Biggest Shift in History of Media Obscured

[Black Cloud]

It's an apt analogy. The point is that freedom to select from six different kinds of junk is a very poor kind of freedom to celebrate. The analogy to junk food also works because it is self-sustaining. The more you consume, the more you want to consume exactly the same stuff.

"Freedom of choice" and "individuality" are ideological constructions like any other. They way they actually work in the world is sometimes surprising. The main thrust of Jaron Lanier's fine book "You Are Not A Gadget" is precisely that Web 2.0, which ostensibly offers a wider range of choices and access to information, as well as ways to express one's individuality, is actually producing the opposite result. Infinite choice and total access take us toward a surprising conclusion. The Internet becomes an endless network of rootless differences in which the individual finds herself trapped and eventually destabilized. As Fredric Jameson writes in his new book on Hegel, "Difference, by gradually extending its dominion over everything, ultimately comes to liquidate identity as such, in a well-nigh suicidal meltdown in which it must itself also disappear (inasmuch as difference is necessarily predicated on identity in the first place)."

That's true if you concede that everything on the internet is junk; it's clearly not, and I don't think even you believe that. It would also be true if you believe that the average person lacks the ability to decide for themselves whether something is junk or not, or the consequences of ingesting junk (be it information or food). I don't know how many average persons you really know in an in depth way, but while they may not share your vast field of reference, they can use information, think critically, and make sound decisions.

Most average people don't labor under the delusion that their choices are free; they are aware of the limits of their lives in a way that the intellectual elites are not. The results of their choices might not necessarily be what they want, but they haven't historically had the time or the resources to overcome their circumstances. Their reality isn't especially customizable, as has always been the way for the majority of people on this planet. They never had the illusion of control.

But as stated in the OP, internet access has allowed them access to more information than ever before. They don't need the right qualifications or ample leisure time or money to buy books or transportation to the library to get their hands on information, they just need to type something into any computer with web access and sort through the results in their own time. They're used to settling for "good enough," and that's what you find on the internet. They know the internet, just like life, is full of lies, garbage, and people's bullshit opinions, and they're sensible enough to sort through that. As a matter of fact, in most cases they haven't read much dystopianism, so they don't even know they're supposed to be afraid of technology.

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

If it were true that the only difference, now, is that the world's libraries are now thrown open, full access to anyone with an internet connection, then I could not argue that there is anything wrong. The fact is that the "internet revolution" is bringing additional changes, and trading intellectual ability and the very way we think for greater access to information is not going to help us in the long run.

It is a fact that school districts are changing the way they teach because of the Internet. They are saying, "Well, now we have this, so we don't have to teach Y." This is the problem. If open access was in addition to more rigorous education, I could relax a bit. But we're dumbing ourselves down on a neurological level, and that is a fact.

[Worm]

First of all:

I don't know how many average persons you really know in an in depth way

I'm an average person myself. I'd say I don't know anyone but average people. There's no need to imply that I'm an elitist. My thoughts on the subject are the thoughts of an 'average person' who believes other 'average people' are getting the shaft. If it bothers you that I seem to be arguing for limiting access to information then just think of what I've said as an argument for limiting access to misinformation.

In any case the phenomena we're discussing affect the 'elite' as well as the 'average', so the point is moot.

That's true if you concede that everything on the internet is junk; it's clearly not, and I don't think even you believe that. It would also be true if you believe that the average person lacks the ability to decide for themselves whether something is junk or not, or the consequences of ingesting junk (be it information or food).

But junk food isn't just junk, either. There are lots of good ingredients contained in even the most salt-bombed, toxic, grease-heavy McDonald's meal. It's not a question of how good or bad the food is in itself, as discrete categories, but rather the ways junk food shapes a person's taste for food and, in general, his or her awareness of the total variety of foods available to eat. Range of consumption narrows. This is as true of junk food as it is of most cultural products. Corporations create an accessibility bottleneck in order to maximize their profits and then find ways to reinforce the use of whatever "content delivery system" they're offering. (In today's market, Apple's iTunes is the easiest example.)

The web is where this change is most pronounced, because almost all web content goes through a few gateways (hubs) thanks to the architecture of the Internet. A mediating application is always needed. Even your own preferences form a gateway: the Favorites bar, for instance. Google (among other companies) is trying to create a home page that will literally plan out your day for you. Amazon prepares lists for you. Social networking sites try and guess who your friends are. Slowly but surely your preferences are pushed into a single channel. This is not necessarily bad in itself-- there are plenty of people who like, say, "radio" stations that whip up a playlist for you based on the contents of your hard drive. The point is, as I said, one's range of experiences narrows and the mechanism which causes this narrowing is self-reinforcing. Just like junk food.

Most average people don't labor under the delusion that their choices are free; they are aware of the limits of their lives in a way that the intellectual elites are not.The results of their choices might not necessarily be what they want, but they haven't historically had the time or the resources to overcome their circumstances. Their reality isn't especially customizable, as has always been the way for the majority of people on this planet. They never had the illusion of control.

Yes, they do labor under the delusion their choices are free. They do have the illusion of control. You are speaking about the status of individual citizens in a state. To that extent you're right. Citizens probably don't imagine they're totally "free". That isn't the only kind of freedom to think about. The more we look into our own minds, the more we find that the illusion of freedom goes straight to the heart of our psychological makeup. I am speaking about this kind of freedom-- "free will", "conscious choice", and so forth-- and not about politics, though politics eventually plays a part. From a psychoanalytic view, nobody, whether an "average person" or an "intellectual elite", is a completely free agent. The question is to what degree we are aware of our freedom, or unfreedom as the case may be, and how contemporary marketing finds ways to manipulate us into following certain behavioral patterns.

Anything-- anything-- that mediates our understanding of the world needs to be closely scrutinized at levels deeper than we've looked at previously. For example...

they just need to type something into any computer with web access and sort through the results in their own time.

...fails to consider how many factors have already been decided in advance before the user sits down at her computer, factors which narrow the ability of this "average" (or indeed any kind of) user to sort through the results. You describe it as an act of empirical investigation and it's anything but. Google isn't a window. It was invented by two guys in a dorm room.

But as stated in the OP, internet access has allowed them access to more information than ever before.

Yes, and to more misinformation than ever before, too. So, with all due respect, we're back to the junk food analogy.

[Timeplease!]

[QUOTE=Worm;1346827] Google isn't a window. It was invented by two guys in a dorm room. QUOTE]

Window(s); the same

[Worm]

[QUOTE=Timeplease!;1346838]

Google isn't a window. It was invented by two guys in a dorm room. QUOTE]

Window(s); the same

Haha. Well, kinda. It was stolen and then 'invented' in a dorm room...

But nice catch on the inadvertent pun.

[Dave]

If it were true that the only difference, now, is that the world's libraries are now thrown open, full access to anyone with an internet connection, then I could not argue that there is anything wrong. The fact is that the "internet revolution" is bringing additional changes, and trading intellectual ability and the very way we think for greater access to information is not going to help us in the long run.

It is a fact that school districts are changing the way they teach because of the Internet. They are saying, "Well, now we have this, so we don't have to teach Y." This is the problem. If open access was in addition to more rigorous education, I could relax a bit. But we're dumbing ourselves down on a neurological level, and that is a fact.

Source? Is this something you know?
This is all a joke, because you've written about taking your kids to Burger King, and then buying veggie burgers. Maybe that rigorous education starts at home. You were doing the most convenient thing and presenting it as a well considered choice. Maybe that's why they are confused. If you buy all kinds of tasty junk food it's pretty obvious that you approve of it, so you are teaching your children. Don't put it off on "the school districts."
And what does "now we have this, so we don't need to teach Y" mean, exactly? Can you tell me what 'Y' is? I'd be curious to see that, and if you can present some "school district" policy that mentions how the Internet has made something formerly taught in the classroom obsolete, I will bow in your direction.

[Dave]

As Fredric Jameson writes in his new book on Hegel...

There's no need to imply that I'm an elitist. My thoughts on the subject are the thoughts of an 'average person'...

[Black Cloud]

If it were true that the only difference, now, is that the world's libraries are now thrown open, full access to anyone with an internet connection, then I could not argue that there is anything wrong. The fact is that the "internet revolution" is bringing additional changes, and trading intellectual ability and the very way we think for greater access to information is not going to help us in the long run.

It is a fact that school districts are changing the way they teach because of the Internet. They are saying, "Well, now we have this, so we don't have to teach Y." This is the problem. If open access was in addition to more rigorous education, I could relax a bit. But we're dumbing ourselves down on a neurological level, and that is a fact.

You've presented no evidence that intellectual ability is in decline because people use the internet (where? who? how many?). Maybe somebody told you that the internet is dumbing down humanity (it might have been Worm; he probably lent you his Lanier book and now you feel like Cassandra), but that does not seem to be the case. I can tell you that participating in discussions like these certainly make me feel stupid for not being outdoors instead, but that's just my perception. If what you're trying to say is that lazy students are cutting and pasting their papers from internet sources, I can corroborate that. I can also tell you that they get F's because teachers and professors have Google, too and can usually cite the source back to the somewhat chastened student. But lazy students have always plagiarized, haven't they? If you're concerned about public schools, that's good, but you should probably worry less about the internet and more about about standardized testing companies, charter school companies, and big business moving in to take over public education.

Since you brought up the world's libraries, I have to ask: since great deal of nonsense exists between the covers of books, why would that make any difference to your argument? Hogwash is hogwash, regardless of the form it takes. You do realize how easy it is to get published?

No, it sounds as if you've been sucked in to this weird hysterical nostalgia that has infected the middle class in post-industrial societies. You feel that something is ending, that something is lost, and it makes you anxious but you're not quite sure what's really going on. You should nip that in the bud, or you'll end up like the Birchers, in Costco stocking up on canned goods and ammo and first aid supplies.

TTFN; I'm on a deadline.

[Worm]

If you're concerned about public schools, that's good, but you should probably worry less about the internet and more about about standardized testing companies, charter school companies, and big business moving in to take over public education.

...

No, it sounds as if you've been sucked in to this weird hysterical nostalgia that has infected the middle class in post-industrial societies. You feel that something is ending, that something is lost, and it makes you anxious but you're not quite sure what's really going on. You should nip that in the bud, or you'll end up like the Birchers, in Costco stocking up on canned goods and ammo and first aid supplies.

What's frustrating here is that you obviously care about what's happening to public education, yet you dismiss concerns about the media as, let's see, 'hysterical middle class nostalgia', the clueless rants of elitists, and Waco-like nuttery. Do you really not see any connection between "the biggest shift in the history of media" and the erosion of the public sector-- indeed, the imminent collapse of the welfare state?

[Worm]

By the way, they're getting hysterical and middle class over in China, too. I know everyone already knows this, but for those who've been away, on Friday the head of China's top credit agency had this to say: "The US is insolvent and faces bankruptcy as a pure debtor nation".

Can I get a ride to Costco, anyone?

[Dave]

Don't believe everything you read. But one thing about China, they do know how to deal with that pesky overabundance of information on the Internet. Though google did recently work out some sort of deal with them...

[MILVA]

You've presented no evidence that intellectual ability is in decline because people use the internet (where? who? how many?). Maybe somebody told you that the internet is dumbing down humanity (it might have been Worm; he probably lent you his Lanier book and now you feel like Cassandra), but that does not seem to be the case. I can tell you that participating in discussions like these certainly make me feel stupid for not being outdoors instead, but that's just my perception. If what you're trying to say is that lazy students are cutting and pasting their papers from internet sources, I can corroborate that. I can also tell you that they get F's because teachers and professors have Google, too and can usually cite the source back to the somewhat chastened student. But lazy students have always plagiarized, haven't they? If you're concerned about public schools, that's good, but you should probably worry less about the internet and more about about standardized testing companies, charter school companies, and big business moving in to take over public education.

Since you brought up the world's libraries, I have to ask: since great deal of nonsense exists between the covers of books, why would that make any difference to your argument? Hogwash is hogwash, regardless of the form it takes. You do realize how easy it is to get published?

No, it sounds as if you've been sucked in to this weird hysterical nostalgia that has infected the middle class in post-industrial societies. You feel that something is ending, that something is lost, and it makes you anxious but you're not quite sure what's really going on. You should nip that in the bud, or you'll end up like the Birchers, in Costco stocking up on canned goods and ammo and first aid supplies.

TTFN; I'm on a deadline.

On the other hand, there's no evidence that intelligence is on the rise, either.

Two considerations.
1/In a given society, take the number of women with a university degree (I know, it's a gross oversimplification of an "intelligence criterion"). See how many children these women have when they are 35 years old. If you then see that in some countries (Germany, e.g.) up to 40% of the women with a university degree have no children when they're 35, then you see a potential reduction of intelligence in the overall gene pool. Dramatic? Unlikely.

2/ Our modern societies are on the one hand far too complex for what our genes were designed for (we can walk and run and throw stuff without problems, but flying an airplane requires a bit more training) and intelligence is still a property that favours survival (health benefits, for example, are commonly cited). On the other hand, intelligence as a survival benefit no longer seems to hold exclusively on the individual level - as modern societies are more and more interconnected. It could thus very well be that we shift from a model of "intelligence" as a characteristic of an individual, towards a communal model of intelligence via "sharing" - much like what happens in ant societies (as in "swarm intelligence"). In that sense, societies/groups that are well "connected" could find better solutions that those who are not.

Whatever this may mean (and it's far too early to be able to say much about it), it could be interesting to consider "education" as a way to set minimal (yet sufficiently high) standards for skills people should have (critical reading is one of them, but here the variation in profiles is endless), and promote a longer education life span than what is currently done ("real" "life-long learning") in order to make sure that sharing is a two-way process, and not just copy & paste.

[goinghome]

On the other hand, there's no evidence that intelligence is on the rise, either.

Two considerations.
1/In a given society, take the number of women with a university degree (I know, it's a gross oversimplification of an "intelligence criterion"). See how many children these women have when they are 35 years old. If you then see that in some countries (Germany, e.g.) up to 40% of the women with a university degree have no children when they're 35, then you see a potential reduction of intelligence in the overall gene pool. Dramatic? Unlikely.

2/ Our modern societies are on the one hand far too complex for what our genes were designed for (we can walk and run and throw stuff without problems, but flying an airplane requires a bit more training) and intelligence is still a property that favours survival (health benefits, for example, are commonly cited). On the other hand, intelligence as a survival benefit no longer seems to hold exclusively on the individual level - as modern societies are more and more interconnected. It could thus very well be that we shift from a model of "intelligence" as a characteristic of an individual, towards a communal model of intelligence via "sharing" - much like what happens in ant societies (as in "swarm intelligence"). In that sense, societies/groups that are well "connected" could find better solutions that those who are not.

Whatever this may mean (and it's far too early to be able to say much about it), it could be interesting to consider "education" as a way to set minimal (yet sufficiently high) standards for skills people should have (critical reading is one of them, but here the variation in profiles is endless), and promote a longer education life span than what is currently done ("real" "life-long learning") in order to make sure that sharing is a two-way process, and not just copy & paste.

Intellect & education; is there something more important about the good life? Positives like opportunity, sharing, and unknowns like personal preference, talent etc? The world is changing quickly in all kinds of ways. Meanwhile, some chirpy views on the wonders of social media (I'm ok with copy n' paste, in its place ):

"...As readers of Shirky's previous book, the 2008 hit Here Comes Everybody, will know, his is one of the most influential voices in the social networking movement, arguing that the sudden lowering of the cost of collaboration brought by the internet represents revolutionary new kinds of creativity and problem‑solving.

Cognitive Surplus expands on this theme in as lucid and assured a style as its predecessor, carefully displaying the collective projects that even a fraction of the world's television time might be turned into instead. Americans alone watch about 200bn hours of television a year: that represents, Shirky notes, about 2,000 times the total human hours that have gone so far into creating Wikipedia.

Not that every collaborative project could be a Wikipedia, of course. But what even the most spurious uses of socially networked media can offer (think cute cats with comically misspelled captions) is equal opportunities for all simultaneously to consume, produce and share. This is the holy triathlon of new media, and Shirky points out that these three activities are fundamental impulses that broadcast media have until recently served in a deeply unbalanced manner.

The key to the radical nature of the social change all this implies is scale. If you think 200bn hours of television is a lot, consider the fact that there are now 2 billion people online across the world, and more than 3 billion with mobile phones. Given that there are around 4.5 billion adults worldwide, Shirky points out that "we live, for the first time in history, in a world where being part of a globally interconnected group is the normal case for most citizens".

With this many people involved, the collective leverage that can be brought to bear on any particular project or problem is colossal. Whether it's "couch surfers" pooling resources to create an international network of sofas for each other to sleep on, or the open-source community of programmers that maintains Apache, a free program that now drives more than 60% of the servers constituting the internet itself, the world's collective cognitive surplus is already being put to transforming uses. And the fun, Shirky says, is only just beginning.

There are those who have proved either allergic or immune to Shirky's particular brand of optimism, arguing that the power of social media is extremely limited in the face of many intractable real-world problems, and can even exacerbate them, both by making it easier to track activists and by displacing energies that might have been better expended elsewhere. To accuse Shirky of preaching a panacea, though, is to misunderstand the simplest fact about the emerging technological and social landscape he describes: that it represents not so much a replacement of existing systems as a restoration of many far older and more intimate kinds of human relations.

As a route towards action, rather than an escape from it, technology and media have never looked more potent than they do today. And perhaps the most amazing fact about Shirky's incisive manual for building a better world is this: it's just possible that everything he promises may be true."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...ky-book-review

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

To accuse Shirky of preaching a panacea, though, is to misunderstand the simplest fact about the emerging technological and social landscape he describes: that it represents not so much a replacement of existing systems as a restoration of many far older and more intimate kinds of human relations.

Such as?

I am by no means anti-internet. But I see, and can foresee, a change in human interaction with other people and with our past (our literature, our history): scattershot learning and attention, skimming across the surface of the collective mass of information. It doesn't help me to have access to essentially any piece of information ever recorded if the mechanism that makes this information accessible changes my cognitive habits and processes so that I am less able to make use of it. What good is the online OED if I cannot read--more specifically, what use is the online OED if I don't care how words are spelled, or about the nuances between them?

The internet has the potential to be the best thing that ever happened to humanity, or the worst. If we continue to allow capitalist, corporate, profit-minded entities to direct our interactions with this newly accessible mass of information, we will not be helped. We will only be more easily controlled.

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

If what you're trying to say is that lazy students are cutting and pasting their papers from internet sources, I can corroborate that. I can also tell you that they get F's because teachers and professors have Google, too and can usually cite the source back to the somewhat chastened student. But lazy students have always plagiarized, haven't they? If you're concerned about public schools, that's good, but you should probably worry less about the internet and more about about standardized testing companies, charter school companies, and big business moving in to take over public education.

This is my primary concern, this is what I've been saying. It's not the internet that's bad, it's the for-profit internet that's bad. It's the blind acceptance of internet=smart and the mad dash for a fix for failing education systems that have thrown open the doors--and, possibly, trampled our old ways of learning in the rampage.

[goinghome]

This is my primary concern, this is what I've been saying. It's not the internet that's bad, it's the for-profit internet that's bad. It's the blind acceptance of internet=smart and the mad dash for a fix for failing education systems that have thrown open the doors--and, possibly, trampled our old ways of learning in the rampage.

You would just love an essay by Hal Crowther I came upon today, - a "provocative essay for Granta 111 is entitled "One Hundred Fears of Solitude: The Greatest Generation Gap." A criticism of our seemingly thoughtless embrace of technology, it will resonate powerfully with all of us who have worried about grandchildren being pulled ever so seductively toward computer games, or teens so connected to their electronic devices that meaningful conversation is shut out; their primary interaction is with a glowing screen. Intriguingly, Crowther begins and ends his discussion with reference to two authors who had strong Maine roots, Marguerite Yourcenar and Helen Nearing. Many may argue with his concerns and conclusions, but his brilliant research and eloquent reasoning will invite admiration from all sides." - http://www.belfastmaine.org/communit...d-hal-crowther , http://www.granta.com/Magazine/111

Sadly I can't find it online (something perfect for our argument about the omission!) It covers all sorts of ill consequences very rationally. Basically plenty of smart people are sounding the same alarm, including Sven Birkert, Max Palevsky (Intel founder), Joseph Weisenbaum, Jaron Lanier (in an intriguing-sounding book called 'You Are Not a Gadget') et al. That technology seems to institute its own momentum disrupting previous behaviour patterns on a widespread scale is becoming clear, for better or worse.

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Sadly I can't find it online (something perfect for our argument about the omission!) It covers all sorts of ill consequences very rationally. Basically plenty of smart people are sounding the same alarm, including Sven Birkert, Max Palevsky (Intel founder), Joseph Weisenbaum, Jaron Lanier (in an intriguing-sounding book called 'You Are Not a Gadget') et al. That technology seems to institute its own momentum disrupting previous behaviour patterns on a widespread scale is becoming clear, for better or worse.

Thank you, I'll watch for it. We get it a bit late here--I just bought Issue 110 yesterday.

[Dave]

What were our "old ways of learning"? When was media more ethical and when were people more well educated?

[Worm]

Only Disconnect

By GARY SHTEYNGART
Published: July 9, 2010

Since fiscal year 2008, I have been permanently attached to my iTelephone. As of two weeks ago, I am a Facebooking twit. With each post, each tap of the screen, each drag and click, I am becoming a different person — solitary where I was once gregarious; a content provider where I at least once imagined myself an artist; nervous and constantly updated where I once knew the world through sleepy, half-shut eyes; detail-oriented and productive where I once saw life float by like a gorgeously made documentary film. And, increasingly, irrevocably, I am a stranger to books, to the long-form text, to the pleasures of leaving myself and inhabiting the free-floating consciousness of another. With each passing year, scientists estimate that I lose between 6 and 8 percent of my humanity, so that by the close of this decade you will be able to quantify my personality. By the first quarter of 2020 you will be able to understand who I am through a set of metrics as simple as those used to measure the torque of the latest-model Audi or the spring of some brave new toaster.

“This right here,” said the curly-haired, 20-something Apple Store glam-nerd who sold me my latest iPhone, “is the most important purchase you will ever make in your life.” He looked at me, trying to gauge whether the holiness of this moment had registered as he passed me the Eucharist with two firm, unblemished hands. “For real?” I said, trying to sound like a teenager, trying to mimic what all these devices and social media are trying to do, which is to restore in us the feelings of youth and control.

“For real,” he said. And he was right.

[Worm]

Jaron Lanier (in an intriguing-sounding book called 'You Are Not a Gadget')

I've recommended the book a few times on this site. The chief value of Lanier's self-proclaimed 'manifesto' is that Lanier himself was a digital pioneer and for a long time was a true believer in the coming technology Utopia. He isn't an Ivy League academic with a longwinded theory about why Web 2.0 sucks. The guy is a Silicon Valley insider who pauses a few times in the book to apologize in advance to all the friends he's pissing off. He has every motivation possible to sing the praises of new technologies. The fact that he isn't might be of particular interest to us.