I responded to a colleagues citing of (part of) this article from the New Yorker’s George Packer
with a (pretty dismissive, in hindsight) comment opining that our brains are pretty good at managing information, so all thing being equal, “No biggie”. Actually, I started the reply with “Bah Humbug”, but you get the point.
He came back with the (valid) point that despite our information consumption patterns having dramatically changed in recent years, no-one seems to be questioning our willingness to dive head first into said new technology, without first taking into account the potential impact said techno-driven changes may have.
My reply got a little lengthy, so I thought I’d post it here instead.
That’s the beautiful Catch 22 of evolution – and questions about where we’ve been and where we’re going happen to be my bread ‘n’ butter. Well, as they make me no money, more like my iSnack 2.0, but that’s beside the point. So here’s some postulation to chew on:
I’d argue our current state of ‘ubervoluminous’ consumption of information is, if anything, more aligned with the way we process information and as a result, more efficient.
In media, reading an entire newspaper for 20 minutes is in fact a waste of my time - realistically there are only ever going to be a small number of articles that are relevant to me or perk my interest. In (non-fiction) literature, information is fallible in that it is presented by one person, or a small group of collaborators. Human nature being what it is, and taking into consideration the impact of ‘groupmind’ or ‘social interaction‘, the accuracy and objectivity of such material is inevitably compromised.
Of course, that’s only one of Mr. Packers concerns. There are a few more.
- The advent of the online conversation precipitating the death of our attention span
To me, this is ludicrous. I’m rarely bored these days – because I know I can direct my attention to something that will capture it.
- A faltering of our collective reading comprehension
My reading comprehension is fine, and to be brutally honest, this is an area that falls into the ‘where are the parents?’ category for me. Although I agree that ‘txtspk’ is perhaps one of the greatest evils of our time, there is no doubt a burden of responsibility on both educational systems and parents in regard to this issue. On the other hand – maybe not. In any case, language in all its forms is in a state of constant flux, and the failure of such a (as so conceitedly pointed out) well read fellow as George would not acknowledge (if not appreciate) this fact.
- A degradation of our experience of the immediately surrounding world
I agree checking your emails while walking/driving/riding/skitching (What? Kids still skitch right?) in peak hour traffic is not the most intelligent choice.
But the ability to focus our attention on socially and politically critical events in real time, and to share that information to benefit society is surely worth the odd half-wit being hit by a truck isn’t it? Chances are they weren’t really going to contribute anything weighty to that flow in any case, natural selection being what it is and all.
Finally – what I believe to be the heart of the matter for George, and many of the critics of such recent forms of communication as Facebook, Twitter and other fruits of the Web 2.0 loins, the ‘new media’ is just plain scary, and there’s ‘Too much information’ (or, TMI for the txtspk luzrs) so clearly, if we try and pay attention to it all, our brains will explode. (You’re right. There was no need for that link. But to be honest, the Cracked guys are a shite load funnier than I will ever be, so go on – you deserve it.)
So, a little ramble on information, communication, and the wonderful human brain.
Our brains filter out information deemed ‘unecessary’ – as demonstrated by the old ‘first and last letter’ thing: bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. (I have a theory on this, but that’s a whole other post)
We can also filter unfamiliar terms, objects and events, based on our preconceptions, expectations and current focus of attention. Fact of the matter is, our brain is built in such a way that it culls information that may lead to any kind of ‘overload’, so I don’t see any particular danger in increasing the volume of that input.
Where I do see a clear and distinct advantage however, is in the ability such technology provides in terms of communication – in particular the increased reach, scope and impact a particular expression can now have, backed by such technology, in much the same way that the development of a common writing system no doubt changed the lives of our earliest cultures.
Change in society and human behaviour have often taken a negative turn is when access to, and the benefits of (insert innovation here) have been restricted or manipulated by those with the influence and power to do so. It is these same leaps in communicative method that drive innovation, ingenuity and common knowledge.
The easiest example I have for this: With the advent of the ‘online conversation’, rather than sit through hours of mind numbing television when I have nothing to read, and no inclination to write, I troll the web – The people I follow, or ‘friend’ (or stalk) typically converse about topics that I know will interest me. As a result, my innate human curiosity is satiated, and I get to bug all those that follow/friend/stalk me, and so on, and so forth. Ultimately, our collective knowledgebase improves for those reciprocal contributions. (Until you get Rickroll’d)
In my assorted academic and literary wanderings, I’ve rarely come across instances of increased (transparent) communication being anything but of benefit to society. If nothing else, it’s a shame we don’t do it more often. If we could do it more often. (This is the part where it gets all ‘What if the world could be…’ so if you’re so inclined, feel free to tune out now)
In my experience, thought typically precludes communication. (Except, perhaps, in the case of this twerp)
Thoughts, ideas and ponderings are the very foundation of our behaviour, motivations and subsequent actions as concious, cognizant human beings, so the communication of these ideas is a driving factor in impacting change across a crowd, community or culture is what drives change on a social level.
Prior to the advent of online publishing, we relied on ‘traditional’ forms of media to communicate these ideas – problem is, these have much the same fallacies as do the publishing methods I mentioned earlier.
Online forms of communication, in my perspective are in fact more efficient, and far more valuable than traditional or ‘mainstream’ media communications, which are limited, filtered and reserved by default by regulation, classification and reach of publication. Benefits are increased exponentially when you take into consideration the potential of the continuity an online discussion can maintain, over the finality of a printed piece.
The true problem lies in one single word – mainstream. Online communication remains at this point in our culture ‘on the fringe’, the domain of a sub-culture that is not easily understood by those who remain inside the comfort zone of familiarity.
Perhaps the greatest irony, is that it will only be with the inclusion of the ‘mainstreamers’ that the online community and by proxy the rest of society can truly benefit – if you exclude any group from change, that group will either be destroyed in the creation of the new ideal, or present themselves in opposition to it, as they have no investment in the ‘new world’ to claim.
Alright, that’s it for now. Before that last paragraph I just spent a great deal of time sniffing out a nasty trojan on my PC., and I am very tired, so I’ll close (finally) on this:
Nah, on second thought, I got nothin’.
Stay tuned – over the course of the weekend I’ll be writing up my deliberations on the same topic as discussed at the first event held by Digital Citizens You can get the gist via the #digicitz hashtag, but a warning for non-Twitter friendly folk – don’t bother. Wait for the video instead, or follow eCitizens on Twitter so you know when the summary has been written up.
And finally (because I can’t help myself) an answer to engin_eer ‘s tweet about Stephen Conroy. He may not be ‘evil’, but this certainly makes him seem more than a little insane.