From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:28:17 +0000 (+0300) Subject: posts: 046, 047 X-Git-Tag: v0.9~13 X-Git-Url: https://git.mogosanu.ro/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=12150d1a2ba0c8c2c54373af656d7d76b3ae73f5;p=thetarpit.git posts: 046, 047 --- diff --git a/about-2.markdown b/about-2.markdown index 76ece08..a3d1abf 100644 --- a/about-2.markdown +++ b/about-2.markdown @@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ publication. After all, tar pits might not even be enumerable. (Note: the previous [about page][about] was left online for historical reasons.) -[about]: ./about.html +[about]: /about.html diff --git a/posts/y02/046-google-is-making-you-stupid.markdown b/posts/y02/046-google-is-making-you-stupid.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2487a9a --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y02/046-google-is-making-you-stupid.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ +--- +postid: '046' +title: Ok, I was wrong, it seems that Google is indeed "making you stupid" +date: April 24, 2016 +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +tags: asphalt +--- + +Back in Cretaceous while I was still publishing my thoughts on the old +blog, I participated in a very interesting debate with people of the +so-called "Romanian blogosphere" of those times[^1]. The discussion was +on the influence of the Internet on the various real and/or perceived +properties of [human thought][ganditul]. + +More precisely, some guy had previously published in The Atlantic an +essay entitled "[Is Google Making Us Stupid?][atlantic]", to which I +hastily, in my sheer naïveté, responded that no, it couldn't be such, +since some of us still enjoy that otherwise unfashionable activity of +deep reading; and moreover, that this isn't a problem worthy of focusing +on, since civilization will adapt as it has in the past and so on and so +forth. + +In retrospect, the reader must agree with the premise that the question +posed by the initial article denotes idiocy on the author's part. I +don't remember whether this was the case at the time, but "Is X verb Y?" +is a memetic Newspeak-ism that deliberately obfuscates meaning. What +does "making" mean? who is "us"? what does "stupid" mean? and so on and +so forth. What qualia does the article propose to scrutinize? Of course, +it's easy to quote personal experiences, anecdotes and so-called +studies, and to reason upon them. What's considerably more difficult is +being rigorous about the whole bullshit, at the risk of offending +others. Pertinent sociological studies may or may not have been done in +the meantime, you are welcome to point them out to me if you see +fit. Meanwhile, let us take a different approach to deconstructing the +problem. + +Google is a wonderful tool, as are the Web and the Internet[^2]. There +was essentially nothing before the Internet, and very little before the +Web[^3]. While Google (the search engine) is a great piece of software, +it's far from being the first of its kind, which means that the +necessity of being able to find things in the vast stuff of the Web[^4] +was there not in 1998, not even in 1995, but from the very beginning of +things. Thus denying the usefuleness of, and moreover, the need for +Google as a tool for finding information on the Internet would be like +denying the need for a hammer to drive nails or the need for a gun to +shoot down your enemy[^5]. + +However, Google has, like many things have since that day in 2001 when +the world ended for a brief moment, gone through many sets of +transformations. At some point -- I cannot tell exactly when, and again, +maybe here the perspicacious reader might have the patience to enlighten +me -- it became a tool that was separated from its purpose, or, to put +it more bluntly, it became a victim of [marketing][marketing], not +unlike Facebook[^6] and many others which we won't recollect here due to +space constraints. + +So yes, breaking news! your environment is shaping the way you think in +both subtle and obvious ways. In his essay, Carr gives us Nietzsche's +example, + +> "You are right," Nietzsche replied, "our writing equipment takes part +> in the forming of our thoughts." Under the sway of the machine, +> writes the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler, Nietzsche’s +> prose 'changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, +> from rhetoric to telegram style.' + +but he deliberately ignores the initial conditions that he himself +has observed: + +> Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a +> Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, +> and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and +> painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to +> curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it +> up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had +> mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, +> using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from +> his mind to the page. + +Kittler's observation is an interesting one, to say the least. However, +stating that the author's writing was shaped by the typewriter is no +more and no less valid than stating that it was largely influenced by +his failing eyesight or his age. For all we know, it probably was a mix +of these conditions -- and indeed, of many others -- that led to his +telegraphic writing. + +So yes, I was wrong, Google "is making you[^7] stupid" if[^8] you've +accustomed yourself to viewing the world through the narrow screen of an +Android phone, subjecting yourself to the random information its +so-called "timeline"[^9] is feeding you, going through regurgitated +"targeted" and "tailored" "news" or whatever it is that you're +consuming. It is indeed turning you into a "pancake", or worse yet, into +an amorphous mass of goo ready to be shaped into a mold, by constantly +asking for your attention through endless "notifications" that you'll +never bother to disable, for the sake of "user experience". For all I +know, Google's already achieved its purpose, so now what? + +While I admire Carr's conservativeness and his asking of questions +almost eight years ago, I can only laugh at his own naïveté: + +> Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives -- +> or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts -- as the Internet +> does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there's +> been little consideration of how, exactly, it's reprogramming us. The +> Net's intellectual ethic remains obscure. + +On the contrary, I think there's been much consideration. Google's +machine learning algorithms have reduced your intellect to a statistical +model. That is all you are now, and even if you think more of yourself, +that doesn't matter to Google, and no one will ever see why it +would. "Like", "share", "unique viewers" and "returns" are all that +matter. + +What's more baffling is the fact that, for all the debates it has +stirred all over the web these past few years, Nicholas Carr's essay +remains a brief historical "I told you so" note and not much else. This +is -- quite ironically, come to think of it -- an illustration of the +fact that "awareness" doesn't work when it involves actual +thinking. Meanwhile, more irony at eleven o'clock: The Atlantic fucks +its readers over with shitty ads and civilization continues to fail. + +[^1]: This is in a purely coincidental manner related to this post's + subject. A generation ago "those times" used to mean "a generation + ago", while now "those times" means "five or six years ago". Of + course, the idea of whether "a lot of time" actually passed between + then and now is still up for debate. + +[^2]: I assume that the astute reader is able to distinguish and + discriminate between the three. Otherwise, there's the door. + +[^3]: People of "the previous generation" might remember Gopher, Usenet + and so on. I wasn't there, but it would make a lot of sense to + compare these to nowadays' technologies, which would give some + historical perspective on the latter's *actual* usefuleness. + +[^4]: But not -- and this is a very important point -- on the + Internet. Although CERN's version of hypertext appeared while the + Internet was still largely an experimental thing, the two developed + independently. That is, there is a vast amount of stuff in the even + vaster amount of stuff that is the Internet that you won't find + using Google. Ever. + +[^5]: Feel free to replace "Google" with an equally stupid name that you + and your friends use. + +[^6]: Facebook has a very similar history to Google's. It wasn't the + first social networking site, maybe not even the greatest, but it + became "the norm" in this field. + + They're also very similar in that they're both serving the same + purpose nowadays, which is serving ads, more so that Google is + desperately trying to become the Social Network, while Facebook is + desperately trying to become the Search Engine. Funny how these + things go, right? + +[^7]: Not "us". Never *us*. + +[^8]: This is a very big "if". As a matter of fact, Diana was spot-on on + [her initial point][diana] that Google merely gives you the + opportunity to dumben yourself. Fortunately for us sane people, this + doesn't make it any less useful of a search engine. + +[^9]: Or "stream". Same shit, really. + +[ganditul]: http://lucian.mogosanu.ro/bricks/ganditul-in-era-tehnologica/ +[atlantic]: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ +[marketing]: /posts/y02/043-on-the-failure-of-marketing.html +[diana]: http://www.dianacoman.com/blog/2010/02/21/google-te-prosteste-nu-iti-ofera-doar-mai-multe-oportunitati-sa-o-faci-singur/ diff --git a/posts/y02/047-about-ii.markdown b/posts/y02/047-about-ii.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..82a98fa --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y02/047-about-ii.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +postid: '047' +title: 'The Tar Pit: about [ii]' +date: April 29, 2016 +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +tags: announcements +--- + +

+*The sheets are filled with angst +I once thought I’d escaped +But time after time, the pattern is the same +I get trapped in myself +And there’s no way out of here +My mind is the maze [that only I can face][1]*

+ +The Tar Pit has a new [about page][2]. + +[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn0WkFjwHRk +[2]: /about-2.html