Archive

Posts Tagged ‘American Dream’

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.

Perils of Purchase

May 22, 2014 Leave a comment

A magical thing happens when we own something. Having made the purchase using our own money we’ve personalized the experience. This is why the computer from the employer is “junk” and why the dinner from a different cook just doesn’t taste the same. When we do it ourselves we place our skin in the game: we personalize the experience or item by connecting to who we are. Our purchases are extensions of who we are: they demonstrate a decision we have made or a preference that reflects who we are. Marketers know we do this and utilize brands as extensions of personality. Are you a Pepsi or a Coke person? Is it Apple or PC, Android or iOS?

Falling victim to the game of branding creates a paradox of experience. Though trying to express our individuality in our purchases we end up subscribing to massively popular brands. We work to select the item that best reflects our personality or that most closely matches our perspectives on life. A certain type of character is connected to brands. Technology companies are particularly skilled at creating cultural connections for its users. Are you an “Apple person”, the ad might seem to suggest. Ultimately our attempts to be unique leave us blandly like the rest. The only way to truly be unique is to build it all ourselves. Program your own operating system and manufacture the hardware in the basement. Work to escape the brands and perhaps you can be unique. Of course this is impossible. Brands are popular because they’re easy to engage with and embrace.

Loss on Higher Levels

February 9, 2014 Leave a comment

Is the death of someone talented more tragic? The “critically-acclaimed actor” is a common start for widely read obituaries. Lost at her prime stage of talent, her death comes with both reminders of the past and musings for the future. Reflecting on the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Slate’s Dana Stevens reflected her regret that Seymour would never again be the focus of a Paul Thomas Anderson film. She mourned the loss of an artistic collaboration in the making.

All deaths are tragic, but with the death of public figures we experience death together. Though we never meet Celebrity X, we see his films and spend hours with his work. From this we experience the death of these figures in unique and novel ways. These are not our family members, but they matter and we know them a some deeper, human level. Is it strange that many spend more hours watching the work of a celebrity than they do with neighbors living just a house away.

The “w0rk” of a selective group of people is experienced by the world. The actor’s personality becomes product and, from sea to sea and country to country, a world experiences the work. Despite cultural differences and political turmoil an actor’s work can be considered by anyone. Herein lies another great power of art: where politics creates boundaries and pain and suffering determine daily life a work of art can breach all borders.

Each individual possesses a unique talent. Whether he or she locates and develops this talent depends on a variety of factors. Is everyone a Shakespeare or Mozart? Perhaps they are if given the right talent, time and focus. Though all have certain skill sets few are provided with the bundled supplements to find its worth. How sad is it that millions go without even knowing of their skill? And yet, despite these millions left unaware the select few who realize their talents often work to create things that forever change the world for everyone.

This is where the greater tragedy comes in. In losing an individual who was aware of his or her talent we lose this precious item of development. For the few who can break through and realize their skills it is their duty to follow it through. So often these breakthroughs come with an inability to cope. Some have argue that Philip Seymour Hoffman’s acting skills were closely tied to his ability to sense human experience. Such sensitivity, they claim, left him vulnerable and unable to cope. The same has been argued for poets whose untimely deaths suggests too sensitive a demeanor or some lacking tool to separate skill with life experience.

Is the death of genius more tragic? Indeed it is but not just for the human soul we lose.

Title Tales

January 26, 2014 Leave a comment

Legitimacy is a difficult nut to crack. “Too legit to quit”? Then your skills should go unquestioned and success always assumed. To be “successful” is a relative state. In those whose dreams have been accomplished and whose goals achieved it’s easy to assume it was guaranteed. Far harder to consider those whose dreams went unrealized. The successful don’t dream more accurately.

One’s dreams are not another. In the accomplishment of one exists a source of shame for another. Cook a great meal and your status as a chef is established. Lose the butler and the home and the service known for ages and successful meals are more reminders than indulgences.

For many the battle to achieve legitimacy is difficult. Our terms for certain roles in society are vague. What is a musician? Can one be called a writer if he simply scrolls some sentences? Must a writer be published to be considered a writer? These minor details must be defined by the individual. For some the act of writing is enough, while for others publication is foundation. Ultimately each individual must come to define life’s titles as he or she sees fit. Language fails us…again.

Action is Not Progress

January 24, 2014 Leave a comment

We often mistake action for progress. Spin the wheels and chase the tail: it all feels like we’re getting somewhere, but driving the car around the cul-de-sac and swimming laps inside a pool is simply simulation. For endeavors where a change is needed we need to do something more, something harder, to reach the goals we sense we have.

A disconnect between knowing what we need and doing what needs to be done is often where we fall. Emotion muddies the water and rapidly our confident sense of action becomes shriveled to inaction. In the corner hides the shrunken dreams of a warrior that was.

Perhaps we might measure leaders by their ability to disregard their doubts. For those who can charge forward a great existence lingers. Of course this charge is relative as both evil and angels achieve power in such striving. For every hero is a Hitler.

For many this feeling of doing something is enough. A constant stream of attempts might feel like actual effort but until we actually face the facts and fight the war we’re merely playing games. Impressively skilled at complicating our existence, we each possess the equally tragic and impressive ability of doubting what we want and sabotaging effort.

Artistic Picks

December 23, 2013 Leave a comment

To assert one’s identity is to re-assert and codify identity politics. Why was one selected for this position? What qualifications garnered the individual with the opportunity? In moments of competition literally person versus people- the factors that are used to make a decision are more important than the decision itself. Yes, the ways you decide are far more important than what you decide.

To provide one with an opportunity on the basis of identity is to disregard or discount skills unrelated to identity. A great artist is judged not by background, heritage or culture; instead, it is the work itself that persists through the ages. Art outlasts the artist. Contemporary culture has moments where background, heritage, or culture trump artistic skill. In these situations the artist’s work is not the major focus; instead, we ask where did she come from? Who or what does she love? Or, worse yet, how can her selection say something about who we are?

All decisions are expressions of the deciders. President George H.W. Bush is often quoted as saying he “is the decider” when challenged that his vice president Dick Cheney was actually in charge. We treasure our authority and use it explain who we are. In selecting someone we express a preference for perspective. Selections are symbols and in decisions where people are involved (i.e., artistic nomination) symbolic stand-ins for our beliefs.

Nominations of artists are particularly interesting on a meta level. Artists often work with symbols and manipulate meaning. One who nominates an artist for a position is manipulating symbolic manipulators to manipulate a symbol.

Commerical Box of Soap

December 13, 2013 Leave a comment

The image of a speaker on a soap box is one of the most profound images of democracy. The rugged individual, determined to be heard, climbs a box and uses it to better address the crowd. This image of a “platform” now expands to include social media sites like Facebook where individuals use the site to share ideas. Create a game on Facebook’s platform and one has access to a user base of billions. Many see this as a definite benefit: it’s where the users are and the most efficient way to reach an audience. And while this is true, it is important to distinguish Facebook’s platform from the classic image from which the term “platform” derived.

Facebook is a commercial medium. It exists to make money for its creators and strives constantly to expand its use to as-yet unknown streams of revenue. New apps are new opportunities: both for creators and for Facebook who use its giant network to distribute and collect. Herein lies the power imbalance at the heart of the relationship. For while Facebook provides access to the user base, maintains its existence and popularity, the user engaged on Facebook retains minimal rights in his or her creation. Agree to distribute your ideas on Facebook and you engaged in a trade: significant details of ownership for access to a massive user base.

When one publishes on Facebook, or any social media sites, he or she forfeits significant rights of ownership. What do these platforms say for potential intellectual endeavors? If great creations must utilize corporate platforms to gain access is something lost? In essence we have a system where, in another domain, a chef must launch his own restaurant inside McDonald’s. Yes, he’ll have access to a massive user-base and a popular platform to launch, but what is lost for what is gained?

%d bloggers like this: