Archive

Archive for December, 2014

“TV bad”, TV says.

December 29, 2014 1 comment

When we watch “Beavis and Butthead” we mirror the characters. We sit in front of a screen and watch two young men staring at a screen. This mirroring is unique: many books feature characters reading and songs will often reference music and its power to influence. The “ars poetica” is a form of poetry specifically focused on the art of poetry writing. Meta-thinking is reflective on the act of thinking.

In some forms of this “meta-art”, the art comments on itself. A dystopian television show like the UK’S “Black Mirror” warns us of technology’s development despite being the product of a complicated network of technology devices. Film and television often feature dystopian narratives that warn us of our interactions with film and television. Such “finger wagging” warnings urge we caution further development by casting narratives that suggest the dangers of “what could be”.

Are such critiques limited to film and TV? Do books exist that warn the reader of reading? Have songs been heard that warn the user of listening to music? One struggles to find examples. Film and TV are unique in their use of the medium to criticize the medium.

The Misuse is the Feature: Cognitive Tech & Action

December 29, 2014 Leave a comment

Technology can be categorized into two distinct categories: “cognitive” and “non-cognitive”. In the “cognitive” camp I place items like Facebook and Twitter, which prompt the user to interact with its features. A user of these sites is asked to share their thoughts. One is capable of sharing every thought, desire and idea on the site and it works to encourage the user to do so. The user must choose the level of interaction and one could very easily (and many often do) over-share or over-interact with the site. One could very easily destroy a reputation by publishing every thought on Facebook. To fully interact with the site means to respond to its prompting to share fully. Every half-thought idea, emotional impulse and desire becomes fodder for its prompting and if shared material for public consumption.

In the other category, which I call “non-cognitive”, I group items like cars, cooking equipment and material we often see as tools. These items do not prompt us for their use. The microwave does not display a text encouraging you to use it and the car doesn’t honk to encourage you to travel. Among these devices is an in-built limitation that leaves the user to determine interaction. Though one can very easily do damage to a reputation with these tools (for example a car driven dangerously) the level of hazard is lower than the items in the “cognitive” tools category because the user is less influenced by the actual technology.

My suggestion is that the “cognitive” tools are dangerous because their development outpaces our psychological ability to understand the correct way to use them. One must learn to use Facebook correctly. This learning includes an increased awareness of the material suitable for public consumption and the boundaries therein. One should not share secrets or security information like passwords, bank codes, etc.. on these mediums. We learn just what to share.

Such learning though is not automatic and many do not develop these skills or choose not to use them. Commenters make rash and vile commentaries on the internet but in public maintain a calm, cool demeanor. Would these commenters act the same if viewing the video in a public theater? The user chooses the level of interaction. Wisdom comes in learning how to use the technology and gaining the skills for correct use. Many will not gain this info or will choose to disregard these skills.

This disregard for proper use is common with all technology. An ancient technology like alcohol or sugar continues to be misused despite centuries of use and consideration. One can incorrectly drive and destroy a home with the technology of fire. This challenge of learning proper use is common to all technologies. The distinction remains; however, with the “cognitive” versus “non-cognitive” technology: prompted by “cognitive” technology we are forced to develop skills in spite of its asking. This technology form doesn’t want us to filter our interactions. Perhaps the evidence of our struggles with this form are in the constant slew of comment boards and “over-sharing” where a user misuses the technology. Cognitive technology is dangerous because it battles our development of skills.

Experiential Cash

December 28, 2014 Leave a comment

What justifies a great expense? Might we appreciate a single bar of chocolate more than a thousand? The issue is appreciation and the amount of mental energy we choose to invest in the item. Though capable of appreciating things with all of our mental energy, to do so would be exhausting. We choose what to invest our minds and how much these items deserve. Whether chocolate, a vacation or just simple conversation, our investment is the factor that determines what we feel.

To cruise through the day is easier than actually pausing to fully consider it. Investment means energy and an engagement with the daily grueling chores of existence. We don’t want to be aware. Our distance is our shield against the day.

The challenge is to know the time to focus. To recognize the need to fully invest in the moment is essential for our happiness. To vacation without regard for our experience is to waste the opportunity. The glossy eyed conversant reveals her distance and eliminates the moment. Engagement is an active state and one we must pursue. To be distracted and distanced is our natural state. Do we want to fully appreciate something? We must pause and gather focus. To work away from our distraction is a change of daily pace.

Veruca writ large

December 15, 2014 Leave a comment

Conservative talk-show host Jim Bohannon often jokes that Americans “are the only society in history that can stand in front of a microwave oven yelling ‘hurry up’.” We’re an impatient bunch, it seems, but regardless of our tiny skills at patience we’re doomed in our developments.

With each technological development we’re quick to move the goal posts back. The car has GPS, but what about satellite radio? So the seats have warmers but what about the steering wheel? “Blessed” by a constancy of technological development we’re never satisfied and ever-wondering on the next greatest feature.

And yet perhaps this is less a detriment and more an engine of development. Is our impatience actually a virtue? Necessity, says the English proverb, is the mother of invention but how many of our inventions come directly from our needs? Viagra and artificial sweeteners are just two examples of items found on accident. One’s desires for solution often leads one to another perk for profit.

Often we admonish lack of patience as a sign of being spoiled. Always wanting more or being disappointed smacks quite often as a denial of the benefits at work. The tablet’s running slowly but just months ago its benefits were desires. How quickly we can move from wanting something to receiving it and wanting more. The goal is ever-moving and perhaps will never rest. Impatient as we are one wonders whether virtue hides inside this trait. Veruca wants it all and so do we. Are we better in our wanting? Do desires spur development? Spoiled on and on.

Camera Call

December 3, 2014 Leave a comment

In light of recent news, the issue of police authority has given rise to a national question: Can we regulate our police force? Given authority to “serve and protect” the laws and citizens of the country the quandary comes in our inability to determine the acceptable application of this authority. How much force is one allowed to use when facing a lethal threat? We often view such questions with a “tit-for-tat” simplification, concluding that an officer engaged in a life or death battle is justified in lethal force? Yet herein lies our problem: what is “life or death” and how do we determine that once an incident has ended such actions were justified?

The means by which we determine negligence in public officials is faulted. As we see in FIFA, the NFL, and other large organizations the task of investigating comes internally. FIFA investigates FIFA and the NFL considers NFL actions? Should we be surprised when accusers are dismissed and negligence not found?

The challenge comes in finding the means to conduct these investigations. Given that many of these cases involve the death of the other participant in the incident is essential that evidence in the moment be gathered. On-body cameras for officers is the first step to working towards a better system of investigation. Gather video of the incident and require it be used to consider the case. Included with the benefits of this evidence is the additional accountability that comes with awareness of the cameras? Will the cameras eliminate bad behavior or will in hinder officers from doing their jobs? Of course these questions will arise, but for the benefits of the victims whose stories remain untold it is essential that some technology be used to collect their stories. “All men are created equal” and their stories must be told if we are “innocent until proven guilty”

%d bloggers like this: