The tenets of logic say two contraries cannot be true. And yet I find myself swinging back and forth between the ideologically opposed poles of writers who tell me that the way I live my life is making me either smarter or dumber. Can they both be right?
Not long ago I posted an entry here in which I borrowed the words of some wise writers who ask us to examine the way we think and read in a digital age. They see the dangers of reading quickly and superficially as detrimental to the way we choose to live our lives as individuals and in society. For them, large and even sometimes small issues often require a depth of thought that takes time and space and place. I agree with them and have seen, in my own life, how social media has changed the way I devote my time given my far too limited mental bandwidth. Books like Nicolas Carr’s “The Shallows” decry the loss of depth we devote to issues too. At the same time, Carr warns against our increasing dependence on algorithms to make important decisions. When I first read Carr, I thought he was right (at least about the former point; I think Ian Ayers and others have proven, long ago, the usefulness of algorithms to help us in our decision making). Now I’m not so sure.
The number of books that address the effects of social media on our brains grows larger by the week. I’ve read an (un)healthy number, yet I’m still left with lots of questions. Maybe this is a good thing. Or at least that’s what Clive Thompson might say. Here are the last lines (spoiler alert) of his new book "Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds For the Better":
“How should you respond when you get powerful new tools for finding answers? Think of harder questions.”
I will take Thompson at his word and try to ask some hard questions of a book I think should be read by all the naysayers and prophets of doom about the future of the way we think and live within what David Eggars, in his apocalyptic novel, calls “The Circle”. The Circle, symbol of perfection, by the end of the novel, becomes a noose, dooming us to a complete loss of individual freedom, which, to some, adds up to a less sinister though comfortably soft sentence of death (if an individual being that melts into a web of media means losing the human self).
For those who think that Eggers and others are alarmists without enough faith in the capacity of humans to use technology mostly wisely (or at least not overly destructively), Thompson’s book will be a welcome confirmation of their beliefs. The numbers who find the “ambient awareness” (his term) of swimming deeply and long in the baptismal waters of social media stimulating and progressive grow significantly by the day. This book may make some converts of the skeptics.It's been named to some to book lists of 2013 (Te Economist, for one) and I agree that it's one that should be read, carefully and slowly.
The book opens with an epic prizefight. Not the “Thriller in Manila”, though that was epic and took place with human blows deciding the outcome. The face off here is between Deep Blue and Gary Kasparov -- man vs. machine. The outcome surprised many: the world’s best chess player was bested by Deep Blue, a computer program. This outcome was big news when it happened, and it caused a great deal of discussion about whether computers were going to take over as the smartest objects on the planet (humans included).
But Thompson moves quickly from human defeat to what an old radioman used to call ‘the rest of the story’. Kasparov teams up with Deep Blue to take on any comer. Eventually even they get bested by some young guys who have figured out how to use a computer, (and the help of lots of other people suggesting moves that neither Kasparov nor the computer would have expected--a 12 year old is the star). The moral of the tale? We should all begin to embrace our transformation (at least in our ways of solving problems) into cyborgs. Thompson demonstrates that humans have ways of thinking that computers do not, but that computers and their programs contain both unimaginable amounts of data and algorithms that pick what some might call the most rational answers to complicated problems. Combining man and machine to solve problems, in chess or in many other fields, improves the way we live in the world.Thompson, like many other authors these days, gives us what some might call a kind of Gladwellian introduction to his topic. By this I mean Thompson, like Gladwell, starts with a specific story and uses it to set the stage for the cyborg thesis that he will bring to bear on a number of other stories that start each subsequent chapter (some would call them case studies; others, academic studies). While the Cyborg syndrome may be true for chess, is it a useful trope for many of the other human endeavors? Thomson‘s answer is yes and the rest of the book largely shows, through examples ranging from medical research to gaming that the single genius does not stand a chance against millions working on a problem or maybe a single person who’s hooked up to the best databases in the world. Or both.
By the time we get to the last chapter, we return to another epic battle between Ken Jennings and Watson. For those not familiar with this mano a machine challenge, it largely replicates the opening scenario except that the stakes are in some respects higher. Jennings, the undisputed champion of champions from the show Jeopardy takes on Watson, another computer programmed to defeat the best mankind has to offer. And once again the machine wins. But the book is not repeating itself because while chess has a staggering large number of moves, the rules are pretty simple. Jeopardy, however, challenges any of us to not only think in the form of a question put to figure out puns and sly hints that often seem to require a level of cultural literacy no machine could master without really ‘thinking”. In just a few short years computer scientists have figured out ways to program machines to react in ways that at least some philosophers would call human. Thompson would not, I think agree with this, but his point is that computers are able to take on exceptionally complicated tasks and solve problems in ways we once thought were what made us human. The fact that a computer that can win at Jeopardy however may just be the start of creating applications that will help humans improve their abilities in life-saving ways. Watson’s success is now being tested in the area of healthcare. Doctors may soon be talking to their medically oriented Watsons and end up getting more fully informed options for helping people. The doctors are in line to become cyborgs.
All this sounds like progress to me. The chapters in between also support his thesis that our ability to connect with machines and people around the globe make us smarter than we were before. He shows how gamers have come together as a community to help solve the ever-increasing complexity of the games put out on the market. The cycle of complexity makes the games themselves more complex and encourages players to connect via social media to offer clues and approaches. More importantly, he also shows how a single blogger in Kenya can connect with people and, in effect, change the culture of corruption in government. He shows too that a person in Egypt can, through twitter, alter the course of events in his country. And he shows that even in China, a place we often assume has an iron grip on social media, students can alter the way business is usually done there.
As one who cares and write about education, I was particularly struck with his words about how the technology we live in can help students learn more effectively. There are currently many options for students to learn from. He cites Khan Academy as an example of a great place to improve math skills and I agree with him. I wish he had written about MOOCs too, as I would be interested if he believes these low cost courses can begin to alter the educational landscape to people around the world (something I believe).
But one particular chapter should be handed out to every administrator in schools around the world. Thompson talks about the need to train students to learn how to do good searches for accurate information. He makes the point that most teachers and administrators assume that because students have grown up among the most current iterations of information sources on the web that students are literate enough to find good information. He and I agree that this assumption is both not accurate and potentially dangerous. Universities and secondary and primary schools should be teaching students how to use their software and hardware, computers and iPhones etc. in ways that will let them access information that will promote greater learning and healthy skepticism. (I’d say that these two things almost always go hand in hand.) I find it hard to believe that many schools still forbid students to use Wikipedia on homework and research when they know full well students will use it anyway. In addition, Wikipedia has some safeguards and ways of using it that will allow students to go to other sites where the information is cited from primary or trustworthy sources. Most students pass through their education without someone guiding them to the most useful ways of searching and finding information. In this case, it is the schools themselves that are making students dumber. Given that Google searches are far less useful than they used to be (the clutter of for profit sites and companies that get their products on page one are just two ways that Google has allowed its usefulness to drop), students need handbooks and lectures and walk throughs. This form of cultural literacy seems not be a priority for educators and I can only guess about why this is, but at least some people teaching now don’t have the training to teach how to do searches because they themselves don’t know how either.
 |
| Spenser's "Fairie Queene" |
The cyborg trope is not new. The fear of technology taking over has been around for millennia, but Donna Haraway, at least in academic circles, raised the interest in cyborgs, in the now ancient age of the 80’s. She talked about feminism and science in terms of cyborgs. Thompson’s new generation of cyborgs involves humans connecting with and to new tools, available to almost anyone with a computer, who can then access data and to get the programs that have already been written to allow individuals to discover new ways of solving problems. As the big companies permit access to some of these programs and databases, and as individuals do the same, people around the world can create new ways of understanding issues from chess to politics.
I think that Thompson is right to focus on the way on-line communities can solve problems more effectively than individuals. Having millions think a problem through leads too much greater odds of a breakthrough or an insight. One example Thomson uses in Quora.com. He describes how this community answers questions, not for profit or at least material gain but simply for the fun of it. As those of you who read me with any frequency know I am a big believer in Quora too. (In the interest of disclosure I have been named a best writer on Quora but I don’t think this makes what I say too suspect, but it does, of course, slant what I think.) I have had wonderful people contribute information to me that I could not have paid for, found, or understood. In return, I think I have been able, on occasion, to provide information that has helped some others too. Quora is just one example of on-line communities working together (or sometimes at least) for a common goal.
I think Thompson writes persuasively about both the advantages of online communities for putting brains together and about how what now is called ‘big data’ can transform the way business, education and games can be played.
The question, however, is whether those doing the data searches will use the data in the ways that mirrors the way it is always been used. As Nate Silver, in his "The Signal and the Noise", argues, it isn’t the data that we need to worry as much about as the people using it. Out of context data (and all data no matter how deep is to some degree out of context) and the ideological and psychological make up of the researchers will shape the way the data is interpreted. Will big data permit great discoveries? Yes. Will it, by its sheer overwhelming scale, cow people and institutions into believing the data has 'the' truth. Yes. At least that is my answer to this question. I am not sure how Thompson feels about this. And of course there are the concerns over privacy and how governments and businesses are collecting every piece of data about us and then using this to track us. This may lead to better ads to suit each of or interests but there is certainly a dark side to it too.
.
I have to admit I was skeptical about the claims the book put forth on the back flap, but after reading the book, I have to agree that what Thompson shares convinces me that some of the people who live hooked up to social media and databases are way more adept at solving certain kinds of problems. He himself started investigating social media as a skeptic but it now appears that he has joined the new religion of the church of ambient awareness. I have used the word religion here not simply to underscore Thompson’s conversion, but also to bring up another issue, one that I brought up to Thompson this past Wednesday when he came to DC to talk about his book. The questions I asked there and will bring up again here center on ethics.
 |
| Me, Clive Thompson, crutch included |
In talking about the challenge of a Turing machine (a person needs to guess from asking questions in a closed room which one of two respondents is human and which a machine) Thomson cited the spin-off challenge called "the most human human". In this contest a human is rated as the most human who has what people think are the most human characteristics. But this means, to take it at its word, that there is a sliding scale of humanness, and that those with education, training and economic means will, most likely, be deemed more human than others. Thompson disagreed with me about this logical leap but I’m still not sure. As a species there have always been people who were deemed more human than others. For some, these people have been religious leaders, philosophers or even media stars. They live a life we as lower mortals cannot attain but perhpas can learn from. But Thompson made the point that his book was not about ethics and morality.
 |
| Turing machine |
And here I would respectfully disagree. The chapters on the blogger in Kenya or the students in China etc. underscore that these efforts brought about positive change. I think that in this he tries to demonstrate the way social media can make the world better pragmatically and ethically. At the same time, however, some of the chapters don’t address ethics and maybe they should. Thompson gives lots of detail about how gamers work together to solve problems. His view of this, however, is Olympian. From atop the clouds he sees gamers exchanging clues and information and this adds to the thesis that all end up smarter. But let’s travel down to the ground. What information and clues are most of these gamers exchanging? How to kill, beat up, steal, take over, destroy, and blow up people and stuff. World conquest, domination, subjugation copletewtihgrunts, sceams and explosions and lots of great special effects. Millions of gamers are killing people and cultures every day, and each year they learn to do it more effectively. From this perspective, I think Thompson is right to say the book is not ethical.
I was also surprised to hear him affirm that humans have become more ethical as we have grown older as a species. He cited Pinker’s book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which sets forth that despite devastating world wars in the last century, we are, as a whole, killing each other at a lower rate now than at any time in our history. While this may be true given the global population, we are still permitting most of the world’s population to live in poverty, and we have done little to address human rights in many places around the globe. But it’s also true that we no longer go off to a coliseum to watch humans die by mortal combat or by being eaten by wild animals. Instead, we watch this happen on our games and this, I guess, is ethical progress.
Another book I think should be read by many, Daniel Dennett’s "Intuition Pumps", does not try to be primarily ethical either, although it is a philosophical tome. In it, Dennett gives a list and a set of applications of thinking tools that anyone can use to ask useful questions on virtually any issue. Thompson too has given us a set of intuition pumps as they relate to social media and he too calls for training in their use and implementation to students. I think combining training in thinking, civic and ethical issues, and media and computer uses would all, taken together, provide a way of creating more committed citizens of any republic.
But I would be remiss if I did not cite another piece in the media called Smarter Than You Think. This article, by Wyatt Mason, reviews a book about David Foster Wallace. Here’s how it starts: “More than any writer in his generation, David Foster Wallace dedicated himself to the question of how to make what he called “morally passionate, passionately moral fiction” that was also “ingenious and radiantly human.” That dedication may be seen in the boldness of his answers, the dozens of daring formal solutions that sought new and—for those with the patience to take them on their terms—revelatory ways of reframing the question with which fiction is always preoccupied: how to be in the world.”
Thomson talks about the importance of reading books in addition to living and learning via social media. But how any of us actually red books now? Thousands have perhaps read DFW’s masterpiece, “Infinite Jest”, but it takes exceptional time and effort. But we are, Ibleive, a long way from any computer rogram capable of matching the words of Wallace, Shaespeare or Homer.
Which leads me to two final questions. Have we really surpassed, ethically the dialogues of Plato, the gospels of the New Testament, the poems of Homer or Sappho and the sayings of Buddha or Confucius? Have we progressed beyond them? And if so in what way?
Are there truths or at least useful ways of seeing our world that can only be found in long works, be it “Infinite Jest”, “Being and Time”, or “The Dream of the Red Mansion”? Are encyclopedic fictions, philosophies or scientific tomes only for the elite who have the time and the education to enter these worlds? And if fewer people, realtive to the whole population, are taking the time to enter these worlds does this then represent a loss in our ability to think and act in the world as informed citzens?
No comments:
Post a Comment