Posts Tagged ‘friends’

It Gets Even Worse

April 5, 2019

This is the ninth post based on an important book by Roger McNamee titled “Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.” This post picks up where the immediately preceding post, “Amplifying the Worse Social Behavior” stopped. Users sometimes adopt an idea suggested by Facebook or by others on Facebook as their own. For example, if someone is active in a Facebook Group associated with a conspiracy theory and then stop using the platform for a time, Facebook will do something surprising when they return. It might suggest other conspiracy theory Groups to join because they share members with the first conspiracy Group. Because conspiracy theory Groups are highly engaging, they are likely to encourage reengagement with the platform. If you join the Group, the choice appears to be yours, but the reality is that Facebook planted the seed. This is because conspiracy theories are good for them, not for you.

Research indicates that people who accept one conspiracy theory have a high likelihood of accepting a second one. The same is true of inflammatory disinformation. Roger accepts the fact that Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have created systems that modify user behavior. Roger writes, “They should have realized that global scale would have an impact on the way people use their products and would raise the stakes for society. They should have anticipated violations of their terms of service and taken steps to prevent them. Once made aware of the interference, they should have cooperated with investigators. I could no longer pretend that Facebook was a victim. I cannot overstate my disappointment. The situation was much worse than I realized.”

Apparently, the people at Facebook live in their own preference bubble. Roger writes, “Convinced of the nobility of their mission, Zuck and his employees reject criticism. They respond to every problem with the same approach that created the problem in the first place: more AI, more code, more short-term fixes. They do not do this because they are bad people. They do this because success has warped their perception of reality. To them, connecting 2.2 billion people is so obviously a good thing, and continued growth so important, that they cannot imagine that the problems that have resulted could be in any way linked to their designs or business decisions. As a result, when confronted with evidence that disinformation and fake news spread over Facebook influenced the Brexit referendum and the election of Putin’s choice in the United States, Facebook took steps that spoke volumes about the company’s world view. They demoted publishers in favor of family, friends, and Groups on the theory that information from those sources would be more trustworthy. The problem is that family, friends, and Groups are the foundational elements of filter and preference bubbles. Whether by design or by accident, they share the very disinformation and fake news that Facebook should suppress.

What a 72-Year Old Remembers About Technology

May 7, 2018

When HM was in college, there were only mainframe computers that used tape drives. He took a course in computer programming. Fortran was the primary language for science and engineering, but the mathematicians at Ohio State developed and used Scatran instead. At that time there were no computer science departments. Computer science was divided between the mathematics department and the electrical engineering department. I would write my programs hand them off to the keypunch operators who always complained, and unfortunately justly so, about the illegibility of my printing. Then I would submit my punched cards to the mainframe. They would give an estimate regarding the waiting time, but typically it took several hours.

When you learned the program had been run, you returned and asked for your output. Usually, you could determine from the nature of your output, what had happened. If the output was only several pages, then it was likely that there was a formatting or logical error in your program. If the output was quite thick, then it was likely that you read in the data improperly. If there was a mistake, then you had to debug the program and make your own manual corrections. There were assistants available who provided advice.

HM worked as a clerk-typist in the Army for a while. When mistakes were made, you tried to correct them with white out. If there were too many mistakes, or if a rewrite was needed, then the entire document had to be retyped. As a graduate student HM paid typists to type his Master’s Thesis and doctoral dissertation. As a professional psychologist there were typists on staff. When documents were long, HM made rewrites and corrections and gave the document back to the typist. It was not unusual for the entire document to be retyped. However, when the entire document was retyped there usually were mistakes. Sometimes a point of diminishing returns was reached in which a retyping would result in more errors than were in the document that needed to be retyped.

The first computers usually had the Basic programing language installed and nothing else. These were primarily for hobbyists. When the first word processing programs appeared, they were like a godsend as they made the labor intensive typing task orders of magnitude easier. They eventually resulted in reductions in the secretarial staff, as professionals could do their own typing. However, at this time, most statistical analyses were done on mainframes. This involved having data and programs keypunched, submitted to the mainframe, waiting for processing, and picking up the results.

When statistical programs were developed for personal computers, this all could be done by the statistician. In contrast to the old days when there would typically be a break of several hours waiting for the results, the PCs spit the results back within seconds. If there were problems, they needed to be addressed directly. The old break waiting for the results was missed.

When HM took physics in high school, the teacher would have one student design a circuit and provide it to the rest of the class. The students would then need to manually compute the electrical values at different points in the circuit. When HM was assigned this task he designed a circuit where all these values could be computed in one’s head. At this time there were no pocket calculators. Only one student had a slide rule, so the rest of us needed to do the calculations manually. So when no manual calculations had to be made for my circuit, everyone got a perfect score. HM made his point. We all understood electrical circuits, but even after 12 years of education we still made arithmetical errors.

It is difficult for HM to identify what he likes most about the new technology. Of course, word processing is highly appreciated. But the computational aids are especially appreciated. HM worked with MathCad and really appreciated the ease with which complex mathematical equations could be manipulated. HM is sorry he did not have such tools when he was studying these subjects. Doing arithmetic for eight years was tedious and a waste of time. Arithmetic provides little understanding of or appreciation for mathematics.

So although HM is envious of the developments in technology, he is disturbed about how it is used. He fears that the benefits of technology are not being truly exploited and technology is being used in a superficial manner that can be unhealthy. It is unhealthy to be constantly plugged in. But everywhere you go you see people with their faces glued to their smartphones. When they are walking through a park, they are apparently oblivious to nature with their preoccupation with their smartphones. Even at professional conventions, where professionals have traveled to interact personally with other professionals, you see them sitting together, not conversing, but with their faces glued to their smartphones.

People are preoccupied with whether or not they are liked, and count the number of friends they have. But the number of true friends one can have is quite small. Read the healthy memory blog post “How Many Friends are Too Many?” Robin Dunbar concludes that the maximum number of people we can call friends is 150. And the number of true friends is much lower than that. True friends consume both time and effort.

Technology also seems to have exacerbated the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The Dunning-Kruger Effect describes the phenomenon of people thinking they know much more about a topic than they actually know, compared to the knowledgeable individual who is painfully aware of how much he still doesn’t know about the topic in question. The Wikipedia is a tremendous source of knowledge. Unfortunately, people think that since they have accessed a topic in the Wikipedia that they have acquired that knowledge, when what they have done is learned how to access the information. Understanding this knowledge requires time and effort.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Notes on “Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age”

December 26, 2015

“Reclaiming Conversation” is a book by Sherry Turkle.  She focuses on smartphones in particular.  As a matter of personal edification, and as the user of a dumb cell phone I  found this book valuable in understanding the popularity of smartphone and texting.  There are several reasons I do not use a smartphone.  I find the screen size much to small.  I require much more context in what I view.  I also need a conventional keyboard, those on smartphones are much too small.  Similarly I refuse to text and do not read texts.  I also find that smartphones add to an already existing information overload.  Consequently, I do not like interruptions and live in a world where timeliness will not suffer if I wait until a time when I am free to devote full attention to messages and material which is important to process.  Having read Turkle’s book, I have no desire for a smartphone, and should I ever purchase a smartphone, I’ll use it sparingly.

I’ve long been baffled trying to understand why people text when it is so much easier to talk.  Most teenagers send around 100 texts per day, so there must be some reason this is so popular.  Apparently, there is a sense of control when one texts.  One can read what one has written before it is sent, and once it is sent, one can wait to see if and who, if anyone responds.  So many feel that texting provides a sense of control that they feel is important.

In addition to needing to feel in control, there also seems to be a compulsion to be connected.  According to Turkle, 44% of users never turn off their phones.  Although I understand the data indicating that people feel a need to be connected most of the time, I still fail to see why they feel this necessity.  The healthy memory blog has written posts about FACEBOOK and Dunbar’s number.  See the healthy memory blog post “How Many Friends is Too Many.”  Dunbar is an evolutionary biologist who calculated the maximum number of relationships our brain can keep track of at one time to be 150.  Before smartphones Dunbar estimated that there are about five people who are close and who we speak with frequently, and  about 100 acquaintances we speak with about once a year.  With the exception of the 150 number, which is a biological constraint, the other numbers have apparently gone up drastically since the advent of the cell phone.  Friendship requires an investment of time.  We can only afford a limited number of good friends.  A large number of friends implies a large number of superficial relationships.  It appears that in the smartphone era, quantity is valued over quality.

There also appears to be an aversion to solitude.  An experiment was run in which participants were asked to sit by themselves for fifteen minutes.  They were provided a device which they could use to shock themselves, although all the participants indicated that they would not use the device.  Nevertheless, many of the participants shocked themselves after only six minutes.  I find this result extremely depressing, to think that people would find solitude that they chose to give themselves an aversive shock to cope with loneliness.  Solitude is important for both personal and intellectual development.  We need to spend time with ourselves.

One researcher reports a 40% loss of empathy in the past 20 years.  The healthy memory blog post “A Single Shifting Mega-Organism noted that throughout our lives our brain circuitry decodes the emotions of others based on extremely subtle facial cues.  Geoff Colvin and many others regard empathy as a uniquely human skill that will prevent computers from pushing humans out of the job market.  Well, empathy apps are being developed.  But empathy is developed best during conversations with our fellow humans.  This excessive use of smartphones are inhibiting, if not precluding this development.

Smartphone use implies multitasking, and whenever we multitask the performance on component tasks declines.  If you do not believe this, then read the 18 healthy memory blog posts on the topic.  The use of smartphones during classes detracts from the lecture or the topic being discussed.  Were I still teaching I would not allow the use of smartphones during classes.

There is a chapter on smartphones and romance that I found extremely depressing.  Most of the time I am envious of the young in this digital age, but not in the case of romance.  In short, smartphones take the romance out of romance.

I disagree with what Turkle writes about Massively Online Open Courses.  She puts conversations against  these courses and ignores the genuine benefits of these courses.  First of all, a Massively Online Open Course does not preclude conversations.  Secondly, conversations, as important as they are, need not be a necessary component of all courses.

At the end of the book Turtle writes about humanoid robots and robotic pets.  I did not see the relevance of these topics to the central thesis regarding conversations.

So having stated the problem, what can be done about it.

First of all, having recognized the costs of multi-tasking and do a cost benefit analysis of where smartphone use is appropriate.  Then establish rules or guidelines.

It is noted that many employees of social media companies make it a point to send their children to technology free schools.  And there is the following quotation from Steve Jobs biographer.  “Every evening Steve made a point of having dinner at the big long table in their kitchen, discussing books and history and variety of things.  No one ever pulled out an iPAD or computer.  He did not encourage his own children’s use of iPADS or iPHONES.

“Restoring Conversations” is extensively documented.  Touching them takes you to the notes.  Unfortunately, there is no DONE enabling an easy return to the text.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.