Concert of Voices

Eli Pariser: “Technology is evil and moneymaking greed will be the ultimate downfall.”

Clive Thompson: “Technology is sooooo awesome, dude.”

Anil Dash, Chris Anderson, Seth Priebatsch, and Jane McGonigal: “We have a social responsibility to use the power of technology to solve big world problems.”

The last message is my favorite. Just as I appreciated Thompson’s optimism, I find it very v

Heist-like dynamics make the best networks.
Best metaphor in a while.

aluable how the speakers we viewed this week advocated not simply for the benefits of technology, but introduced a type of responsibility we as technology-users have to affect and change. With the power of networks to spark crowd-accelerated innovation coupled with the team-building and motivational affect of game dynamics, we have little right to complain about issues before actively working, using the tools at hand, to combat them.

Dash said, “We create opportunities for people to do unexpected and great things when we make networks that are more inclusive.” He pointed out that networks afford individuals who are not “well-born” or privileged to have a voice. Rural farmers can connect with world-leading visionaries if they choose the proper channels. Or, consider one of the largest networks that exists, Facebook.  Although Marc Zuckerberg, the creator, is an incredibly influential (not to mention wealthy) entrepreneur, in reality he is shy and somewhat awkward (as remembered forever by the Business Insider). Yet, the man who never really outgrew his baby face rose to the highest ranks in technological influence. His intelligence and drive notwithstanding, he had an entire network of users who loved his product, shared it with their own networks, and supported the continuance of it. He was able to spread his idea until it became bigger than any social difficulties he experienced, and people respected him for it. I also enjoyed Dash’s discussion of how, with the right network, things become transparent. Many sets of eyes equals fewer places not seen.

When Anderson said, “Giving away what you think is your biggest secret invites others into helping make it better,” I was reminded of the discussion we had on copyrights and intellectual property. Rather than “keep your cards close to your chest,” Anderson advocates free sharing of ideas that they may be improved. Of course, this concept begs questions like, “who gets the profit?”, “who gets the rights?” and so forth, but I still found his point, that only when we have entire groups of people motivated by others to do better, do things really progress in monumental and novel ways.

Priebatsch cracked me up, from his college-dropout jokes to his incredibly intellectual and inspiring discussion. While I hear his idea of the “game layer,” visualizing it is an entirely different matter and calls to mind questions regarding power and control. The game dynamics he lays out are theories of human interaction and behavior, and to harness them is to control how humans act. Priebatsch hopes to use them towards positive ends, like education, but how can we moderate these dynamics so they do not negatively affect or control our behavior? In the simplest form, do we risk compromising free will and choice in integrating and increasing proficiency these dynamics?

Finally, McGonigal. Honestly, I was offended how often her audience laughed at her propositions! You could immediately sense the audience held prejudice and distain for gaming. Yet through her discussion, I recognized the incredible space that games present for solving problems as we imagine ourselves super-powered hopeful individuals. Simulators have been used for years, from crash-testing to training astronauts, so why not implement them to solve problems? If we can create systems, where the individuals interacting within these systems are able to shake the insecurities and limitations we face in everyday life, the solutions and innovations coming from such a system go beyond imagination. I greatly respect her encouragement that we “make the future” through harnessing technology, rather than simply watch it develop. It returns to the concept of responsibility. With the tools we have, are we morally compelled or obligated to activate the networks and crowd source knowledge that lies at our fingertips, to address current crises? Such a question cannot be easily answered, but these authors take important steps, and their work is the type we need to encourage, promote, and build off of.

Gaming is rad, but if the genre is to be one of empowerment, we need to address
 the ubiquitous design of female characters as sexualized and objectified.  Show me the 5'2" 125 lb.,
love-handled character who can beat all odds, and I'll be playing for life.

A More Positive View

Globally, I appreciated and found fascinating (and comforting) Thompson’s discussion of how technology in the digital age is shaping our cognition, social spheres, and education for the better. Although I found his writing style overly anecdotal, it struck me that Thompson provided a rich, well-thought and evidenced argument for how technology—from the internet to artificial intelligences—will improve humanity, rather than how society will “cope” or “adapt” to increasing technology.

It seems, lines of technology-doubting thought emerge heavily in humanities departments. Perhaps because the studies of English, History, Literature, and so forth rely on extensive examinations of previous texts and ancient lines of thought, individuals working, learning, and writing within those environments more often recognize the value of past influences rather than future ones.

Especially after reading The Filter Bubble, Thompson’s discussion was a refreshing new look

at technology, and his conclusion, that when we face increasingly sophisticated and powerful tools for seeking answers we need to “think of harder questions” (p. 290) struck me as insightful and timely.

An element I particularly appreciated was how Thompson showed that technology plus humans was a far more powerful, valuable, and influential force than simply technology alone. From his “centaur” computer-human chess playing teams, to the January 25th Egyptian citizen revolts, technology was shown to empower humans, from acting as a thinking-extension to providing a global communication forum, rather than taking on an independent or formidable identity of its own. Speaking of the chess teams, he writes “Because Cranton and Stephen were expert at collaborating with computers, they knew when to rely on the machine’s advice” (p. 4). Same with the teenage girls protesting the beef imports, or the Shifang citizens successfully stopping the copper plant construction, Thompson seems to conclude that humans already posses the capability and courage to accomplish notable feats, they often just lack firepower. And technology offers just that.

As Thompson discussed “lifelogging,” I remembered a recent interaction. My twenty-something friend offhandedly mentioned his high school Twitter account one day, as it related to the conversation, saying he rarely checked it anymore. Curious, and motivated by the fact that we new friends but had spent a fair amount of time together, I was interested in what this social media account would reveal about him. After tracking it down, for he had forgotten the username, I scrolled through his Tweets and laughed somewhat astonishedly and reproachfully as I read snippets of sexist blunt humor, dissatisfaction for his living situation, thoughtful musings on life and God, and (my personal favorite), “See so many people with rings on their fingers these days...won’t catch me ending my life on purpose.” As you can imagine, I was slightly offended and put off by his comments, because my current conception of him was of a sweet, sarcastic but also respectful, motivated, and content human being. To my objections, he replied, “You can’t be mad at my 18-year old self!” And, of course, he was right.

As human beings, we should have the right to permeability, to change. That version of my friend was one that no longer existed, although remnants of his fieryness and snark certainly lived on, elements I had come to appreciate. But the fact I could, through some snooping, pull up a laundry list of Tweets written by his overly-confident-jock-high-school-rebellious-self speaks to an unfortunate aspect of technology and the Internet. If less forgotten does not equal more remembered (p. 33), the Internet has an uncanny knack for remembering that which should, in time, perhaps be forgotten.

A conversation often sidestepped in
discussion on Artificial Intelligences...

Of course, technology will never be “natural,” but I think that as it continues to progress, it will amplify natural elements of humanity (like brain power, courage, etc.), rather than disrupt natural orders like time passing and old versions of ourselves being remade to the present. Thompson writes, “The future of public thinking hinges on our ability to create tools that bring out our best” (p. 76) The wide array of technological benefits, from increasing the production of writing to uniting marginalized individuals around social causes to strengthening connection and weak ties through ambient awareness all point towards a powerful future with possibility. We have the brains, technology might just provide the firepower and processing ability we need to reach an even greater potential.