Thoughts on the Internet – that which hyperconnects us
I found this recent article on Jaron Lanier entitled “The Web Gone Sour” rather thought-provoking as well as reiterating some of the themes explored in Share This Course. Among these are the notions of connectivity, hyperintelligence and the balancing of the individual and the community (drawing parallels here so these weren’t the exact words in the article, ok?)
The article writes,
One of the main targets of Lanier’s critique is the concept of the “wisdom of the crowds” or the “hive mind”. This is the idea beloved of so many social media enthusiasts that the collective wisdom of a large number of people, generally harnessed online, will exceed that of the individual.
I think the internet, as with anything within Information Technology, is a tool – valued for its potential and use. Hence, its value depends on the people who see its potential and use. It’s about the people. Technology, no matter how advanced or ‘super’, is useless if not used….as I learned years ago, sometimes there is merit in stating the obvious (the purpose of Philosophy as a course of study, I believe).
So what has this got to do with us here?
Well, I think that this really highlights the goal of hyperempowerment because that brings the focus (and value) back on the individual, where it starts. The individual who shares and participates in the sharing culture to build hyperintelligence is thereby empowered as part of the process. It is not about the media that connects us but that which we eventually become for partaking in the process and the product of it.
Of course, this is just my interpretation of it. What do you think?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 16th, 2010 at 8:55 pm and is filed under Share This Course, hyperconnectivity, hyperempowerment, hyperintelligence. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:39 am
I remember reading it and thinking, “So this is what a grumpy old digital guy sounds like.
I also thought that it sounded rather like a veiled attack on all things marketing, advertising and consumerist. But I’d have to read up more about him to form a proper understanding of his thesis.
Your notion of evolution through engagement is spot on. It is just this, that we in this course have been experiencing I think: in having a go at focussing on that not so easy challenge of developing connection between individuals as one overt objective, we find ourselves scratching our heads, playing out the ideas in our minds and then sharing some mind goo with each other to see what comes of it. While having fun doing it.
[Reply]
malyn Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
@Sylvano, Evolution through Engagement
I like that phrase very much. I can see myself using it a lot.
…an original?
[Reply]
ctucker Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 10:03 am
@Sylvano, it sounds like there’s less of a central thesis and more self-similar cascades of thought in this book. I do want to read it.
When I first read about Lanier’s book, I prayed to god that he and @mpesce never meet… VR researchers, positions on Sharing easily warp into polar archetypes, and they live on opposite sides of the planet. The energy released is simply unimaginable. Or else, they would have a psychedelic VR cage fight, ala The Lawnmower Man. Far out.
He has some interesting points. I, for example, have been guilty of lacking compassion when talking to people whose livelihoods have born the brunt of the changes we all face.
Yet, I thought Deep Blue an interesting example to choose. No single individual in the Deep Blue team could have accomplished what they did together. As a group at IBM, I think the odds very high that they used hyperconnection as well as anyone did then. Which, I think, supports your interpretation, @malyn. Great share!
[Reply]
malyn Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
@ctucker, Sounds like you know more about Lanier and in a better position to talk about his views.
I just really wanted to highlight his main theme that it is about people, individuals – no matter how hyper-connected they are (the hubs such as @mpesce for instance) – must be respected as individuals, not lost in the crowd.
Polarity of views is what helps advancement of humankind. It is the shades of gray (between the black and white) that brings out the details and the highlights. If everyone agreed on everything, well, that would just be plain boring!
One more thing on Lanier, I think it is precisely because of his long involvement in the IT development/evolution that allows him to abstract from the tool. Having been a software developer myself, I have always believed that people are in control over computers (admittedly, I have had many moments of doubts) but it is a survival mechanism in programming. There is always a way, preferably elegant and efficient -I’ve always hated and avoided Go To statements.
As you know, I’m now a teacher and, dealing mainly with people, have had a paradigm shift – it is no longer about control, but rather, influence.
So this is where I end up… perhaps, in a hyperconnected world, it is not a question of control but of influence. Hyperconnectivity greatly increases our power of influence.
[Reply]
ctucker Reply:
February 21st, 2010 at 4:12 am
@malyn, sorry, I got a little carried away with entertaining myself.
Your emphasis on the individual makes a really great point and I really like your conclusion. A hyperconnected world demonstrates that control systems always fail, perhaps just through a process of accelerating the feedback loops.
I think there might be The Burden touches on the limits of hyperconnectivity increasing influence. It seems to meek that an effective range of hyperconnectivity exists, beyond which the individual spreads too thin and reduces their power of influence. Reaching back to Lanier, the individual has maintain enough distance to feed the network novelty.
[Reply]
February 17th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I doubt it’s original. But I did write it without referencing anything. When comes down to it, I ain’t no scholar, and often have people reminding me of what I have said in the past. I sympathise with Keith Richards when he was asked about something in his past responded that the interviewer probably knew better than he did, as they’d done some research.
UPDATE: Google gives one page of results for the term, and this particular article certainly has it: http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2005-01/rubens.htm
[Reply]
malyn Reply:
February 17th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
@Sylvano,
I doubt anybody references properly unless they have to (read academia, HSC, uni essays). I mean, imagine how difficult it will be to listen to someone who constantly says Smith et al 2008 or ibid. Now there’s a sketch in the making…maybe it’s already been done.
Btw, I once saw a Ruben’s exhibition at the Sydney Art Gallery. It was good. Though not an art critic myself, I can concur with the statement about Ruben’s evolution through engagement.
The thing with semantics though is the risk of being taken out of context, e.g. could we possibly alienate Creationists ?
Talk about digressions!
[Reply]
February 20th, 2010 at 12:47 am
I don’t know much about Lanier, but I like your wise reminder about the individual, @malyn.
I’ve been talking with some colleagues lately about how individual agency and collective agency are sometimes entwined. The example that keeps coming up is a blog carnival, where one person says, “Let’s all blog about X, and if you do, let me know and I’ll add a link to your post on my original post!” (Example) In this case, the individuals are able to share their thoughts with more people because of this purposeful networking, and the people who participate experience greater individual agency (their blog gets more hits) because of their participation in an act of collective agency (the blog carnival). Some degree of (dare I say it, on such a small scale?) hyperempowerment has taken place. But like you said, the individual expression is crucial, since without it you wouldn’t have any posts to gather together.
Of course, though, there’s also the big picture: all of these blogging scholars share the same disciplinary background, which in one sense gives them the shared language/expectations that even allow them to start communicating individually in the first place. At least, that’s one way to look at it.
[Reply]
malyn Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 pm
@kyledstedman, expression – there’s a good word.
Expression is a very active way of engagement. As you said, if no one gives (expresses) anything, what is there to share?
And yes, the big picture always counts because it is the very context that individuals “play” in. The picture expands with the expanding (individual) spheres influence; and possibly contract, I daresay.
When what is expressed is captured (e.g. a book), it is possible to ’separate’ it from the individual/s who created it. In a sense, it does have a life (or existence) of its own. However, without any individual giving it merit (via engagement – positive or negative), then it is “use-less”.
There is a danger of extolling its merit/virtues (or potential) and this I think is what Lanier is critical about regarding the internet, independent of the individuals who built/use/develop it. It doesn’t make his points necessarily right, but in my mind, at least, perfectly valid.
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Ive known Lanier, Ive known Pesce. I was one of the first to create works using boths VR related efforts.
Laniers Swivel/ dataglove in 1988, and Pesces VRML in 1994.
Keep questioning , Malyn,;)
IMO- youll find Humanism vs Transhumanism at the core of thought your circeling around.
IMO- Laniers views have changed due to the expectations of his youth, to realizations from what his ideas had brought to others, when he examinded them 15 years later.
Pesces, last views, as I had experienced them online, IMO did not change over the last 15 years.
to each their own thoughts that can still value others.
c3
[Reply]
mpesce Reply:
April 7th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
What the heck does that mean, Larry?
[Reply]