Posts Tagged ‘System 2 processes’

The Digital Media Environment

June 15, 2019

This is the fifth post based on a new book by Douglas Rushkoff titled “TEAM HUMAN.” The title of this post is identical to the title of the fifth section of this book. Rushkoff writes, whoever controls media controls society.

“Each new media revolution appears to offer people a new opportunity to wrest control from an elite few and reestablish the social bonds that media has compromised.” But the people have always remained one entire media revolution behind those who would dominate them.

Rushkoff cites the example of ancient Egypt that was organized under the presumption that the pharaoh could directly hear the words of the gods, as if he were a god himself. On the other hand, the masses could not hear the gods at all; they could only believe.

The invention of text might have led to a literate culture. Instead text was used just to keep track of possessions and slaves. When writing eventually was used by religion, only the priests could read the texts and understand the Hebrew or Greek in which they were written. The masses could hear the Scriptures being read aloud, thus they could hear the putative words of God, but the priests kept the elites’ capability of literacy.

During the Renaissance when the printing press was invented, the people gained the ability to read, but only the king and his selected allies could produce texts. Similarly, radio and television were controlled by corporations or repressive states. So people could only listen or watch passively.

Rushkoff writes, “The problem with media revolutions is that we too easily lose sight of what is truly revolutionary. By focusing on the shiny new toys and ignoring the human empowerment potentiated by these new media—the political and social capabilities they are retrieving—we end up surrendering them to the powers that be. Then we and our new inventions become mere instruments for some other agenda.

The early internet enabled new conversations between people who might never have connected in real life. The networks compressed distance between physicists in California, hackers in Holland, philosophers in eastern Europe, and animators in Japan. These early discussion platforms leveraged the fact that unlike TV or the telephone, internet messaging didn’t happen in real time. Users would download net discussions, read them on their own time, offline, and compose a response after an evening of thought and editing. Then they would log back onto the net, upload he contribution, and wait to see what others thought. The internet was a place where people sounded and acted smarter than they do in real life. This was a virtual space where people brought their best selves, and where the high quality of the conversations was so valued that communities governed these spaces the way a farmer’s cooperative protects a common water supply. To gain access to the early internet, users had to digitally sign an agreement not to engage in any commercial activity. Rushkoff writes “Even the corporate search and social platforms that later came to monopolize the net originally vowed never to allow advertising because it would tain the humanistic cultures they were creating.”

Consider how much better this was when people actually thought for a time, rather than responding immediately. Previously, System 2 processes were involved. Currently, responses are immediate, emotional System 1 processes.

Rushkoff writes, “ Living in a digitally enforced attention economy means being subjected to a constant assault of automated manipulations. Persuasive technology is a design technology taught and developed at some of America’s leading universities and then implemented on platforms from e-commerce sites and social networks to smartphones and fitness wristbands. The goal is to generate ‘behavioral change’ and ‘habit formation,’ most often without the user’s knowledge or consent. Behavioral design theory holds that people don’t change their behavior because of shifts in their attitudes and opinions. On the contrary, people change their attitudes to match their behaviors. In this model, we are more like machines than thinking, autonomous beings.”

Much or this has been discussed in previous health memory posts, especially those based on the book “Zucked.”

Rushkof writes, “Instead of designing technologies that promote autonomy and help us make informed decisions, the persuasion engineers in charge of our biggest digital companies are hard at work creating interfaces that thwart our thinking and push us into an impulsive response where thoughtful choice—or thought itself—are nearly impossible.” This explains how Russia was able to promote successfully its own choice to be President of the United States.

Previous healthy memory blog posts have argued that we are dumber when we are using smartphones and social media. We understand and retain less information. We comprehend with less depth, and make impulsive decisions. We become less capable of distinguishing the real from the fake, the compassionate from the cruel, and the human and the non-human. Rushkoff writes, “Team Human’s real enemies, if we can call them that, are not just the people who are trying to program us into submission, but the algorithms they’ve unleashed to help them do it.”

Rushkoff concludes this section as follows: “Human ideals such as autonomy, social contact, and learning are again written out of the equation, as the algorithms’ programming steers everyone and everything toward instrumental ends. When human beings are in a digital environment they become more like machines, entities composed of digital materials—the algorithms—become more like living entities. They act as if they are our evolutionary successors. No wonder we ape their behavior.”

TEAM HUMAN

June 11, 2019

The title of this post is identical to the title of a new book by Douglas Rushkoff. Reading books like this promotes the development and maintenance of a healthy memory. Learning new ideas establishes new neural connections. Reading critically activates yet more neural connections, and it is these new neural connections that foster a healthy memory. So readers need to go beyond fast System 1 processes, and invoke, and invoke heavily, System 2 processes. Even if you disagree when invoking System 2 processes, do not disengage. You should find it beneficial to continue reading posts on this book.

In preparing for competitive debates, a good practice is to debate both sides of the topic. This is important competitively, so one will be better at countering opposition points. Similarly, in reading it is important to understand as many sides of an issue that are tenable. Usually, there are at least a few points that one can regard as worthwhile. But even if one is in agreement with the author, there should usually be at least a few points of disagreement. And integrating all this information enhances one’s intelligence and knowledge as well as fostering a healthy memory.

Some authors are ponderous making for laborious reading. Fortunately, Rushkoff is not one of those authors. He makes his points quickly and crisply. For this reason, HM recommends you read the actual book. HM will try his best to bring the key content forward in this series of blogs.

The first section is titled TEAM HUMAN and begins, “Autonomous technologies, runaway markets, and weaponized media seem to have overturned civil society, paralyzing our ability to think constructively, connect meaningfully, or act purposefully. It feels as if civilization itself were on the brink, and that we lack the collective will-power and coordination necessary to address issues of vital importance to the very survival of our species. It doesn’t have to be this way way.”

He argues that there’s a reason for our current predicament, and that is an antihuman agenda embedded in our technology, our markets, and our major cultural institutions, from education and religion to civics and media. He argues that it has turned them from forces for human connection and expression into ones of isolation and repression. He believes by exposing this agenda, we make ourselves capable of transcending its paralyzing effect, reconnect to one another, and remake society towards human ends rather than the end of humans.

He writes that the first step toward reversing our predicament is to recognize that being human is a team sport (hence the book’s title). “We cannot be fully human alone. Anything that brings us together fosters our humanity. Likewise, anything that separates us makes us less human, and less able to exercise our individual or collective will.

Social connections are needed to orient ourselves, to ensure each other’s survival, and to derive meaning and purpose. Although we sometimes connect with one another in order to achieve some common goal, we also commune and communicate for their own sake because we gain strength, pleasure and purpose as we develop rapport.

We extend our natural ability to connect through various forms of media. The internet connects us more deliberately and, in some ways, more reassuringly than any medium before it. The tyranny of top-down broadcast media once seemed to be broken by the peer-to-peer connections and free expression of every human node on the network, The net turned media back into a collective, participatory, and social landscape.

But as usually happens with each and every new medium, the net went from being a
social platform to an isolating one. Instead of forging new relationships between people, our digital technologies came to replace them with something else. He writes, “Our most advanced technologies are not enhancing our connectivity, but thwarting it. They’re replacing and devaluing our humanity, and—in many different ways—undermining our respect for one another and ourselves. Sadly this has been by design. But that’s also why it can be reversed.”

Digital networks are the latest media to go from promoting social bonds to destroying them. They are supplanting rather than supporting humanity. Rushkoff fears that this current shift may be more profound and permanent because this time we are empowering our antihuman technologies with the ability to retool themselves. Our smart devices iterate and evolve faster than our biology can.

Rushkoff argues that we are tying our markets and security to the continued growth and expanding capabilities of our machines, but that this is self-defeating. These technologies are built with the presumption of human inferiority and expendabilty.

He concludes this section, “It’s time we reassert the human agenda. And we must do so together—not as individual players we have been led to imagine ourselves to be, but as the team we actually are. Team Human.”

Possible Outcomes

May 22, 2018

This is the final post in this series. Unfortunately, Hayden does not come to any real conclusions at the end of “The Assault on Intelligence: American Security in an Age of Lies.” He just rambles on and on. As a career intelligence professional, one could expect better. He has made a career of dealing with large amounts of data of varying amounts of credibility, and has come to conclusions, or at least different possible outcomes weighted differently. But he didn’t. So please tolerate HM’s offerings.

The president has already tweeted that the entire Department of Justice is the deep state. He has also told a New York Times reporter, “I have an absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department. Two conclusions can be drawn here.
Trump is woefully ignorant of the Constitution and what he can do.
The Russian new way of conducting warfare has been highly successfully.

Should the Democrats win back the House and the Senate, Trump can be impeached and removed from office.
However, this is a goal that it is difficult to achieve. And likely impossible given Russian interference, which has been promised, but for which Trump is going to do nothing to prevent.

Mueller can finish his report and provide it to Congress. It is likely that Republicans would not be impressed by compelling evidence of obstruction of justice.

But what about conspiring with Russia to win the election? The United States has spent large amounts on defense. But to what end if the Russians have effectively captured the White House? Trump worships Putin and would gladly serve as his lap dog.

And suppose it is discovered that Trump owes large amounts of money to Russia and that Putin effectively owns him?

What happens in these latter two cases rests solely with the Republicans. Too many Republicans have been influenced by Russia’s new form of warfare and are doing everything they can to subvert Mueller’s work. They have already produced a biased report that excludes Democratic input and exonerates the president.

Similarly, if Trump fires Mueller and tries to close down the investigation, the question is how will Republicans respond to this constitutional crisis? If they’re complacent and do nothing, our democracy effectively goes down the drain. Trump is likely to declare himself President for life, and Russia would effectively occupy the oval office.

The Russians are generations ahead of the United States in warfare. If this were an old-fashioned shooting war, all Americans would be enraged and the country would be up in arms. But the type of highly effective warfare to which the Russians have advanced involves the human mind. Some US Citizens are loosing interest in Mueller’s investigation and are tired of it lasting so long. They seem to care not that they would be losing the White House to the Russians. All this requires thinking, that is System 2 processing. System 1 processing, feeling, believing, not thinking and being oblivious of the truth is so much easier.

© 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.

Effortless thinking: Why Life is More than a Zero-sum game

January 11, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Graham Lawton in the series of articles in the 16 December 2017 Issue of the New Scientist titled “EFFORTLESS THINKING: Why some ideas come naturally to us—and why they’re usually wrong.”

In a classic zero-sum situation, resources are finite and your loss is my gain. Lawton writes, “Many situations in life follow this pattern—but not all. Unfortunately, this subtlety tends to pass us by. At best, seeing competition where none exists can blind us to opportunity. At worse, it has very unpleasant consequences.”

Dan Meegan, a neuroscientist at the University of Guelph in Canada says, “Zero-sum thinking was an evolutionary adaptation to to a time when we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Under those circumstances, resources such as food and mates were finite and often scarce, so more for one person meant less for another.” However, today, things can be different. System 2 processes need to be invoked to assess whether or not something is a zero-sum game.

A good example is international trade. Treaties between nations are usually designed to be win-win: the more trade that happens, the more resources there are for everybody. The basis for this is “comparative advantage,” whereby trade benefits even less productive countries provided they concentrate their efforts of the good they are most efficient at producing (this is complicated. Google “comparative advantage example” for an explanation). Still the bias persists. People find it hard to believe that a trading “win’ for a foreign partner doesn’t lead to a loss for them. This is one reason why free trade is politically unpopular among people it would benefit. Donald Trump is one of the people who can’t understand why a win for a foreign partner is not a loss for the United States. These trade deals are quite complicated. It takes many experts from each side examining the deal to see if it advantageous to them. Moreover, there will be disagreements even among the experts. But eventually a consensus is achieved by both sides and a trade agreement is reached. Trump has no use for experts, as it just “knows.” So he tends to break trade agreements that were beneficial to both sides. In doing so he injures both the United States and its trading partners, in effect damaging world trade.

Another problem is the misperception that discrimination is a zero-sum game. As early as 2011, during President Obama’s first term, there were signs that many white Americans perceived growing “anti-white prejudice” despite overwhelming evidence that whites still enjoyed privileged access to jobs, education, and justice. Research indicated that this was at least party based on the misperception that discrimination is a zero-sum game—that less of it against minorities necessarily means more against white people. This misperception played a large part in the disaster of the election of Donald Trump. The article concludes, “With so much riding on it, just being aware of zero-sum thinking could go a long way to improving social relations.”

What the article doesn’t mention is the desire of people to perceive themselves as being better than other people. Unfortunately, many people regard this desire as a God-given right. Even when objectively their group is better off than other groups, they regard the improvement of other groups as a threat to them. Here System 2 processing needs to be invoked to reject this perception as bigotry and to appreciate the good in the improvement in other groups.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. 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.