Seeing that Google’s management (now called Alphabet) is at serious odds with its employees over working in China on Project Dragonfly, it appears that the Google Dilemma is very far from over. I wrote a short series of posts about the cultural misunderstandings between Google and the Chinese Government, and it’s still going on. To keep its own Individualist culture, and to avoid being co-opted by the Hierarchy of the Government security machine, Google must drop Dragonfly. The difficulty is that the Individualist culture impels Google to look for a profit at any cost, and so it doesn’t appear possible to drop Dragonfly.
Conservatives appear to be more receptive to liberal ideas when they are associated with the past. Conversely, though, liberals do not appear receptive to conservative ideas when they are associated with the future.
The abstract concludes :
“A large portion of the political disagreement between conservatives and liberals appears to be disagreement over style, and not content of political issues.”
Lammers, J., & Baldwin, M. (2018). Past-Focused Temporal Communication Overcomes Conservatives’ Resistance to Liberal Political Ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication.
Looking back it’s quite possible to see that everything said in 2018 about Facebook was pretty obvious more than a decade ago. There’s a great deal of wishful thinking about social media and the Internet generally, especially regarding its supposed emancipatory potential. And the problem is deeper than one corporation, however dominant. It hinges on the underlying structure of the Internet. BJ Fogg’s concept of Captology (Computers as Persuasive Technologies) was coined in 1996.
Here’s what I wrote about Facebook in 2008:
Facebook is part of a process of great social change…
…and we probably can’t even begin to guess what the bigger implications are, except that they’re pretty big…
I’ve been discussing this a bit with David, and Ballantyne, and Chris and John have mentioned it; Emily likes Facebook, but Kym’s left, like she said she would.
A fist full of links:
[Is Google Making us Stupid?](http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google)
It’s making the writer stupid, at any rate. It’s making me highly intelligent. And very handsome. Just like my slide rule did in 1978.
Jon Marshall of UTS on
[political implications of open source](http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/portal/article/view/122). This is more like it. A bit nuanced.
[Psychology of Facebook](http://captology.stanford.edu/). This is genuinely fascinating/scary. BJ Fogg teaches students at Stanford how to use psychological techniques to persuade people to do things on Facebook.The subtext is ‘and get very rich’. Don’t read it.
See, it [works!](http://captology.stanford.edu/about/what-is-captology.html)
Charles Leadbetter, ‘[We Think](http://www.wethinkthebook.net). This is the ‘we will all benefit’ view in book form. I’m not sure there is a ‘we all’, though. Inclusion and reward and damage tend to be differential. Discuss.
Clay Shirky, [Here Comes Everybody](http://www.herecomeseverybody.org) – another commentator who’s quite keen on the whole thing. I think Jon Marshall (above) calls some of this enthusiasm into question, without being a doom-monger.
But I liked Shirky’s recent [talk](http://www.shirky.com/herecomeseverybody/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html) on gin and TV as sinks for the ‘cognitive surplus’ of society, which the internet is now changing in interesting ways. Broadcast TV, now there’s a blast from the past.
![‘The Internet isn’t everything Get out of the house’ (cc marcogomez on flikr](http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcogomes/163623497/)
Here’s a photo taken a while ago that never made it into a post. It’s an advert I saw on a bus shelter. It isn’t the clearest photo in the world, but it tells a story. The story it tells is very clearly expressed by the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. It shows that in our society, being an individual is a task we’re assigned. We have to work hard at it. For example, there are things to buy. Buying things also bought by others is the surest way to achieve individuality. The irony, according to Bauman, is that individuality – the mandate of the society of individuals – is thus impossible to achieve. The quotations below are from Chapter 1 of Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid Life. Cambridge : Polity 15-38.
Individuality is a task set for its members by the society of individuals – set as an individual task, to be individually performed, by individuals using their individual resources. Yet such a task is self-contradictory and self -defeating : indeed, impossible to fulfil.
When it is serviced by the consumer markets, the marathon of the pursuit of individuality draws its urgency and impetus from the terror of being caught up, absorbed and devoured by the crowd of runners breathing heavily behind one’s back. But in order to join the race and to stay in it, you first need to purchase the ‘special marathon shoes ‘ which – surprise, surprise – all the rest of the runners wear or deem it their duty to obtain.
(Bauman 2005 :25)
As a task, individuality is an end product of societal transformation disguised as a personal discovery.
(2005:19; cf. 29)
There’s a good summary of Zygmunt Bauman’s Liquid Modernity – Chapter One at Realsociology.
But individuality isn’t the only kind of societal transformation that might be found disguised as a personal discovery. Communality, being part of a group, is also a kind of social demand dressed up as a personal task. There is a Japanese phrase: minna no kimochi. This means something like ‘being of one heart’. One could say: “Our feelings about the game came together and we played well”. Marie Mutsuki Mockett has written about how minna no kimochi is used to explain how political change might come to Japan after the great tsunami of 2011: by everyone feeling united about it.
This approach to the person is a little disquieting, since it encourages us to question the solid assumptions we have about our selves, how we come to even have something called a self, and how this process of ‘selfing’ relates to wider social processes.
I found the University of New South Wales guidelines on history: https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/indigenous-terminology
This is what has got the Australian media worked up enough to produce yet another round of the good old topic of whether Australia was ‘invaded‘ or ‘settled‘. Like Easter, this row will surely happen every year but you can’t quite be sure exactly when.
The Google search for these guidelines shows that at UNSW political correctness has gone mad. Their news feed indicates that very many things are invading, including:
- Indonesia (invaded East Timor, 1975)
- tropical fish
- woody shrubs
- bitou bush
- women in the workforce (a ‘gentle invasion’)
- cane toads
- brush turkeys
- Michael Moore (actually, Moore thinks Australia’s not that great to invade compared with Europe, according to a UNSW student review of his movie, Where to Invade Next)
- The blastocyst (invading the uterus endometrium)
- more cane toads
The list is extensive, but the Murdoch press, using their powers of investigative journalism, have discovered the one and only thing, animal, mineral or vegetable, to have definitely never invaded Australia: the British Navy.
How personal improvement is the new religion… and the old one too
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
It is always the same step, but you have to take it.
—Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Wind, Sand and Stars (quoted in Rubin, 103)
Pilgrim’s Progress on Steroids
John Buchan wrote The Thirty Nine Steps and many other thrillers set in the era of the Great Game. They are classics of a kind, but very much of their time – xenophobic, colonialist and chauvinistic at their best. I was struck recently by an article claiming that Buchan’s writing exhibited a ‘Christian existentialism’. My understanding of this was that unlike the country house mysteries of Agatha Christie, there is no question of whodunit. Instead the hero of a Buchan novel knows very well that he is running for his life. The question is one of survival. Also, unlike the country house mystery, there is no cosy coterie of neighbours who are all potential suspects. Instead it’s almost always one or two plucky heroes alone against the perilous world. This is an individualist quest for salvation. I found it amusing to imagine the great chases through the Scottish Hills as a kind of Pilgrim’s Progress on steroids — and with much higher stakes.
You must change your life
I stood in a bookshop recently for considerably longer than planned, to skim through Peter Sloterdijk’s book You Must Change Your Life. Sloterdijk is a German TV presenter and philosopher who seems in recent years to have taken on the mantle of the greatest living prophet of European philosophy. He seems much more conservative, however, than that other chief contender for the title, Alain Badiou. He is also both a follower of and a challenger of Nietszche.
There is a great deal of interesting stuff in YMCYL, far more than could be accessed in a few minutes standing at a book shelf (see this review, for instance). But the basic idea is that Nietszche’s death of God was perceived as a tragedy, because of the realisation that there is now no-one to tell us how to live our lives. The only thing we have left is the obvious feeling that we could be doing it better, that improvement of the self is not entirely beyond our reach. Between Nietszche’s time and ours, says Sloterdijk, there has been a great proliferation of training regimes, schemes to help us to live better. We look to all sorts of teachers, trainers and gurus to learn the right techniques. He presents a brief typology of these in his book. In fact, he says, we are living in an era of ‘anthropotechnique’, in which we are encouraged to improve systematically.
Actually, though, he claims, we were always doing this. Religion never really existed. Religious leaders were always what we would now call ‘personal trainers’ and religions were never anything but misunderstood training regimes. Unlike Nietszche, Sloterdijk very much approves of Socrates and Jesus in this respect. Indeed the idea of religion as personal training regimen makes some sense. One thinks of the Rule of St Benedict, of the Ignatian Exercises, of the Methodist class. Certainly training the self has been an important strand of Christian piety.
Better than Before
There is a lot to like in Sloterdijk’s approach. Gretchen Rubin has recently published a book called Better than Before: Mastering the Habits of our Everyday Lives. After reading Sloterdijk it’s hard to avoid seeing such a title as the latest in a long line, not just of self-help books, but of spiritual exercises along the lines of Sloterdijk’s claims.
Where I would take issue with Sloterdijk, however, is with his belief that we are now secular and that our secularity can be projected backwards into the religious past to make sense of it. I don’t believe that religion never existed. Actually, I’d argue the opposite. It’s not that religion never existed. Rather it’s that secularism does not and will never exist. At least, to be less sweeping than Sloterdijk, religion never really seems to go away, does it? It just mutates into something less incredible, more acceptable and self-evidently true to the culture. For example, in John Buchan’s novels, secular heroes in pursuit of secular aims find themselves recapitulating the (existentialist) Christian quest. The age-weary theme of personal salvation mutates into the plot of a best-selling thriller. I do agree with Sloterdijk that these days, personal training, self help, is our common religion. And like all great religions, it only works when we see it as nothing more or less than practical common sense. Whereas Sloterdijk claims it was never religious, so religion can’t be on the return, I would claim it was always religious, so religion was never on the wane.
Permitted to be Mediocre
So why does this matter? If Sloterdijk is right about religion, that it has always been all about training, we should probably be satisfied with our lot. Membership at the local/global gym, lifehacking websites, books like Better than Before are the best we have any right to expect. After all, if God is dead, anything is permitted to be mediocre (to misquote Dostoevsky). This line of thought seems reminiscent of mid-Twentieth Century social democracy – the kind that was content to put up identical rows of cheap concrete tower blocks in place of the great buildings that both sides in the war had bombed – and without a hint of shame to call it progress, the very definition of the word modern. But if I am right, on the other hand, we should expect much more of our contemporary and emerging religion. The old religion included plenty to be critical of but at least it was impressive. If, now, training is all, we should set much higher standards for our present day training regimes. In place of the Ten Commandments, we have accepted seventeen rules for a flatter tummy. This is an aesthetic and moral capitulation. To give up St Peter’s Basilica and trade it in for a Fitness First gym on every corner doesn’t seem like a good deal to me. I’m not saying the Ten Commandments and St Peter’s are presently fit for purpose. I am saying that what has replaced them barely is. Ironically, then, it seems I still haven’t found what I’m looking for. When it comes to the religion of our time, I still believe we can, collectively, be better than before.
Note: I have been testing out Dave Winer’s new blogging platform, myWord.io and making it an excuse to learn MarkDown. You can check out the result if you like.
Image credit: Illustration for Pilgrim’s Progress, Gertrude Hermes. CC Ross Griff
You should probably know, dear readers, that a journalist information warrant to secure data retention for this website does not exist and is not currently being applied for.
This statement may now render me liable to two years in an Australian prison.
Sorry to any regular readers who don’t like partisan rants. Leave the page now. Normal service will resume shortly. Maybe.
I’m cross because both main parties in the Australian Senate agreed to pass a very flawed bill on data retention. Here is just one of the many ridiculous and offensive clauses taken from the third reading of the bill, which was voted into law quite comfortably by people who should know better about technology and who have little regard for human rights. I am happy to break this law flagrantly and will continue to do so until it is repealed. The statement at the start of this post might be breaking Section 182A of the new Act in two different ways. I encourage all Australians who care about privacy, government overreach or poor legislation to put the statement on their websites and emails, then turn themselves in to the police. Don’t worry if you don’t have a computer – to attract a two year jail sentence you can just speak the phrase into your phone.
182A Disclosure/use offences: journalist information warrants
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses or uses information; and
(b) the information is about any of the following:
(i) whether a journalist information warrant (other than such a warrant that relates only to section 178A) has been, or is being, requested or applied for;
(ii) the making of such a warrant;
(iii) the existence or non‑existence of such a warrant;
(iv) the revocation of such a warrant.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
Watch the deceptively softly-spoken Senator Scott Ludlam’s critique of the bill.
the Australian Government still can’t tell us how much it will cost; most importantly, they can’t tell us how they would protect the data which is now going to be something of a honey pot for people with malicious intent – and most importantly, they can’t tell us how trapping and storing the private information and the records of 23 million innocent people will make us safer or reduce the incidence of crime.
Finally, thank you to the 16 senators who voted against.
If coding isn’t the new literacy, what is?
According to Chris Granger, modeling is.
Modeling is creating a representation of a system (or process) that can be explored or used… To put it simply, the next great advance in human ability comes from being able to externalize the mental models we spend our entire lives creating.
Incidentally, this is corroborated by Douglas Rushkoff’s very brief history lesson, Social Control as a Function of Media, in which he predicts that the corporate controllers will only encourage programming skills when the programs of the masses can already be assimilated.
self-organisation is a high-level property that emerges from the underlying network, not a feature of any of the individual components.
This has interesting consequences. Where any part of the mechanism is sensitive to the environment, the whole self-organising loop can be too.
See also: redundancy and resilience
“Kahan’s argument about the woman who does not believe in global warming is a surprising and persuasive example of a general principle: if we want to understand others, we can always ask what is making their behaviour ‘rational’ from their point of view. If, on the other hand, we just assume they are irrational, no further conversation can take place.”