapagos, between "second lifers" and "first lifers". Will we become two separate species? Will legs become vestigial for seconds? Will eyes adapt differently to deal with images in 1080i? Will our tastebuds and pain receptors quit working because all of our stimulus comes from the virtual world?
Some researchers published a paper about how spatial memory is stored. They identified a brain chemical that inhibits memory recall of memories that have already been stored. This was research designed to understand how memory works, not in an effort to produce a drug. But these resarchers have been asked by several people to help them wipe out their memories, because of traumatic things that have happened to them. This is a common theme in science fiction, and has been explored from many different angles. But who would have thought that it might be within the realm of possibility now?
Technology is as Technology does. Or, more precisely, Techonology is as humanity does.
Not that I think the endeavors of virtual reality are immoral or banal; there are real applications that can benefit those of us in the real world. Star Trek:The Next Generation envisioned this 20 years ago, with the Holodeck, and more lasciviously, with the HoloSuite in ST:Deep Space 9. Those were true virtual worlds, were you could build simulations that looked and felt and operated like the real thing. Sort of combining the technologies of simulation and modeling software for complex systems (weather systems, human processes, network traffic) with graphic design and gaming, ergonomics, philosophy, psychology, and myriad other disciplines.
Imagine, if you will, that the warp core is about to explode, and you don't really understand why. Sensor readings don't tell you enough. But you can build a fully functioning virtual mockup, using the technical specifications (like maybe CADD/CAM data files), technical documentation, metallurgy reports, maintenance logs, and even, say, the design logs and project plans of the designer. Put all of this into a computer system, wave your magic wand, and walk into a simulation of your engine room. And talk with the designer. And look at and touch the components. And figure out that there's a misalignment, very minor, in the plasma conduit, due to a change in the metallurgical properties of one critical component, which affects the magnetic field, which affects the magnetic "pipe" directing your plasma flow. And you adjust the current to that component, fixing the magnetic field, and suddenly the plasma flow is correct again, and you've just saved everyone on the enterprise. That's really interesting stuff.
Now, let's say you are Boeing, and you are using 21st century technology to not only design your latest airliner (they did that with the 777) but you are also using virtual technology to put it together, walk through it, test tools, check locations, determine if things can be reached by humans, and even stress test the aircraft. Saving you millions on redesigns and retrofits that might have had to happen during construction, or worse, after deployment. (Remember the Comet? You probably don't, it was before my time by a short lifetime, but it was the first pressurized passenger liner, and it had a design flaw with it's square windows; it seems that metal fatigue caused microscopic cracks at the corners of the square windows. When those cracks expanded when the passenger cabin was pressurized, explosive decompression would occur at altitude. The Comet was grounded after two aircraft were lost with all souls. This was something that had to be fixed "after deployment".) That's really powerful stuff, and it will affect all of the flying public in the next 5 years.
To far away or specialized to wrap your head around? Ok, let's take the dilemma of the perfect pair of jeans. Do they exist? What if I find that ONE PERFECT PAIR and then I wear them so much, they wear out, and I NEVER find them again?????? Well, what if I told you you could have your body scanned, and that Levi's will make you a custom pair of jeans, fit just for you. This exists today. Read more about it at the website for Cornell University: http://www.bodyscan.human.cornell.edu/scene0605.html
So, let's look 5 years into the future. Your avatar will walk in to a clothing store in second life, and using your body, because you scanned it, it will try on clothes. And you will see how they fit you, how they drape, and if they make you look thinner. Maybe you will even be able to "feel" the weight and texture of the fabric. Don't like the way it fits? For a few dollars more, customize it. Change the fit. Change the fabric. And have the "salesperson" give you an opinion on how the clothes look on you. Oh, and you can have a special avatar that's just for clothes shopping, and looks like you to you, but looks "tall, thin, and blonde" to everyone else in the virtual world. Then pull out your virtual credit card, and order your real goods with real money. And have them shipped to you in the real world. Or test out the controls on that new, fancy, cell phone to see if you like the buttons, or the menu, or the screen, or the features. Or any number of "try it before you buy it" options that might dramatically improve customer satisfaction, cut down on returns, and, hopefully, impact the design process, so the manufacturer does not produce 1 million copies of a product with a serious ergonomic or feature flaw.
These are all great things, and they will contribute to safety, and to making things better and more affordable.
So, to use a coin metaphore, that's the obverse, the front of the coin. What about the reverse? What about people who never leave home, who go to a virtual grocery store, and have their groceries delivered to their brick and mortar home? who totally isolate themselves from the world by immersing themselves in their second life, completely abdicating claim on their first life? It's happened before. With TV -- couch potatoes. With computer bulletin boards. With PC games. With game consoles. With online gambling. With the Sims. And now with Warcraft and Second life. Even with non-technological pursuits, like Dungeons and Dragons. And of course, with the origins of all addictive behavior, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex. There has been and will continue to be a segment of the population that is vulnerable to addiction to the type of escapism these things represent. But in the past, you had to go to the real store to buy your booze. As technology becomes more pervasive, so too do the temptations of escapism that technology can offer.
I can foresee a schizm in the development of the human race, much the same way finches differentiated themselves in the Galapagos, between "second lifers" and "first lifers". Will we become two separate species? Will legs become vestigial for seconds? Will eyes adapt differently to deal with images in 1080i? Will our tastebuds and pain receptors quit working because all of our stimulus comes from the virtual world?
Some researchers published a paper about how spatial memory is stored. They identified a brain chemical that inhibits memory recall of memories that have already been stored. This was research designed to understand how memory works, not in an effort to produce a drug. But these resarchers have been asked by several people to help them wipe out their memories, because of traumatic things that have happened to them. This is a common theme in science fiction, and has been explored from many different angles. But who would have thought that it might be within the realm of possibility now?
Technology is as Technology does. Or, more precisely, Techonology is as humanity does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)