Sunday, November 29, 2020

Are Social Media Uniquely Distracting?

#303: I Say 'Yes', Then 'No'

.......................

The novelist, professor, and critic, Claire Massud, interviewed in Guernica, describes modern social media as a huge distraction, draining us of our own thoughts: 

" I also see the advent first of the Internet, but then more perniciously of the smartphone, as being distractions. ...It’s like the grout between the tiles. It fills up any space that you might have to be bored, to be curious, to be daydreaming, to be inventing something or just thinking, with photos on Instagram or that stupid little fruit game or whatever it is that people do with their phones." 

There is, of course, some truth to this.  Everyone regrets at least one wasted moment, or lost month in some cases.  I can remember spending an entire day laboriously evaluating entries in a competition (something like 'New ideas for a better future'), that relied on all entrants grading other entries to establish a winner; and then the sponsor declared it a failed experiment soon after my 12+ hours.  But, as with most things, what you get out of our modern internet is what you put in.  And by 'put in' I mean the framework of limitations one uses, and the thoughtfulness of approach one employs.

For example, I have no hard and fast rule, but I generally watch about a half-hour of television per day (while eating dinner--preparing dinner is when I chat).  Likewise, I generally limit myself to about one hour per day on Twitter (while eating a leisurely breakfast).  When I post on Twitter, I don't usually combine it with reading posts from others.  And I follow just 14 people, mostly journalists, so I get my news that way too.  And, I've recently been limiting Facebook to about an hour a month (this is partly anger at Facebook's blind eye to disinformation, and partly a lack of time).  So, instead of doom-scrolling, playing games and the like (not so many years ago I played a farm-puzzle game for 20 minutes every night), I browse dozens of newsletters and their linked articles, looking for the most exciting material, then I bookmark for when I have time.  And this is all on a desktop computer.  The only time I use my phone for an internet connection is when I'm waiting at a doctor's office, for example.  Likewise, the only time I listen to music over the internet is again, on my desktop.

But getting back to what the internet and social media have to offer.  I can remember as a junior high student poring over an encyclopedia, reading factual information about China's Cultural Revolution, for example.  It was interesting, sure, but these days, getting to add my two cents to an article, and getting to send the link to all my friends?  That is just totally awesome.

Awesomeness spelled out:

1. Agency.  Teens might explain it this way: School tells me what to study, my friends tell me what's cool, religion tells me what to believe, pop culture tells me what's hot, but on my phone, I alone am in command.

2. Timing.  A common snub is to refer to something as enabling instant gratification.  And there's obviously something to that, as waiting is perhaps the most under-appreciated ability.  But, a little noticed fact of our modern lives is that we now keep time in a synchronized manner, impossible as recently as 10-20 years ago (an Apple computer I bought in 2009 was not synched, time-wise, and was usually off by a minute or two).  So, time itself is something we can now imbue with meaning.  A time stamp can even be referenced: "Hey, this is the exact minute your birth certificate says you were born."  And, of course there's the welcome variety of timing: messages that soon disappear, texts that can wait hours, postings that can wait days.

3. Contact.  I can remember, prior to the internet, trying to contact opinion page writers with questions and comments on their published ideas.  I even received letters in reply in some cases (the foreign policy historian / expert, George Kennan, for instance).  But I went to a lot of trouble to contact such people, certainly more trouble than pushing a 'Contact Us' button on a website.  Plus, without Google to direct me, how would I be able to find other writers on a topic that interested me?  I wouldn't.  And turning from people to things, places, photos and discussions, one can find what one is looking for at the snap of a finger.

4. Participation.  An important step up for children/teens, compared to pre-internet.  

There's probably very interesting research to be done with people who, as children, watched very little TV, compared to those who watched a lot.  I imagine we'd find that an only child benefits from TV, while not so much for children in large families.  And it's probably the same for the internet and social media.  Texting a friend for the first time, and receiving a return message in reply, is so wonderful, not because you don't also communicate verbally, but because it means one is included in a consciously made partnership.  Communicating with those outside one's family is a relatively big step into the world of increasingly unrecognizable contexts, steps that only get more challenging as life unfolds.  The fact that we can begin to make social decisions on our own at a relatively early age is surely a great advantage if enough supervision is available, when needed. 

5. Expression.   A teen can sit in front of a TV, soaking up all the dialog, acting, and distant settings one encounters on a typical show, but it's only when decisions are made: Where do I want to go on the internet?  What music do I want to listen to?  Who do I want to text, and what do I want to say?  that a mind begins to take shape.  Later in life, the ability to share what makes us happy, and to do so easily, is such a blessing.  Writing, photography, video, music and other common art forms--we'd be so much poorer without social media.

Gamified Work -- Done Right, What It Would Look Like

#302: Hint: Employee Opt-In 

......................

Gizmodo has a review of a recent Microsoft product that allows management to follow worker 'productivity'--to what extent a given employee uses Microsoft features over a 28-day period.  

Framing 'productivity' this way--how many times does an employee speak up during a group chat, for example, could easily prod the average worker to spit out unhelpful dialogue just to score points.  And then there's the somewhat spooky notion that Big Brother is watching your every move, a concern the article highlights.  So, ...What do I think?

Everybody can understand the desire for accountability--a goof who doesn't try, and makes life miserable for everyone else, should ideally be encouraged by gamification to help out.  Just keep it elegant and worker-centric.  But, you ask, ... Why focus on the worker?

For motivation to guide employees towards helpful behavior, each worker must be in control of their own destiny.  Otherwise, motivation drys up, and with it, success; or, coercion milks for fascist joy.

Designing boardgames as a hobby, I've come to realize that engineering a desired end--job motivation, in our case, is usually a simple matter of finding the right fit.  

If, to enhance productivity, one were to begin with an employee opt-in RE: objectively gathered data, and salaries were based on either the opt-in, or a lower, but attractive standard salary, and management never has knowledge of said objectively gathered data, something like 50% or more of a company's employees would be expected to goose their own motivation in order to reach the higher payout.  And, ideally, opt-in reports would go straight to payroll, so that everyone is 'at ease', with management only privy to an overview of how many reach the higher pay level. 

True, management is paying more for employees who self-report their enhanced productivity.  But, this model is engineered so that half the productivity goes to the employee in higher wages, and half to management in higher profits, or some such split.

The details of how the objectively gathered data are constructed are key to a model working well, but are well outside this simple outline of how a generalized system could work.




Saturday, November 28, 2020

A 'Greener', Electric Airship

#301:  Immaculate Transport

...............................

According to this article on the history of airships (probably tl;dr, unless Zeppelins move you), an electric (partly solar) version is in the works.

Many years ago, when in my twenties, I checked out a book from the library on airship potential.  What got me excited was the realization that people could live in roadless wilderness, being supplied periodically from above.

And recently, while driving to work, I noticed how the drop in Fall temperatures haw revealed the uniform takeover of roadside forest by an invasive plant (in this case, false honeysuckle, which retains its leaves compared to other plants, and so the revelation).  The effect is, of course, for invasives to smother native flora.  This got me thinking.

In many cases, to ever return natural ecosystems to their original glory, people will have to actually dwell on land for a decade or two or three, even if they eventually exit the scene.  It'll be their life's work to thin a forest (to prevent overwhelming fire), re-introduce native plants, and repair other damage, on one- two- or three-thousand acres.  

Life in a wilderness, even if part of a human family, would be limiting for most people.  But with modern conveniences (internet to stay in touch, vacations to visit friends and family, some modern comforts), there'd likely be many a willing volunteer (and perhaps vacationers to help pay the bills).  Never a disturbing sound, except the occasional visit, with supplies, from a purring airship.  

Since it's almost impossible to imagine what a homestead would feel like without a road providing the outside world access to one's front door (Has anyone other than oddball hermits ever lived that way?), it could be touted as a pioneer experience, a celebration of this country's early history.  Most likely, we're talking about a state or federal program (on state/federal land) that would train and equip those involved, provide the airships/supplies, and oversee the science-based efforts undertaken, perhaps with Native American tribal advice--and participation.

When I first came up with this idea many years ago (before the internet), I sent it, as part of a newsletter I published at the time, to a friend at an environmental organization.  The reaction was that wilderness needed to be wild, not settled.  I agreed then, and now as well.  I think, though, that some wild-ish areas may need a light touch of some kind in order to return to their original health.  And, if so, it may be that roadless transport has a part to play.


Image: BBC


Sunday, November 15, 2020

Science Questions The Thawing Permafrost Feedback Loop

 #300: Truth Or Consequences

.......................

If there's a scarier argument for doing something about Climate Change, I haven't heard it: 

 --- As global temperatures rise, permafrost releases trapped methane, creating greater warming

But, apparently, climate scientists aren't on board.

Fine, science doesn't care what works in spreading a climate message.  And yet, ...I just hope the scientists are right.  

The good news here: there's no reason to give up hope.  We can do this.

Monday, November 9, 2020

Sunday, November 8, 2020

Biden Tele-Events: I Imagine One

 #298: Getting Facts To Those Who're Being Played

..............................

My previous post suggested that the Fox News viewers in this country could be reached by cutting out the middleman (Fox News and its ilk), and presenting television entertainment, complete with celebrities and comedians in a 'live' format.

Here's an example of what I have in mind:

President Biden has 2-3 celebrities on Zoom.  The focus tonight is explaining Science.  After a few warm-up exchanges, he starts with Neil deGrasse Tyson, who explains:

"Let's say you're guessing which size screwdriver to use.  You try a big one.  Nope.  Next size down; perfect.  That's science at a very basic level.  It's you testing something out.  In the end you find the right answer and you get to work.  The typical scientist is doing that x 1,000.  And, once that scientist finds the right screwdriver, there's no reason to keep looking.  Science is like that.

Biden then introduces a 20-second Climate Science video, emphasizing that it's only 20 seconds.  Afterwards: "Science knows the answer already.  And get this, the answer is cheaper, and creates more jobs.  So, its a no-brainer."

Next is a lighter moment with a different celebrity.

Each night's half-hour show is promoted based on the scheduled guests.  There's no killer like "Topic: Climate Change" to weed out the curious from the already initiated.

Something for each age bracket.  A general script and 3-minute delay, with celebrities and experts doing the heavy lifting.  Biden keeping it lit.

  

Saturday, November 7, 2020

How Might Biden Get Himself Heard By Trump Voters

 #297: Is There A Fix To The Fake News Problem?

..................................

Trump voters rely on Fox News and other pre-configured media to keep them up to speed.  And we can be sure this'll be the same pattern in the Biden years just as it was over the past decade or two.  Or will it?


What if there was a way to reach those who question science, trust in traditional authority, and adopt the latest MAGA info with little discretion?  Well, ok, those are voters Biden is unlikely to reach.  But, what about those who had to think twice before voting for President Trump?


A possible way around conservative media, akin to President Roosevelt's fireside chats (which effectively cut out the reporter as middleman) would be entertaining, televised events that combine lighter comedy and heavier public policy, with the president as host.  President Biden could invite experts on a particular issue that he was promoting.  He could also invite comedians and celebrities to attract a large audience.  


In the age of Covid-19, such events might have to be virtual, but given improvisational talent, like a Stephen Colbert or a Seth Meyers, it wouldn't matter.  


'No' to comedy?  Fine, keep it serious.  Invite both conservative and progressive figures.  Have fact checkers on hand to resolve conflicting claims.  Most importantly, bring unbiased information to those who rarely hear it.  And secondarily, get free media exposure that could help pass proposed legislation.  Speak out.

Monday, November 2, 2020

Inside The Mind of a Trump Voter

 #296: American 'Independence' = Think For Yourself

..........................

What's it like to be a Trump voter?  Imagine not thinking for yourself, and instead relying on others to clue you in.


An easy way to imagine that reality is to remember that only recently has the human mind thought for itself.  Prior to the Renaissance and Enlightenment, just about everyone adhered to beliefs set forth by the authorities.  Not only were alternate worldviews unlikely, given a bare-bones education, they were often dangerous ("I could be shunned by my community").  And though western civilization has slowly moved toward independent thinking, we're still working at it, and there's still occasional back-sliding.


The genius of our American democracy is that we enshrined independent thinking as authority (everybody votes).  So, those who couldn't justify independent thought on their own could simply agree,  patriotically, that America's system was the best, or the least objectionable authority possible.  This unified the independent and non-independent minded.


Of course there were bumps along the way: the notion that your neighbors, boss, and local politicians would defend your rights, no matter how you might vote, was only redeemed by the late 1800s move to a 'secret ballot'--independent thought reaching its logical conclusion.  And of course voting rights have, as a rule, required expansion.


The Trump voter, though, is now able to latch onto a wholesale undermining of our democracy in the person of President Trump.  That's because paying lip service to America as 'the land of the free', and other patriotic evocations, has become detached from the essential tenets of a democracy that in fact make it 'the land of the free'.  These detached tenets include: 

* respecting the will of the people (when losing an election means it was 'rigged'), 

* upholding basic rights (when journalists are "the enemy of the people", and those assembling peacefully are tear gassed to make way for a photo op), 

* looking out for the national interest ahead of one's own (when encouraging a foreign adversary to help win an election is mere electioneering),

* evincing a hands-off approach to justice (when using the DOJ to dissemble, and fabricate charges against one's opponent, is par for the course). 


Why, then, aren't there alarm bells going off in a Trump voter's mind?  Well, that voter is either: 

A) Incapable of defending the stray, contrary impulse occurring in an ordinary life:  " ObamaCare's been good to me, but I just don't understand all the facts and figures; and Trump says he's got a plan."

B) Linked through a support network of individuals to an agreed upon underdog role: "The guys I like to hang with send me some awesome MAGA info (implicit: 'strength' is derived from belonging, rather than one's ability to reason independently).

C) Accustomed to a social order that rewards uniformity over maintaining high standards, even if there's misogyny, racism and incompetence involved: "Sure, he may have done a few bad things, but I've always voted Republican, and so's this town." 

D) Completely focused on the strange Trump charisma of jocular couldn't-care-less, easy-peasy, accordion-playing hands, age-defying hair, and weird displays of alpha-male dominance.

E) Profiting from the lowering of standards, and thus not interested in their upkeep.

Or, more likely, a sloucher's shuffle of all five, topped off and guided by access to the kind of foolhardy propaganda that tricks those lacking independent thought into believing they are the righteous vanguard.

And what does someone who relies on outside authority invariably do when confronted by a choice?  Obviously, they'll seek traditional authority where they've always found it (the Republican party, Fox News, wild-eyed talk radio), or, if these raise doubts, any source that demonstrates perceived strength (confidence, muscularity, wealth, certainty, dominance of others), for this is how authority and its followers have traditionally been defined (the underling's glory; the overlord's example: "He just tells them where to go; that's so exciting").

What is so massively ironic is that freedom is based on reasoning for oneself.  To be free is to have an honest conversation within one's mind, and to wholly own paths taken and decisions made.  

And, when choosing the best path forward, one wants all the available information in unbiased form, to determine what is valid, and what has the highest priority; that is, the best science. This internal, honest dialogue unifies the mind, and so focuses all energy on one's goal, thus freeing up energy spent on what's otherwise infighting and the suppression of impulses.  The result is freedom's unlimited potential, within the individual, and for a nation.  

Incidentally, a reliance on outside authority is why a large majority of sex scandals involve Republicans.  Since they tend not to think for themselves, and instead adopt an outside authority's say-so, the result is an imperfect mix of suppression and impulse (with the control that's imposed often an unnatural fit, leading to more impulse).  This failure to be honest with oneself and the world defines the Trump persona and his followers' delight in its aggressive manifestations.

Here's an additional discussion of why some voters will pick Trump over at Paste.