Tuesday, March 3, 2009

So where do we go from here. Well lets start with the big question: how has it changed us? Having access to the most intamate aspects and mundane utterances of 1,574,313,184 people has changed us in big ways some good some bad (source: Internet World Stats).
  • For starters its changing the way we think and I say for the better. As one who has consistently struggled with facts and figures having instant access to every single iota inforamtion known to man including 404,000 different results for "how a flux capacitor works" found in .21 seconds. So instead of getting bogged down in mucky facts we can spend more time creating meaningful connections. Interesting article from the The Atlantic.
  • It's slowly gnawing away at the social fabric of the human race. So while we are increasing our ability to form new and creative connections in our brain our ability to form new and creative relationships with people is slowly degrading. All those neat ideas and nobody at a cocktail party to share them with. In fact several researchers at the University of Michigan conducted a study on this very subject and found a strong correlation between facebook friends on and perceived popularity. People with 300 facebook friends tended to be the most popular.
  • It's the best and worst thing to happen to the practice of science, since like forever. The scientific community like any other group whose practitioners must adhere to a strict set of principals and practices lest they be cast out forever (religious leaders anybody?), develop a manner of elitism. And In a practice where radical ideas and theories thrust the discipline forward this environment is most detrimental to it's advancement. Like the written word before it (yes I am comparing the internet to the invention of written language) the web provides a place where all ideas maybe given equal credence; judged by the merit of the theory and the quality of its evidence alone. Herein lies the problem like 90% of people will never look at the quality of supporting evidence, much less it's existence. Ideas spread like wildfire in an Australian outback (too soon?) and evidence is pushed to the wayside. On the plus side people pushing revolutionary ideas now have more of a voice than ever before, but the almost virus like dissemination of ideas is without an adequate dam to hold back the deluge of information pouring forth from your computer.

Sources Cited
-Billout, Guy. Is Google Making Us Stupid?. The Atlantic.
-World Internet Usage Statistics. Available from Internet http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

5 comments:

  1. I have to respectfully disagree with you where you argue that "the web provides a place where all ideas maybe given equal credence." There are whole movements on the web--like Pro-Anorexia, for instance, that manipulate and target certain demographics in painful and negative ways and while some people are buying into those things, I think the majority of people are busy making sure that those movements/ideas/etc. are not given any kind of credence. There are people fighting those ideas and bringing their harmful natures to light and pushing their agenda just as hard, if not harder, than the people using the web as a tool for manipulation are. I would also like to point out how quickly most hate sites are pulled down by their servers. While there are plenty of people out there putting up dumb/misguided/hurtful things on the internet, I definitely wouldn't say that all ideas are given equal credence... mostly due to the services (wanted or not) by people I could only dub as being internet vigilantes.
    Does that make any sense?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with your perspective Holt. Although now Brooke's comment does make sense to me, it's striking that, the idea didn't give me the sub-conscious (wWRONG) which for some reason now is catching on like wildfire.

    Have you noticed this? People now say Wrong as slang for No, or just in disagreement. Thinking about this in relation to your points about how the spread of knowledge and its relation to collective consciousness, makes it seem like in the information age getting correct information is the ultimate goal. Not that it wasn't before, but the focus on this aspect has greatly increased with the influx of incorrect information.

    But then what really deems things as incorrect or correct if not just relativity?

    I need a cocktail and party if I'm going to keep trying to think in this realm of sewing the sheets of consciousness together. This is hard work; it's interesting to see that we share some opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In fact several researchers at the University of Michigan conducted a study on this very subject and found a strong correlation between facebook friends on and perceived popularity. People with 300 facebook friends tended to be the most popular."

    Do you mean these people are more popular in non-facebook settings, or they are considered the most popular ON facebook? The latter would seem obvious, but the former I would like to know more about?

    As far as "It's the best and worst thing to happen to the practice of science, since like forever.", it took me a few minutes to realize what you meant. The overwhelming torrent of data DOES make it easier harder to sift through and find good information, but it also makes disinformation easier and harder a the same time. I think that over time, the internet won't be a new thing that we have to adapt to, the currents that we navigate clumsily now will be natural to the next generations and it will be like using a phone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your blog no doubt has some interesting points. I may be a little off the subject but when you stated "So while we are increasing our ability to form new and creative connections in our brain our ability to form new and creative relationships with people is slowly degrading" it made me re-think some of my relationships. Are we neglecting the true, physically present people in our lives, for online "friends"? Imagine all that we could missing out on!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Forgive me Brooke, when I said credence I think I meant equal voice. Given that I think the examples you gave seem to back up what I'm saying, as you said websites promoting a pro-anorexia platform either go down or are exposed for their preposterous claims. Which is what I'm saying that in the beginning ideas helpful or harmful have equal voice but will eventually be judged on their merit

    ReplyDelete