Lab-Rat-Ness of College

My response is to the first article. I feel like I am often being experimented on. The author says “When faced with a plethora of information, many people try to multitask, but scientific research suggests that this does not help. René Marois, a neuroscientist and director of the Human Information Processing Laboratory at Vanderbilt University, measured how much efficiency is lost when two tasks are carried out at the same time. The first task involved pressing the correct button in response to one of eight sounds, while the second asked subjects to say the correct vowel after seeing one of eight images. When given the tasks one at a time, the participants’ performance for each task was not significantly different. However, when asked to perform the two tasks simultaneously, the subjects significantly slowed in their performance of the second one.” My instant thought went to—“How does this apply to me?” Well, let me tell ya… Three English response essays on top of a communication blog response on top of a Calculus 2 Exam on top of a Biology Test on top of a communication article response on top of a mid-term paper due on top of a Bible mapping project on top of a meeting with the vice president on top of an SGA meeting with the president on top of thirty thank you letters to write on top of getting the information for those letters on top of a meeting with student accounts on top of sending my sister off to VA on top of arguing with financial aid on top of scheduling a car repair on top of doing my Calculus homework on top of work on top of Lab on top of Math lab on top of on top of on top of you name it. So it is scientifically proven that doing two things at a time makes you less efficient than doing one thing at a time—then I must be scientifically distracted so as to be worthless. Sometimes, like now, I am amazed at just how much each one of us really does in a day—every single moment is indescribably complex. I think that I am just a lab rat in the experiment of college that is trying to prove the hypothesis that I can do more and more and more things and still remain good at each of them. To be honest I think that that idea correlates fairly close to this experiment found in the first article—but I do believe that the variables differ greatly, and that it would be hard to find a set control and system of measuring my performance—thus we may have to leave my experience out of the science journals for now.

The world's a bunch of talentless hacks... Apparently...

Is the world really lacking in talent? Is that what we want to chock it all up to? We're all just getting too lazy or too unimaginative? I believe we're accelerating too fast for our own good. With all the information out there now, it's tough just to stay up to date on current events. Maybe it's not the lack of talent that's plaguing the world, rather the lack of such specialized and highly skilled talent. As our world progresses into the future we consequently have more to learn and more skills to attain. We're just expected to keep up with the exponential increase in information.

So how does this affect our communication? When it takes fifteen minutes to recoup from a text message, it's no wonder teachers hate cell phones in class. We can't multitask very well and that affects our grades when 90% of us text every few minutes in class. Imagine if we could eliminate all distractions in class and effectively take notes and pay attention - tests would be an easy review rather than the most loathed experience of all education. Our lack of talent problem would most likely be solved. If we could do the same for work, we'd save billions, literally.

"One estimate for the financial cost to the American economy of such lost productivity puts the figure at as much as $650 billion per year. "
~Daniel Tammet

So why is it that we let these distractions keep going without check? Maybe it's because we'd lose the human side of life if we bound ourselves to such a strict bureaucratic approach. Maybe it's because we just don't want to believe the facts. Until the problem is solved, assuming it gets solved, we'll just keep on lacking for talent and losing billions of dollars.

4 get it

If I wrote a 2151 word essay on how there is too much information in the world, I would follow that up with a 30,000 word essay on how writers kill trees. 

We live in a world where the word “information” is associated with identity theft. We live in a society where emails offer larger “lifestyles” in order to compensate for our low self-esteem.  We live in insanity when Barnes and Nobles are considered our libraries and our libraries are considered porn shops. And when we ask ourselves “Is there an information overload?” I say to everyone, “No ladies and gentlemen, just an idiot overload.”

No matter how much information is out there, certain people hit a limit on how much they are willing to maintain, but that might not be a bad thing. Meet Jill Price. She at the age of 42 she cannot forget a single day since the age of 14. She has been diagnosed with hyperthymestic syndrome. Simply understood, it means you have an extensive memory of every day of your life. It may seem like this may be a good thing, but in reality she has trouble coping with the syndrome. Imagine reliving your husband’s death over and over again in your mind.

Humans are designed to forget. If we did not forget, we could never forgive entirely, or move on towards other endeavors. So no matter how much information there are in the universe, Wikipedia stands no chance in overwhelming the forgetful mind, and we as functional humans should be thankful.

             http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4813052&page=1

 

How much is TMI?

Daniel Tammet essentially asks us the question in his article, "Can learning too much, too fast be harmful to human beings?" He uses examples of corporate efficiency, neuroscience and the technologically strange to make his case. And to some extent, I believe his point is valid- that we, as limited human beings, can be overexposed and overwhelmed by the vastness of our own Information Age.

However, I think the answer to the question he raises is most likely obvious to anyone that has spent any deal of time surfing Wikipedia as I sometimes find myself doing. I simply do not retain even a fraction of the information I am exposed to, but I remain a functional person. I am swayed further, though, by the research of a German scientist named Gerd Gigerenzer who has made a name for himself by proving just how simply our minds actually work, even in the presence of an overwhelming amount of information. His research as the Director of the Max Planck Institute of Human Development has shown that most human thought processes follow simple rules, called heuristics, even when challenged to solve complicated tasks.

Consider how baseball players catch a ball. It may seem that they would have to solve complex differential equations in their heads to predict the trajectory of the ball. In fact, players use a simple heuristic. ... The heuristic is to adjust the running speed so that the angle of gaze remains constant —that is, the angle between the eye and the ball. The player can ignore all the information necessary to compute the trajectory ... and just focus on one piece of information, the angle of gaze."

 

I believe that even though we are now exposed to the largest tsunami and resulting flood of information humanity has ever seen, we human beings will continue to follow very simple, but effective rules as our astrolabe. What simple rules do you navigate by? http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gigerenzer03/gigerenzer_index.html 

I also strongly recommend Gerd's book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious to those further interested. 

FYI: Y have too much I

Here we are, the information age!! Has the amount of information today produced too much mental-pollution just as the industrial age produced too much pollution-spewing machinery? Has the amount of information today really "detract[ed]" from our quality of life, as David Shenk would suggest? I would certainly agree with the observation that the information overload has increased multitasking significantly. Is this healthy? I would offer that, though I've heard that some research suggests our generation is getting better at multitasking, the proliferation of multitasking has been a detriment to society- texting while driving, anyone? Texting while in class, anyone? Ever had to ask your mom to repeat something because you were... texting? Ha ha, okay, I'm not condemning texting, and I really like the ability to text and do something else at the same time. However, I think it is unwise to ignore the fatal consequences of trying to split your concentration between typing "lol" and something like driving. Heck, I've texted while driving before and I realize communication with friends is important but this is human life that's hanging in the balance. If you want any more of an idea of what multitasking can do to someone, watch Seven Pounds, 'nuff said. Again, I'm not condemning multitasking. I'm just warning that the expansion of multitasking is probably doing more harm than good.

Daniel Tammet, also brings up the point that "distraction costs people and companies time and efficiency. I completely agree- by not setting boundaries on personal communication (or just the amount of information one consumes) people are losing time and money. I know that whenever I try to facebook and do homework at the same time, I usually end up doing only one thing: not homework. In fact, Tammet cites research that suggests people need fifteen minutes to refocus after an email or instant message in order to settle into productive work. Imagine the hours of productivity wasted during a single instant message or texting conversation! Tammet, that's a long time!!

The point is made, however, that "information overload may not be quantity of info but our inability to know what to do with it." I think this is an excellent point- when people get accustomed to having information handed to them on a silver Google platter, they want everything handed to them on said platter- including their world view. I think there's a good deal of young people who can't sort through information because they're wandering around in their own TMI-funk, unsure of what they believe because they've encountered so much to believe.

Arnold Brown also provides strong evidence that there is just too much information to keep up with in our society. He says that "[b]usiness increasingly complain that communication is impeded by too much email." I have certainly found this to be true in my personal life. It's nearly impossible to keep track of old friends via facebook, email, phone, im, twitter, text and forge new relationships on top of going to school! Eventually, some of my relationships have dwindled, simply because I cannot keep up with them in the face of everything else I'm doing.

I think ultimately Americans are going to have to accept knowing a lot about a little instead of a little about a lot if we are to combine our expertise into something useful. There is just too much information to try and know everything about everything, and forcing people to ingest colossal amounts of info just to compete is hurting America.

While it's somewhat disjoint from my last point, I feel like this is a handy little quote from Brown to end things with... "Efficiencey-- doing things right-- should not be the goal. Instead, it should be effectiveness-- doing the right things."

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510

I think that having copious amounts of information (at least on the internet) is quite a good thing. For instance, if I am working on a research paper I want lots of data from which I can draw my conclusions. What about if you end up with too much information to effectively sort through or if much of your information turns out unreliable? The solution is simple: the advanced search. The advanced search is a wonderful tool that anyone can use to widdle down countless stacks of articles into a more manageable, more reliable ones.

Now one might say that the advanced search is limited in its use and cannot hope to protect us from being overloaded by the ever increasing amount of information on the internet, but I would disagree. I think that the idea of the advanced search has implications on all facets of our information intake in that WE, we as individuals can act as search engines seeking out that information which we might or might not ingest. Look at it this way, there is only a certain amount of information you can feed your brain without making yourself sick (sited in the article as “information fatigue syndrome”). For that reason we must and will (for the sake of self preservation) discriminate (where we can) what information we look at, listen to, etc. And as for information that is thrown at us against our will, I think that if we were reaching a point where that was becoming a real problem, we would could find ways to disconnect from and stem that ever flowing tide of information. I mean all it would take would be to give up things like twitter or (gasp!!!) Facebook and most of our worries about information overload would be gone.

And besides all of this, I think we are forgetting one key (and obvious) gift that MOST of us have been given. God has granted us the ability to forget. Sure we are inundated with tons of information daily, but how much of it do we actually remember? I for one can't even remember what I had for lunch two days ago, let alone most of the other stuff from that day. For this reason I think that as normal human beings, our propensity for forgetting things is a natural defense from information overload.

Now let me go back to the beginning of the last paragraph where I stressed the word MOST. What I meant by stressing this word is to bring attention to the fact that the writer of the common readings is not like MOST of us in that he is in fact a savant and subject to much higher levels of comprehension and retention of knowledge. Based on the fact that he is less able to simply disregard or forget information that is thrown at him on a given day, I believe that any views Daniel Tammet might hold on the subject of information overload are inherently biased. I mean how could Daniel Tammet's views on the information intake come close to being relevant when the very way he views data is so completely alien to normal people.

For these reasons, I do not believe information overload is as big of a problem as we have given it credit for.

Our ADD Culture

There really is way too much information and there really are way too many distractions in our culture, as the first article we read pointed out. You may find that when working on a project for school you are actually spending most of that time filing through information or surfing the web on things like digg or facebook (well that applies to me at least). I have one friend who is so ADD, I swear to you he gets distracted from his own distractions when trying to meet a deadline very late the night before. This may be true for a lot of people but what do you expect when we have this magic place called the internet for most of our refernces where any information, valid or absurd, can be pulled up by hitting the "enter" key. This is why some of us, at times, actually begin to hate the internet.

Now as a wise friend pointed out, it's important to differentiate between information and truth, but that seems impossinle to do when we can get hundreds of thousands of results for any given topic on our favorite search engine. Luckily we have things like the "Power Search" as they showed us at the Library presentations (Freshman, you should know what I'm talking about), where we can use a filter to get legit resources from peer reviewed academic journals by experts in their fields. We still can get aburd amounts of results but at least it helps us in the process of narrowing down our potential reading material.

I believe I can remember a lot of details just from reading or watching something one time but there is always a limit to the information we can hold. And as one of the articles talked about, too much infromation can be a bad thing. I liked when it brought up the book Blink because I agree with the argument of instinct. Oddly enough, I base a lot of my life on instinct, so it makes sense to me that acting on instinct is often better then searching you mind for information that may be unreliable. This is why you were probably told to always go with your first instinct whenever taking a standardized test. If you over think something and try to go through all the information in your head you may manage to throw yourself off the righ track.

So though knowing things is good, the proverbial "Man who knew too much" doesn't seem all that absurd.

Is America Really Addicted to the Internet?

The Pew Internet and American Life Project made some interesting points, some that I agree with and some that I don't.  Its true, in my experience, that older people are less likely to use the internet and if they do its for email.  It is also true that the internet enhances social interaction.  There are a variety of websites that are devoted to just communicating with others such as facebook and myspace.  

I was very surprised to read that the United States was not first on the list of broadband users but was eleventh.  Aren't Americans supposed to be the leading force in technology?  Realizing how old this article was (all results are from 2004) I did some researching.  As broadband users increased, so does time spent on the internet.  In 2007, the list of countries with the most average hours of internet use consisted of Canada, Israel, South Korea, United States, and the UK.  The only study that the U.S. won first place was how many users ages 15 and older used the internet.  The U.S. won with 153.4 million users.

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1242

Shocked? I understand that this study is not much younger than the Pew study but still...the U.S. did not win the average hours use?  Stereotypically, American kids spend all day on the computer.  Do we need to start giving America a little more credit?  I mean Israel and South Korea even beat us....

Removed from Reality

http://io9.com/5055863/british-gamer-killed-over-gaming-grudge

Welcome to the dark side, and I don't mean the evil side. I 'm talking about the side that includes the people who live in the dark in their mom's basement in front of a computer screen at the age when they should have a job and should maybe be thinking about getting married and settling down (away from home) sometime soon. This is the dark side of teens who get home from school every day and proceed to step away from reality and into a video game and will remain there for hours at a time, glued to the screen.
Over all, I don't think that these worlds that exist on the internet are a bad thing for people who have some self control, but some people who play these games too much become immersed in these alternate realities that they create for themselves. This article from September of last year is an example of a man who did step away from his computer screen, but forgot to take the crucial step back into reality.
It's a problem that is slowly but surely becoming more prominent. The fact of the matter is that the worlds created in games like W.O.W. and Runescape are much more interesting and fun to many than the world in which we actually live, and some people have trouble choosing these fantasy realms over reality. Reality sucks, and some would rather not have to face it.
This isn't a huge problem yet, but it is a problem that will need to be addressed in some way or another at some point. It will just get worse until someone does something about it.

How Much Potential Does the Internet Have?

In one episode of "The Wild Thornberries" (yes that terrible Nickelodeon show, bear with me), Eliza wonders through the Amazon and comes upon a tribe of hunter-gatherers who she expects to be provincial and devoid of modern technology.  To her surprise she finds that they have cell phones, pagers, televisions, and laptops with internet access.  Even though this may be an exaggeration one cannot help but notice how technology has spread and will worldwide through programs like One Laptop Per Child and maybe eventually to Mars www.astroengine.com/?p=149.

To see just how far we've come lets take a brief look at how at each stage of our development we communicated.  As hunter-gatherers we began to use simple vocal communication.  When we became agrarian we started to use written language.  The first writing was on tortoise shells at about 6500 B.C.E.  It was not until the Victorian Era though that reading spread down to the masses (about 1850 C.E. so a difference of 8350 years).  Once the masses gained literacy all learning broke loose and scarcely 140 years later we developed the internet, a tool that promises to rebuild the Tower of Babel, connecting all peoples.

Are we better for this?  This is a powerful tool.  It potentially connects billions of people which could either create the largest brainstorming group ever or it could create an immense amount of chaos consisting of unorganized ideas and spam.  Presently the effects have been more towards the former.  Our economy has become more efficient.  Have you seen a company that does not have a website?  There are ads for millions of products online on ebay, craigslist, and on the sides of your google search page.  For our entertainment we have videos, ebooks, photographs and other visual art, and music.  Almost every TV show has clips, if not the entire show, on the web.  Ebooks are slowly replacing print.  All classic paintings can be viewed online and many hobbyist post their own visual art online.  What band is not on iTunes or at least doesn't have a myspace?  Even vices are offered online!  Gambling, pornography, and even "legal drugs" are bought and sold online.  The internet is a virtual mega-city.  What is even more exciting is that the internet has brought awareness of ideas to us.  In the seconds I can learn what nihilism is or what Jupiter is made of.  I think we can safely say that yes the internet is beast.

The better question then is since something that is now turning obsolete, books, spawned the internet, what will it spawn and how soon?  If history is a good judge I'd say it will be infinitely better and will come much sooner than we could imagine.

"The One"

Today the Web is 6,628 days old. That number may not be completely correct, but I’m pretty sure I did my math right.

The PEW surveys focused on growth. There's the "Growth of Internet Usage by Gender" line chart and the "HOW USE OF THE INTERNET HAS GROWN" bar chart, but Pew fails to consider how much the internet itself has grown.

According to Kevin Kelly's video on the web at 5,000 days old (this video is 20 minutes long..=/), the Internet started out as the net (linking computers), then the web (linking pages), and will finally become "the One" (linking data). The Internet is growing at an extremely fast rate. You could compare the number of links to the number of synapses in your brain. And the Web to a single human brain...but your brain isn't doubling in size every 2 years. (cue dramatic DUN DUN DUNNNNNN)

Although the Pew survey offered an extremely high percentage of people globally who use the internet, this information is about 5 years old. Internet usage has only grown since then, especially with the introduction of the Iphone in 2007. How did anyone live without those portable little windows to the Internet? Hasn't anyone seen Eagle Eye???? *SPOILER ALERT* The phones and handhelds and telephone lines and the computers are all connected to the Internet. That's how the computer "lady" who lives in the Internet kills people!!!

Yes, the idea of the Internet using its information and unlimited access to everything to kill people sounds a little, ok extremely, far-fetched. As well as Kelly's closing remarks about the future of the web, "There is only one machine. The web is its OS. All screens look into the one. No bits will live outside the web. To share is to gain. Let the one read it. The one is us."
It sounds like some sort of cult that only people who swear by being abducted would join.

But who really could have possibly imagined that Skype would exist, and I could watch my brother blow out his candles on his 10th birthday while sitting in my dorm room? Who ever would have thought of Wikipedia? Seriously. But, in the past 6,628 days, it's all happened. We can't even imagine the next 6,628 days. Kelly predicts that the Internet is becoming an organism, and in a way, it is.

So, I'm not really concerned with the government being the one on the other side of my webcam. I'm more worried about a thing that has access to all my Google searches and facebook conversations....that's just plain scary.

The Future of the Internet: A Double Edged Sword

When I was 5 or 6, we got our first computer.  It had DOS and we loved the little "game" you could play that lit you draw blockish pictures with pixles.  We even got it upgraded to have Pac Man later.  We marveled at the technology.  Now, 13 years later, there's this:

http://www.microsoft.com/SURFACE/index.html

A desk that's surface is a massive touchscreen for a computer.  If this rate of evolution continues, where will we be in twenty years?  There's already rumors of a Yachet that's integrated with the aforementionted technology coming down the pipeline.  What does the mean for communication and our future?

Are the Internet and technology going to be a blessing or a curse for those who take part?  (these days, who doesn't?)

Blackberries already bring the office home, and everywhere else via e-mail.  What about when our Homes start to have computer's that constantly connect us anywhere in our homes or vehicles?  As Orwellian as this sounds, it's not far off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtKQNwqNLLk

Sure, ordering food with a coffee table is bloody amazing.  But, let's say that this table, like all other Internet technologies, is hacked.  Or what if the government takes access of these camera-laden computers?  Who knows what's next, maybe they start banning pleasure in sex?

As crazy of a jump as that is, the point remains: we need to take care that the vast improvement of technology is safe and protected against molestation.  To keep the future of our Internet communications safe, I believe we should legislate safe guards on the use and access of what we have by third parties, including our own government.

I love George Orwell, but I'd love our future to prove him wrong.

How's THIS for communication?

So I'm supposed to be writing my 3-4 minute speech/debate for class tomorrow, but like any responsible college student, I'm putting it off until 1:30AM the night before.
Here's one reason why
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_merrill_demos_siftables_the_smart_blocks.html
These things have the potential to revolutionize communication, learning, and our everyday interaction with the world.
Siftables are like cookie sized computers that can communicate with each other. They can do things such as word games, math, and of course, make music.
The video is only 7 minutes long and is worth a watch.
Though reading a few reviews there are also seems to be some dangers.

"IMO those are toys for grown ups and learning aids for kids, but they can be devastating to children's creative and inventive potential because they simply overtax and bypass the kids' own creative powers too easily and quickly."
~claude pauly

I do hope they're picked up by some company and produced. These little things just have too much potential.

The Internet: Legitimate Communication?

Before the advent of the World Wide Web in the early nineties, most conversations people had took place in person or on the phone. You could see the body language or at least hear the tone of voice of the person to whom you were talking. You could detect nuances in their manner and expression, and usually it was pretty easy to understand what they were saying. Then along came the internet, which has taken over a large part of the lives of Americans and people all over the world. Now you can e-mail, facebook, instant message, or blog your conversations instead of having them face-to-face.
Is this a good thing? Personally, I love communicating on the internet for several reasons. I can keep in touch with people who live hundreds of miles away, and I can communicate very quickly and efficiently with people who live across campus. Frankly, it’s easier to send a quick e-mail to a professor than to walk to his office. The internet gives me options as to who I am able to talk to and how much time I choose to spend talking to them.
On the flip side, I despise the internet because it makes me an anti-social person to a degree. I don’t have to approach people and talk to them in person; simple questions don’t turn into long conversations in which I learn about the other person and connect with them in a meaningful way. Now it seems that deep conversations don’t just spring up naturally; sometimes they have to be forced.
Some people say that the internet is ruining the social skills of American children, for reasons I listed above. Kids can stay holed up in their rooms and chat with people online for hours, even though they will never make eye contact with them. Other people say that social interaction on the internet is just as legitimate as social interaction in person, and that our generation is simply finding a new way to communicate. They say in order for a kid to succeed, he needs to be well-acquainted with internet communication and conduct.
I personally think both sides are right. Yes, the internet is injuring some very valuable aspects of face-to-face communication. Yes, the internet is a fabulous resource and a legitimate source of social interaction. Yes, things are changing, and our generation will simply have to learn to balance internet communication with the traditional form.

http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS
http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS