Posts Tagged ‘Internet’

Mister Rogers

November 26, 2019

A new movie has put Fred Rogers back into the news, along with an article by D.L. Mayfield titled Mister Rogers wasn’t just nice: He also wanted to take down consumerism, in the Metro Section of the 23 November 2019 issue of the Washington Post. According to Rogers’ biography, The Good Neighbor, by Maxwell King, Hallmark asked Rogers to collaborate in decorating their flagship store in midtown Manhattan for Christmastime. Rogers and a friend traveled to New York to check out the scene. Other celebrities and influencers had created garishly festive and over-the-top displays that Rogers found offensive. He wanted to go a different route.

Rogers returned home and developed his design plan. The result was this: a Norfolk Island pine tree, the height of a 3- or 4-foot-tall child. There were no ornaments or decorations, just a simple green tree, planted in a clear Lucite cube so that onlookers could see the roots of the tree. In front of it there was a plaque that simply said, “I like you just the way you are.”

Mayfield writes, “I think about that little tree,and how differently the mind of a pastor and educator and psychologist (for Rogers was all three) works from those of marketeers. At first blush it seems beautiful, because it is: centered on a child, tree just their height, reinforcing the message Rogers most desperately wanted his young neighbors to hear. Working to combat shame, isolation, trauma; working to help build resilience in the lives of kids he could never hope to reach one by one. By creating a tree reminiscent of “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” he reminds us that what is small is good, recognizing that even little trees need good roots to grow tall and strong.”

Rogers wrote, “Until television became such a tool for selling, it was such a fabulous medium for educating. That’s what I had always hoped it would be.” Mayfield continues, “I believe he was angry at how most television companies sponsored the shows treated children, how it dehumanized them, pandered to them and ultimately trained them to become consumers of products they did not need.”

HM remembers how optimistic he was about the potential of the internet when the blog began in October 2009. He saw the potential for building healthy memories through cognitive growth and healthy interactions among internet users. That theme has changed to how the internet has developed to boost consumerism, create divisions among different groups of people, and its use in warfare.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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.

Internet: Online Time—Oh, and Other Media, Too

April 14, 2019

The title of this post is the same as the second chapter in iGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood, by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D.

iGen-ers sleep with their phones. They put them under their pillows, on the mattress, or at least within arm’s reach of the bed. They check social media websites and watch videos right before they go to bed, and reach for their phones again as soon as they wake up in the morning. So their phone is the last thing they see before they go to sleep, and the first thing they see when they wake up. If they wake up in the middle of the night, they usually look at their phones.

Dr. Twenge notes, “Smartphones are unlike any other previous form of media, infiltrating nearly every minute of our lives, even when we are unconscious with sleep. While we are awake, the phone entertains, communicates, and glamorizes. She writes, “It seems that teens (and the rest of us) spend a lot of time on phones—not talking but texting, on social media, online, and gaming (togther, these are labeled ‘new media’). Sometime around 2011, we arrived at the day when we looked up, maybe from our own phones, and realized that everyone around us had a phone in his or her hands.”

Dr, Twenge reports, “iGen high school seniors spent an average of 2.25 hours a day texting on their cell phone, about 2 hours a day on the Internet, 1.5 hours a day on electronic gaming , and about a half hour on video chat. This sums to a total of 5 hours a day with new media, This varies little based on family background; disadvantaged teens spent just as much or more time online as those with more resources. The smartphone era has meant the effective end of the Internet access gap.

Here’s a breakdown of how 12th graders are spending their screen time from Monitoring the Future, 2013-2015:
Texting 28%
Internet 24%
Gaming 18%
TV 24%
Video Chat 5%

Dr. Twenge reports that in seven years (2008 to 2015) social media sites went from being a daily activity for half of teens, to almost all of them. In 2015 87% of 12th grade girls used social media sites almost every day in 2015 compared to 77% of boys.
HM was happy to see that eventually many iGen’ers see through the veneer of chasing likes—but usually only once they are past their teen years.

She writes that “social media sites go into and out of fashion, and by the time you read this book several new ones will probably be on the scene. Among 14 year olds Instagram and Snapchat are much more popular than Facebook.“ She notes that recently group video chat apps such as Houseparty were catching on with iGEN, allowing them to do what they call ‘live chilling.”

Unfortunately, it appears that books are dead. In the late 1970s, a clear majority of teens read a book or a magazine nearly every day, but by 2015, only 16% did. e-book readers briefly seemed to rescue books: the number who said they read two or more books for pleasure bounced back in the late 2000s, but they sank again as iGEN (and smartphones) entered the scene in the 2010. By 2015, one out of three high school seniors admitted they had not read any books for pleasure in the past year, three times as many as in 1976.

iGEN teens are much less likely to read books than their Millennial, GenX, and Boomer predecessors. Dr. Twenge speculates that a reason for this is because books aren’t fast enough. For a generation raised to click on the next link or scroll to the next page within seconds, books just don’t hold their attention. There are also declines for iGen-ers with respect to magazines and newspapers.

SAT scores have declined since the mid-2000s, especially in writing (a 13-point decline since 2006) and critical reading ( a 13-point decline since 2005).

Dr, Twenge raises the fear that with iGen and the next generations never learning the patience necessary to delve deeply into a topic, and the US economy falling behind as a result.

iGEN

April 11, 2019

iGEN is the title of a new book by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The subtitle is “Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. iGEN is the smartphone generation. HM is a member of the Boomer generation. Generation X followed the Boomers around 1964. The Millenials were the generation born in the 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. Twenge noted around 2012 seeing large abrupt shifts in teens behavior and emotional states.

This iGEN generation was born in 1995 and later. They grew up with cell phones, had an Instagram page before they started high school, and could not remember a time before the internet. The oldest member of iGEN were early adolescents when the iPhone was introduced in 2007 and high school students when the iPad was introduced in 2010. The i in the names of these devices stands for Internet. The internet was commercialized in 1995. So this generation is named after the iPhone. According to a fall 2015 marketing survey, two out of three US teens owned an iPhone. A 17-year old interviewed in American Girls said, “You have to have an iPhone. It’s like Apple has a monopoly on adolescence.

The iGEN is the first generation for whom internet access has been constantly available, right there in their hands. Whether their smartphone is a Samsung and their tablet a Kindle, these young people are all iGen’ers. Even lower income teens from disadvantaged backgrounds spend just as much time online as those with more resources. The average teen checks her phone more than eighty times a day.

Dr. Twenge writes, “technology is not the only change shaping this generation. The i in iGEN represents the individualism its members take for granted, a broad trend that grounds their bedrock sense of equality as well as their reaction to traditional social rules. It captures the income inequality that is creating a deep insecurity among iGEN’ers, who worry about doing the right things, to become financially successful, to become a “have” rather than a “have not.” Due to these influences and many others, iGEN is distinct from every previous generation in how its members spend their time, how they behave, and their attitudes toward religion, sexuality, and politics. They socialize in completely new ways, reject once sacred social taboos, and want different things from their lives and careers. They are obsessed with safety and fearful of their economic futures, and they have no patience for inequality based on gender, race or sexual orientation, They are at the forefront of the worst mental health crisis in decades, with rates of teen depression and suicide skyrocketing since 2011. Contrary to the prevalent idea that children are growing up faster than previous generations did, iGENers are growing up more slowly: 18-year olds now act like 15-year-olds used to, and 13-year-olds like 10-year olds. Teens are physically safer than ever, yet they are more mentally vulnerable.”

Dr Twenge draws from four large, nationally representative surveys of 11 million Americans since the 1960s and identifies ten important trends shaping iGEN’ers:

The extension of childhood into adolescence.

The amount of time they are really spending on their phones—and what that has replaced.

The decline in in-person social interaction.

The sharp rise in mental health issues.

The decline in religion.

The interest in safety and the decline in civic involvement

New attitudes towards work.

New attitudes toward sex, relationships, and children.

Acceptance, equality and free speech debates.

Independent political views.

Not all these changes are the result of the new technology. It is interesting to look at which changes and to what extent they are the result of new technology, and what is responsible for other changes.

Future posts on these issues will follow.

LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media

January 13, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a book by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking. Many of the immediately following posts will be based on or motivated by this book. The authors have been both exhaustive and creative in their offering. Since it is exhaustive only a sampling of the many important points can be included. Emphasis will be placed on the creative parts.

The very concept that led to the development of the internet was a paper written by two psychologists J.C.R Licklider and Robert W. Taylor titled “The Computer as a Communication Device.” Back in those days computers were large mainframes used for data processing. Licklider wrote another paper titled “Man Computer Symbiosis.” The idea here was that both computers and humans could benefit from the interaction between the two, a true symbiotic interaction. Unfortunately, this concept has been largely overlooked. Concentration was on replacing humans, who were regarded as slow and error prone, with computers. Today the fear is of the jobs lost by artificial intelligence. Attention needs to be focused on the interaction between humans and computers as advocated by Licklider.

But the notion of the computer as a communication device did catch on. More will be written on that in the following post.

The authors also bring Clausewitz into the discussion. Clausewitz was a military strategist famous for his saying, war is politics pursued in other means. More specifically he wrote, “the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means.” The two are intertwined, he explained. “War in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs.” War is political. And politics will always be at the heart of human conflict, the two inherently mixed. “The main lines along which military events progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines that continue throughout the war into the subsequent peace.”

If only we could learn of what Clausewitz would think of today. Nuclear warfare was never realistic. Mutual Assured Destruction with the meaningful acronym (MAD) was never feasible. Conflicts need to be resolved, not the dissolution of the disagreeing parties. Today’s technology allows for the disruptions of financial systems, power grids, the very foundations of modern society. Would Clausewitz think that conventional warfare has become obsolete? There might be small skirmishes, but would standing militaries go all out to destroy each other. Having a technological interface rather than face to face human interactions seems to allow for more hostile and disruptive
interactions. Have politics become weaponized? Is that what the title of Singer and Brooking’s book implies?

The authors write that their research has taken them around the world and into the infinite reaches of the internet. Yet they continually found themselves circling back to five core principles, which form the foundation of the book.
First, the internet has left adolescence.

Second, the internet has become a battlefield.

Third, this battlefield changes how conflicts are fought.

Fourth, this battle changes what “war” means.

Fifth, and finally, we’re all part of this war.

Here are the final two paragraphs of the first chapter.

“The modern internet is not just a network but an ecosystem of nearly 4 billion souls, each with their own thoughts and aspirations, each capable of imprinting a tiny piece of themselves on the vast digital commons. They are the targets not of a single information war but of thousands and potentially millions of them. Those who can manipulate this swirling tide, to steer its direction and flow, can accomplish incredible good. They can free people, expose crimes, save lives, and seed far-reaching reforms. But they can also accomplish astonishing evil. They can foment violence, stoke hate, sow falsehoods, incite wars, and even erode the pillar of democracy itself.

Which side succeeds depends, in large part, on how much the rest of us learn to recognize this new warfare for what it is. Our goal in “LikeWar” is to explain exactly what’s going on and to prepare us all for what comes next.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2019. 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.

READER COME HOME

October 18, 2018

The title of this post is the same as the title of an important book by Maryanne Wolf. The subtitle is “The Reading Brain in the Digital World.” Any new technology offers benefits, but it may also contain dangers. There definitely are benefits from moving the printed world into the digital world. But there are also dangers, some of which are already quite evident. One danger is the feeling that one always needs to be plugged in. There is even an acronym for this FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). But there are costs to being continually plugged in. One is superficial processing. One of the best examples of this is of the plugged-in woman who was asked what she thought of OBAMACARE. She said that she thought it was terrible and was definitely against it. However, when she was asked what she thought of the Affordable Care Act, she said that she liked it and was definitely in favor of it. Of course, the two are the same.

This lady was exhibiting an effect that has a name, the Dunning-Krueger effect. Practically all of us think we know more than we do. Ironically, people who are quite knowledgeable about a topic are aware of their limitations and frequently qualify their responses. So, in brief, the less you know the more you think you know, but the more you know, the less you think you know. Moreover, this effect is greatly amplified in the digital age.

There is a distinction between what is available in our memories and what is accessible in our memories. Very often we are unable to remember something, but we do know that it is present in memory. So this information is available, but not accessible. There is an analogous effect in the cyber world. We can find information on the internet, but we need to look it up. It is not available in our personal memory. Unfortunately, being able to look something up on the internet is not identical to having the information available in our personal memories so that we can extemporaneously talk about the topic. We daily encounter the problem of whether we need to remember some information or whether it would be sufficient to look it up. We do not truly seriously understand something until it is available in our personal memories. The engineer Kurtzweil is planning on extending his life long enough so the he can be uploaded to a computer, thus achieving a singularity with technology. Although he is a brilliant engineer, he is woefully ignorant of psychology and neuroscience. Digital and neural codes differ and the processing systems differ, so the conversion is impossible. However, even if it were understanding requires deep cognitive and biological processing. True understanding does not come cheaply.

Technology can be misused and it can be very tempting to misuse technology. However, there are serious costs. Maryanne Wolf discusses the pitfalls and the benefits of technology. It should be understood that we are not victims of technology. Rather we need to use technology not only so that we are not victims, but also so we use technology synergistically.

© 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.

An Ambiguous State of Affairs

September 18, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of a section of a chapter in an insightful book by Antonio Damaisio titled “The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures. The title of this chapter is “On the Human Condition Now.”

Damaisio writes, “This could be the best of times to be alive because we are awash in spectacular scientific discoveries and in technical brilliance that make life even more comfortable and convenient; because the amount of available knowledge and the ease of access to that knowledge are at an all-time high and so is human interconnectedness at a planetary scale, as measured by actual travel, electronic communication, and international agreements for all sorts of cooperation, in science, the arts, and trade; because the ability to diagnose, manage, and even cure diseases continues to expand and longevity continues to extend so remarkably that human beings born after the year 2000 are likely to live, hopefully well, to an average of at least a hundred. Soon we will be driven around by robotic cars, saving us effort and lives because, at some point, we should have few fatal accidents.”

Unfortunately for the past four or five decades, Damaisio notes that the general public of the most advanced societies has accepted with little or no resistance a gradually deformed treatment of news and public affairs designed to fit the entertainment model of commercial television and radio. Damaisio writes, “Although a viable society must care for the way its governance promotes the welfare of citizens, the notion that one should pass four some minutes of each day and make an effort to learn about the difficulties and successes of governments and citizenry is not just old-fashioned; it has nearly vanished. As for the notion that we should learn about such matters seriously and with respect, is by now an alien concept,. Radio and television transform every governance issue into “a story,” and it is the “form” and entertainment value of the story that count, more than its factual content.”

The internet provides a means that provides large amounts of information readily available to the public. It also provides means for deliberation and discussion. Unfortunately it also provides for the generation of false news, creates alternative realities, and builds conspiracy theories. This blog has repeatedly invoked Daniel Kahneman’s Two Process View of cognition to assist in understanding the problem.
System 1 is named Intuition. System 1 is very fast, employs parallel processing, and appears to be automatic and effortless. They are so fast that they are executed, for the most part, outside conscious awareness. Emotions and feelings are also part of System 1. Learning is associative and slow. For something to become a System 1 process requires much repetition and practice. Activities such as walking, driving, and conversation are primarily System 1 processes. They occur rapidly and with little apparent effort. We would not have survived if we could not do these types of processes rapidly. But this speed of processing is purchased at a cost, the possibility of errors, biases, and illusions.
System 2 is named Reasoning. It is controlled processing that is slow, serial, and effortful. It is also flexible. This is what we commonly think of as conscious thought. One of the roles of System 2 is to monitor System 1 for processing errors, but System 2 is slow and System 1 is fast, so errors to slip through.

To achieve coherent understanding, System 2 processing is required. However, System 1 processing is common on the internet. The content is primarily emotional. Facts are irrelevant and the concept of objective truth is becoming irrelevant. The Russians were able to use the internet to enable their choice for US President, Trump, to win.

Due to System 2 processing being more effortful, no matter how smart and well informed one is, we naturally tend to resist changing our beliefs, in spite of the availability of contrary evidence. Research done at Damaisio’s institute shows the resistance to change is associated with a conflicting relationship of brain systems related to emotivity and reason. The resistance to change is associated with the engagement of systems responsible for producing anger. We construct some sort of natural refuge to defend ourselves against contradictory information.

Damaisio writes, “The new world of communication is a blessing for the citizens of the world trained to think critically and knowledgeable about history. But what about citizens who have been seduced by the world of life as entertainment and commerce? They have been educated, in good part, by a world in which negative emotional provocation is the rule rather than the exception and where the best solutions for a problem have to do primarily with short-term interests.”

These Posts Only Scratched the Surface

September 5, 2017

Of the groundbreaking book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz “Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Reveals About Who We Really Are, ” the preceding posts have only scratched the surface. The adjective groundbreaking is appropriate as this book opens up a new and very valuable source of data, internet searches. These searches bypass most of our defenses and provide a more accurate view of the person making the searches. Seth describes not only how words are used as data, but also how bodies and pictures are used as data.

One section is titled Digital Truth Serum. In addition to Hate and Prejudice, and the Internet itself it covers the truth about customers, child abuse, abortion, and sex. HM expects that this book will become a best seller primarily for its truth about these very sensitive topics. Much of this true content is depressing and the author asks, “Can We Handle the Truth?”

A section titled Zooming In discusses
What’s Really Going on in Our Counties, Cities, and Towns?
How We fill Our Minutes and Hours
Our Doppelgängers
Seth tells stories using data.

A section titled All the World’s a Lab discusses the techniques Google and other companies use to test and evaluate their presentations. It also discusses what Seth terms Natures Cruel—but Enlightening Experiments.

The last part of the book is titled: BIG DATA HANDLE WITH CARE.
Here he discusses what Big Data Can and Cannot Do that includes The Curse of Dimensionality and The Overemphasis on What is Measurable. Although the discussion is technical, it should be accessible to most readers.

The penultimate chapter discusses two dangers:
The Danger of Empowered Corporations
The Danger of empowered Governments

 

The Response to Obama’s Prime-time Address After the Mass Shooting in San Bernadino

September 1, 2017

This post is based largely on the groundbreaking book by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz “Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Reveals About Who we Really Are.” On December 2, 2015 in San Bernadino, California Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik entered a meeting of Farook’s coworkers armed with semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles and murdered fourteen people. Literally minutes after the media first reported one of the shooter’s Muslim-sounding name, a disturbing number of Californians had decided what they wanted to do with Muslims: kill them.

The top Google search in California at the time was “kill Muslims” with about the same frequency that they searched for “martini recipe,” “migraine symptoms,” and “Cowboys roster.” In the days following the attack, for every American concerned with “Islamophobia” another was searching for “kill Muslems.” Hate searches were approximately 20% of all searches before the attack, more than half of all search volume about Muslims became hateful in the hours that followed it.

These search data can inform us how difficult it can be to calm the rage. Four days after the shooting, then-president Obama gave a prime-time address to the country. He wanted to reassure Americans that the government could both stop terrorism and, perhaps more important, quiet the dangerous Islamophobia.

Obama spoke of the importance of inclusion and tolerance in powerful and moving rhetoric. The Los Angeles Times praised Obama for “[warning] against allowing fear to cloud our judgment.” The New York times called the speech both “tough” and “calming.” The website Think Progress praised it as “a necessary tool of good governance, geared towards saving the lives of Muslim Americans.” Obama’s speech was judged a major success.

But was it? Google search data did not support such a conclusion. Seth examined the data together with Evan Soltas. In the speech the president said, “It is the responsibility of all American—of every faith—to reject discrimination.” But searches calling Muslims “terrorists,” “bad,” “violent,” and “evil” doubled during and shortly after the speech. President Obama also said, “It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country.” But negative searches about Syrian refugees, a mostly Muslim group then desperately looking for a safe haven, rose 60%, while searches asking how to help Syrian refugees dropped 35%. Obama asked Americans to “not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear.” Still searches for “kill Muslims” tripled during the speech. Just about every negative search Seth and Soltas could think to test regarding Muslims shot up during and after Obama’s speech, and just about every positive search hey could think to test declined.

So instead to calming the angry mob, as people thought he was doing, the internet data told us that Obama actually inflamed it. Seth writes, “Things that we think are working can have the exact opposite effect from the one we expect. Sometimes we need internet data to correct our instinct to pat ourselves on the back.”

So what can be done to quell this particular form of hatred so virulent in America? We’ll try to address this in the next post.

The Cyber Effect

September 7, 2016

“The Cyber Effect” is the title of an important book by Mary Aiken, Ph.D., a cyberpsychologist.  The subtitle of the book is “A Pioneering Cyberpsychologist Explains How Human Behavior Changes Online.”  She is the director the CyberPsychology Research Network and an advisor to Europol, and has conducted research and training workshops with multiple global agencies from INTERPOL to the FBI and the White House.  She is based in Ireland.

This book should be read by anyone who spends nontrivial amounts of time in cyberspace.  It should be compulsory reading for anyone with children who uses mobile devices.

The internet has had an enormous impact on our lives.  Perhaps some are not aware of this impact as it gradually increased its affects on the way we live.  Dr. Aiken defines cyberpsychology as “the study of the impact of emerging technology on human behavior.”  She continues, “It’s not just a case of being online or offline; “cyber” refers to anything digital , anything tech—from Bluetooth to driverless cars.  That means I study human interactions with technology and digital media, mobile and networked devices, framing, virtual reality, artificial intelligence (AI), intelligence amplification (IA)—anything from cellphones to cyborgs.  But mostly I concentrate on Internet psychology.  If something qualifies as “technology” and has the potential to impact or change behavior, I want to look at how—and consider why.”

Dr. Aiken is not one of those who decry how technology is some evil entity that has upended our lives, nor as something that inevitably leads to utopia.  She writes, “Technology is not good or bad in its own right.  It is neutral and simply mediates behavior—which means it can be used well or poorly by humankind.”  “Any technology can be misused.”

One of her earliest influences was J.C.R. Licklider, a psychologist who wrote a seminal paper in 1960, “Man Computer Symbiosis,” which predated the Internet and foretold the potential  for a symbiotic relationship between man and machine.  Licklider  has been one of HM’s idols since HM was an undergraduate, and it has been a lifelong frustration that a true symbiosis is yet to be realized.

As “The Cyber Effect” is such an important book, I plan to devote a post to each of the chapters excluding the first chapter.  The first chapter is titled “The Normalization of a Fetish” and discusses how cyberspace technology has change sexual behavior.  In addition to fostering new perversions, or at least ones unknown to HM, it explains how cyberspace has expanded contact with others in cyberspace, contacts that would have remained unknown without cyberspace.  Moreover, it has increased the acceptance of formerly proscribed behaviors.  Nothing more will be written in this blog on this topic.  To learn more, read the book, which you should be doing in any case.

Here are the chapters that will have a post devoted to them.  These are the individual topics, which are more informative than the chapter titles:  internet addiction; the effects of cybertechnology on babies; the effects of cybertechnology on children;  the effects of cybertechnology on adolescents; romance in cyberspace;  cyberchondria, which is hypochondria  fostered in cyberspace;  the deep web, where illegal activity occurs; and the final chapter the discusses important topics that need to be considered for the future.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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.

2016 Labor Day Post

September 5, 2016

It is a healthymemory tradition that on or about Labor Day, HM laments about the adulthood and retirement he was promised in elementary school in the 1950s.  During this time it was highly unusual for mothers to work.  One of the primary benefits from technology was to be a large amount of leisure.  The economist John Maynard Keynes predicted in 1930 that the work week would shrink to 15 hours by 2030.  Actually, technology advanced further and faster than was predicted.  Wi fi and smart phones were never imagined, along with the internet.  Now more people, including mothers, are working more hours.  What happened?

Current economies are based on Gross Domestic Products (GDPs).  Economic growth requires increasing GDPs.  Eventually this model runs out of resources and steam.  Yet we have to work more and consume more to foster this growth.

Not only has technology advanced, product quality has improved.  An inexpensive watch has the same accuracy as a ROLEX.  People pay for more expensive products for prestige.  There is ample research showing that scotch drinkers pay substantially more for high quality scotch yet are unable to distinguish the difference when drinking blind.  Scotch drinkers are just provided as an example.  Premiums are paid for many products for prestige, not for the utility of the product.

Voters grovel at the feet of politicians for jobs.  Jobs lost to trade are a primary focus in the current elections in the United States.   However, the trade problem is minuscule compared to the lost of jobs that will be taken by technology.

The following data and projections have been taken from David Ignatius’s column in the 12 August 2016 Washington Post article titled “When robots take all the jobs.”  McKinsey & Co. estimate that  in manufacturing, 59% of activities could be automated, and that includes 90% of what welders, cutters, solderers and brazers do.  In food service and accommodations, 73% of the work could be performed by machines.  In retailing, 53% of the jobs could be lost.  If computers can be programmed to understand speech as well as humans do, 66% of jobs in finance and insurance could be replaced.  So, to use the vernacular, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

Economic security can be addressed by a greatly expanded earned-income tax credit, or by large public works programs.  But the topic of the immediately preceding post, a Universal Basic Income, is inevitable or violence will break out and public disorder will become the order of the day.

Under a Universal Basic Income, everyone would have enough income to live comfortably.   To increase one’s standard of living, or to purchase prestige, employment would be required.  But people could drop out of the economy and pursue an education, training, artistic pursuits,, travel, whatever would increase the quality of life.

The reader should be aware that this view of automation creating enormous job losses is not shared by all.  So some regard this as a pseudo problem.  But HM would still argue for changes that would provide the freedom and leisure activities that would result from technology that were promised him back in the nineteen fifties.  HM has retired, so he finally has leisure time.  His wish applies to all that there be vastly increased amount of leisure time.

Consider reading or rereading HM blog posts, “Gross National Happiness (GNH) and “The Wellbeing of Nations: Meaning, Motive, and Measurement.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. 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.

The Machine

May 11, 2016

The second cryptomind discussed in “The Mind Club” is the Machine.  The authors ask us to think of when we are confronted with a malfunctioning piece of technology like a laptop.  They note that our first impulse isn’t to think , “It gets angry when too many programs are open.”  Similarly when we are hoping that our car will start on a cold winter morning, we don’t think about complex interactions of carburetor and temperature but instead think of our car as stubborn or unhappy in the cold—and beg it to not make us late for work.  The authors note that the tendency to see mind in technology occurs primarily when it disobeys our desires.  When machines function smoothly we feel in control.  When they don’t we turn to mind to help us understand.

Psychologist Carey Morewedge has termed his phenomenon a negative bias in mind perception.  Negative events prompt mind perception more than positive events.  She illustrated this phenomenon in an experiment in which participants played the ultimatum game.  In the ultimatum one participant is given a sum of money, say $10.  She then meets a second participant with the requirement that she offer her a cut of this money.  If she accepts the cut, they both leave with their respective amounts of money.  However, if the second participant refuses the offer, then they both forfeit the money.  According to classical economic theory, the second participant should accept the offer, no matter how small.  So even if the offer were $1, one should take it because otherwise she would leave with nothing.  In reality, if people are not offered some reasonable amount, they will refuse the offer.

In Morewidge’s experiment, study participants played three ultimatum games with three different partners, who (the participants were told), could be all people, all computers, or some combination of the two.    After the participants were presented with the proposed split from their partner, Morewedge asked them to guess whether heir partner was a computer or a person.  The partner was always a computer.  When the offer was fair or generous, they were more than happy to think it was a mindless machine, but when the offer was unfair, they ascribed intention behind it, believing it to result from the cruel calculations o another person.  This phenomenon where bad outcomes lead people to search of an agent to blame for mistreatment is called dyadic completion.

People often perceive mind in machines because of anthropomorphism.  We are generally anthropomorphic, seeing everything from the perspective of ourselves.  We have schemas, scripts or outlines for how things should go, for many things in life.  These schemas are unconscious, so we usually don’t realize when we are anthropomorphizing..  Clifford Nass and Young Moon found that participants treated computers as if they had gender and ethnicity.  Polite people were polite to test computers.  When the computer asked how it was performing, people were consistently nice, even when it was actually performing poorly.  However, just as with humans, this politeness held only when participants were dealing with the computer “face to face.”  They would bad-mouth one computer to a different computer!

The concept of transactive memory is key to the machine mind, as indeed the machine is mind.  As was noted in the introductory blog post to “The Mind Game” Wegner articulated the concept of transactive memory.  Transactive memory refers to memories held by fellow humans and by memories held in technology.  Conventional technology involved paper, but digital technology is electronic.  We can ask our spouse or someone else we know well, to remind us of something, or to tell us something about a topic of interest.  However, most of our memory is distributed among a wide variety of digital machines.

Healthy memory distinguishes among three types of memory.  Accessible memory are those memories that are either internal or can be readily accused externally.  Some memories are available, in that a we know how to find them, but are not immediately accessible to recall.  Potential memory is all the data, information, knowledge, that can be found in our fellow human beings or in technology.  It is through technological artifacts that we are able to access all recorded knowledge that predates us.

There are two senses to the machine mind.  One is how it the machine works, which can be difficult and consists of problems that usability research is supposed to address.  However, in another sense, the machine mind consists of the totality of recorded human data, information, and knowledge.  The machine mind will increasingly become part of our daily lives.

© 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.

Web of Lies

May 1, 2016

“Web of lies:  Is the Internet making a world without truth” is an article by Chris Baranluk in the Feb 20-26, 2016 edition of the New Scientist.  The World Economic Forum ranks massive digital misinformation as a geopolitical risk alongside terrorism.  This problem is especially pernicious as misinformation is very difficult to correct (enter “misinformation” into the healthy memory search block to see relevant posts).  Bruce Schneider, a director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that we’re entering an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation.

Walter Quattrociocchi at the IMT Institute for Advanced Studies in Lucca, Italy, along with his colleagues looked at how different types of information are spread on Facebook by different communities.  They analyzed two groups:  those who shared conspiracy theories and those who shared science news articles.  They found that science stories received an initial spike of interest and were shared or “liked” frequently.  Conspiracy theories started with a low level of interest, but sometimes grew to be even more important than the science stories overall.  Both groups tended to ignore information that challenged they views.  Confirmation bias leads to an echo chamber.  Information that does not fit with an individual’s world view does not get passed on.  On social networks, people true their peers and use them as their primary information sources.   Quattrociocchi  says “The role of the expert is going to disappear.”

DARPA, a research agency for the U.S. Military,  is funding a Social Media in Strategic Communication Program, which funds dozens of studies looking at everything from subtle linguistic cues in specific posts to how information flows across large networks.
DARPA has also sponsored a challenge to design bots that can sniff out misinformation deliberately planted on Twitter.

Ultimately the aim of this research is to find ways to identify misinformation and effectively counter it, reducing the ability of groups like ISIS to manipulate events.  Jonathan Russell, head of policy at counter-terrorism think tank Quilliam in London says, “They have managed to digitize propaganda in a way that is completely understanding of social media and how it’s used.  Russell says that a lack of other voices also gives the impression that they are winning.  There’s no other  effective media coming out of Iraq and Syria.  Think tank Quilliam has attempted to counter such narratives with videos like “Not Another Brother,” which depicts a jihadist recruit in desperate circumstances.  It aims to show how easily people can be seduced by exposure to a narrow view of the world.

This research is key.  Information warfare will play an increasingly larger percentage of warfare than kinetic effects.

Pangiotis Metasxes of Wellsley College believes that we have entered a new ea in which the definition of literacy needs to be updated.  “In the past to be literate you needed to know reading and writing.  Today, these two are not enough.  Information reaches us from a vast number of sources.  We need to learn what to read, as well as how.”

Review of Why the Net Matters

December 17, 2015

The full title is “Why the Net Matters:  Six Easy Ways to Avert the Collapse of Civilization,” by David Eagleman.  This book is recommended to all who have growth mindsets.  It provides a good vehicle for growing one’s mind.  The healthy memory blog has had a variety of posts on technology, the potential it offers, and possible threats it potentially portends.  Eaglemen poses the question, “Why Do Civilizations Collapse/“, and discusses six reasons previous civilizations have collapsed.

Epidemics have wiped out some civilizations.

Knowledge has been destroyed.  He cites the burning of the Library of Alexandria, which at the time was the sole repository of available knowledge.  The writings of the Mayans were destroyed by the colonizing Spaniards.  Many other examples are provided.

Natural disasters in the form of wind, water, fire, and quakes have toppled carefully built civilizations in a day.

Tyrants have destroyed civilizations and have stunted the development of their own civilizations.

The necessary resources required to sustain a population are not met.  Eagleman notes that these are not mutually exclusive causes.  Frequently different causes interact to wipe out the civilization.

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter suggests that societies fail because they do not change their fixed designs for solving problems.  Arnold Toynbee noted that civilizations find problems that they cannot solve.  In other words, the societies collapse due to insufficient human capital.

Eagleman argues that the net provides the basis for avoiding all these causes of the collapse of previous civilizations.  No guarantees are provided, and unless the net is used to advance, these causes can reoccur.  Moreover, he does identify new threats.

He discusses four ways that the net can go down.

The first is through cyberwarfare, a threat with which we all are aware.

The second is by cutting cables.  He identified cases of cable cutting of which I had be entirely unaware.

The third is by political mandate.  In other words, governments shut down the net.

The fourth is via space weather.  Satellites have been disabled via solar flares, but the threat goes beyond satellites.  When a massive solar flare erupts on the sun, it can cause geomagnetic storms on earth.  The Carrington flare, which occurred in 1859 sent telegraph wires across Europe and American into a sparking, frizzing frenzy.  It boggles the imagination to consider the damage that would occur were such a flare to occur today.  Theoretically, a major solar event could melt down the whole net.

Eagleman proposes a seed vault for the net.  There is a Global Seed Vault in Svalband, Norway.  It holds duplicate samples of seeds held in gene banks worldwide.  If a nuclear winter were to wipe out all the crops on the planet, future generations could reboot the agricultural systems.  Eagleman proposes a similar vault for the net.

In short, this is a good read for a growth mindset.

Cell Phone Distraction

September 21, 2015

I was surprised to read an article by Krystal D’Costa titled “We’ve Modified Our Behavior So We Can Walk and Talk”  in the online  August 5 Scientific American  Mind and Brain.  I don’t object to the title of the article.  Undoubtedly we have modified our behavior as the result of cell and smartphone technology.  However, I do object to some conclusions in the article.  The basic conclusion she comes to is that we’ve adapted and there are no problems.  As you shall read below, there are problems.  Please let me disabuse you of her Panglossian conclusion.

There have been many, many posts on the healthy memory blog, regarding the risks of driving while either talking or texting on a cell phone.  On May 27th, an article in the Washington Post by Ashley Halsey III summarized the result of a report from the National Safety Council.  Between 2000 and 2011 more than 11,000 people were injured while walking and talking on their cell phones.  Most of these people were women younger than 40.  Nearly 80 percent of injuries were the results of falls, and 9% of those who suffered injuries simply walked into something with enough force to hurt themselves.

Although 42% of the injured were younger than 30, these injuries were not exclusively a young person’s affliction.  20% of the injuries happened to individuals 71 years or older.

The council reported that 26% of all traffic accidents were attributable to drivers’  talking on their cell phones, while 5% of drivers involved in accidents were writing or reading text messages.  Please do not conclude from these statistics that texting is safer than talking on a cell phone.  I believe that the correct conclusion is that fortunately there are many fewer people who are foolish enough to text while driving.  It should be alarming that there are drivers foolish enough to do this.

Other research by Dr. Lee Hadlington of De Montfort University in Leicester, England and reported in the Huffington Post found that frequent users of mobile technology are more likely to experience cognitive failures, such as forgetting one’s wallet, missing an appointment, or bumping into someone in the street.  This research involved 210 British mobile phone users between the ages of 18 and 65.  Their average weekly Internet use was about 25 hours.  The participants answered questions about the amount of time they spend using the internet and mobile devices, and about their behaviors related to perception, motor function, and memory.  There was a significant correlation between the amount of time an individual spends using the internet or a mobile phone and their likelihood of experiencing cognitive failures in their rail lives.  These failures included memory error, physical blunders and daydreaming while others are talking.

The statistic I wanted to find, but could not, was the number of walkers distracted by their cell phones who were hit by cars.  I know there had to be some such cases.  I have seen people walking, distracted with their cells phones, who step out into the street or cross the street neglecting to look for traffic.  I do fear hitting one of these individuals who step in front of my car before I have time enough to stop.
© 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.

Transactive Memory and TV

May 16, 2010

The Healthymemory Blog has had many postings on Cyberspace and Transactive Memory. These have usually been written with the objective of illustrating the potential of the internet for cognitive growth and a healthy memory. However, it is important not to overlook fun and enjoyment.

As many popular television shows are wrapping up their seasons this week, it is timely to remind people of the internet as an aid to television viewing. Synopses of most programs can be found simply by searching for them on the internet. Should you need to get caught up before seeing the season finale, this is one means of doing so. It can also lead you to means of watching the shows online. You might choose to read about the episodes first before spending valuable personal time viewing them.

Generally speaking, the internet can serve as an inexpensive guide to television viewing enabling you to separate the wheat from the chaff on this vast wasteland.

So, go to your browsers and start searching!

Can Transactive Memory Be Harmful?

November 28, 2009

Larry Sanger is an interesting fellow. He holds a Ph.D in philosophy and is a co-founder of Wikipedia, wikipedia.org, an on-line encyclopedia written by users. Yet he is concerned that the internet is harming education1. If so much information is available, and you know how to find it (an important proviso), why do you need to learn it when you can just look it up? Why do we need schools? Could not all children be home schooled if they had a computer and an internet connection? Would that not be so much cheaper? College is expensive. Who needs it?

Remember the phrase, “Jack of all trades, master of none? That reflects part of the concern. Now the knowledge landscape is so vast there is no chance that anyone can be familiar with all of it. Indeed, it is growing so fast that it would be impossible for an individual just to keep up with new information. But one can spend most of his or her time, social networking, playing online games, participating in chat boards, following incoming news events, etc.. If one were so disposed, one could spend the entire day on the internet and become familiar with a vast amount of information. I write information rather than knowledge, as knowledge implies some depth of understanding. This is Sanger’s concern, that people will become information savvy, yet lack knowledge. It is important to achieve some depth of knowledge in some areas. Some topics warrant careful study and the exploration of different media.

There is a trade-off that needs to be made between breadth and depth of knowledge. Too much concentration in one area will result in lack of knowledge in other areas. No concentration in any area and you can be accused of being a dilettante. People differ in their interests and how they spend their time. You want to do what is enjoyable and interesting, keeping in mind the dangers of being extreme in one direction or the other.

So the problem is not with transactive memory. Indeed, transactive memory encompasses both people and technology. Technology is not bad, but the manner in which it is used can be destructive. It is interesting to know that Socrates was appalled when the Greek alphabet (an early form of technology) was developed. He feared that the richness of the spoken language and the interaction with others would be lost. Clearly, his fears were misplaced.

1Casey, M.A. (2009). Ohio State Alumni Magazine. Nov-Dec, p.37

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2009. 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.