Maggie Jackson| 09:18 UK time, Tuesday, 29 September 2009
( is an award-winning columnist and an author. She , lectures and writes largely about the social impact of technology on our lives. The following post is published with kind permission and represents Maggie's views; this does not necessarily reflect the views of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or the Digital Revolution production.)
Who are we becoming in the digital age? Don't look to your cell phone or laptop for answers.
To probe this question, we need to consider a much broader landscape than the gadgets that we now hold near and dear - and look to as cognitive appendages.Ìý Instead, turn back the clock a century, even two, and you'll already begin to see a world of shattered distance, virtual relations, mediated experience. I once stumbled upon a riveting novel called about virtual relations - published in 1880. The book fictionalized the affairs of telegraph operators, falling in love in code. Long ago, the advent of the railroad, car, jet, telegraph, telephone and camera seeded the vast changes in human experience of time and space that we grapple with today. As once observed, "the greatest turning points in human history are often triggered by changing conceptions of time and space."
As a result, we now live in a world of 24/7 living, bountiful multitasking, and portable relations and thought. The cultural geographer describes place as a 'realm of pause' and space as a 'canvas for movement.' We now inhabit space - a boundary-less, ever-shifting domain of simultaneity. The brain is plastic, and so is this age. And that's good.
Still, I'm worried. These digital age wonders will be squandered if we can't think critically, research well, and evaluate the data-floods we now have at our fingertips - and these are precisely the skills alarmingly lacking among both digital natives and older generations. Half of . Workers now , half the time interrupting themselves. As David Nicholas points out, we spend our time online 'power-bouncing' from info-snippet to data-point. And this propensity to rely on point-and-click, first-up-on-Google answers, along with our growing unwillingness to wrestle uncomfortably with nuances or uncertainties, keeps us stuck on the surface of the 'information' age. We're too often sacrificing depth for breadth in the ways we make sense of the world.
Yes, we've always had 'power bouncing' and distraction. And surfing or may have an important place in 21st-century society as strategies of learning. But going forward, we need to do much more than hopscotch across the web, split-focused and pulled this way and that by choice distractions. We cannot mistake fragmented, diffused attention as avenues of higher thought. Instead, we need to do better at cultivating - perhaps resuscitating? - deep focus, keen awareness and meta-cognitive 'executive' attention - the skills crucial to creativity and problem-solving.
Where to start? If we can 'green' the earth, we can clean up our noisy, interrupt-driven environment, in part by setting times and spaces for focus and reflection. Science now tells us that attention can be trained - so let's start teaching these skills to our kids. If we can control and hone our powers of attention, then the real question before us in this confounding, alluring digital age won't be "who are we?", as much asÌý "who do we want to be?"
Dan Biddle| 12:17 UK time, Monday, 28 September 2009
There are concerns being raised on the Digital Revolution blog about what the web is doing to our minds. Reading these blog posts and the comments they inspire, I can only conclude it's making some of us a lot more analytical, better informed, and more engaged with current issues (and their history) than ever.
Here's the weekly round-up of conversation and debate on the blog, followed by some news on the coming changes in the site as the production moves into its next phase of open source activity.
Programme four - the web is changing us
Building on the questions raised by Susan Greenfield in a previous post, Nicholas Carr joined the blog to question the web's effects upon our previously 'contemplative minds'. 'For most of the past 500 years, the ideal mind was the contemplative
mind. The loss of that ideal, and that mind, may be the price we pay
for the Web's glittering treasure.'
Much of the concerns raised in this area tend to spotlight 'multitasking' as an emerging mental process which the web is said by some to be encouraging. Nick Carr cites a recent ; @SheffTim pointed us towards a video reporting the study:
Nick Carr observes: 'Heavy multitaskers are "suckers for irrelevancy," said the lead researcher, Clifford Nass. "They're distracted by everything."'
@EnglishFolkFan raised the (seeming) lack of data taken into account in the study. That a degree of preference orÌýpredilectionÌýfor 'multi-tasking might come from a personality type as described by the MBTI, which might be present before the web's (potential) influence.
This subject and supposition - that the web is affecting our minds in a 'negative way' - was generally met with a torrent of contradictory links and opinion - bothÌýimpassionedÌý²¹²Ô»å empirical in content.
'"We're not defined by our own creation!" --- Stephen Colbert (02:20 to 02:50 in the video).'
And from this @APNAB extracted the rather lovely thought: 'Since we're ultimately responsible for the language, we're responsible for the culture and the future.ÌýWE are changing the Web and its ability to proxy our consciousness rather than the Web changing our contemplation.'
@oxfordyorick offered some very interesting insight into the possibility of an increasingly... not exactly symbiotic, but intimate relationship between the web and its users. His thoughts and links regarding the rise of are fascinating; likewise the notion that our increased networking may be leading to a not altogether beneficial hegemony:Ìý
'the odd result that extensive Facebook exposure seems to be contracting
the list of first names used for newborns: it is as if linking to
larger intimate groups, and seeing what names they use, is causing a
higher degree of mutual name-copying and the proportion of first names
occupied by the top ten, names, say is shrinking in the English
speaking world. This effect, if transferred to the realm of ideas,
could be one we might not like: peer pressure to conform might grow in
a way that would not need to be enforced by any Government or law.'
Interestingly Professor David Nicholas added a blog post that, while concurring with Nicholas Carr's assertions of 'skittering' minds and readers, wondered whether there was any proof that the good old text book, newspaper or novel was always 'read well' and necessarily consumed by the majority in a deep and involved manner. (But he warned that a skittering tendency may be encouraged by the web - the same concerns expressed by Carr and Susan Greenfield.)
His idea was reiterated by @EnglishFolkFan'Since when did we (in the UK) inhabit a world where everyone obtained rich information from disciplined reading?' and @TaiwanChallenges 'I think we're assuming too much about the mythical golden age of a super-literate focused society. '
For @A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT the issues may lie with the contextualisation of information online: 'The way we're searching for information need not be "dumbing down". In certain ways it can help attune our brains to remember to conjugate keywords in a more intelligent way. What matters is our ability to contextualize content and then interconnect it back to other sources in a sense-making / sanity-checking manner.'
On Twitter sent us a link to information, which has some interesting ideas that build upon Carr's assertions.
Often the topics raised and discussed by both Nick Carr and David Nicholas in his post 'Fast information for the fast food generation' led to considerations of the '' and that the digital haves and have nots (be that or ) and that the deprivation of the web was as serious a problem for humanity as any effects the web may be having on those in its thrall.
Libraries and learning opportunities were also a recurring theme - how people may access information now and in the future - and how some may be advantaged over other by their web access (and training in exploiting that access perhaps).
The hunt for Steven King - creator ofÌýComputer Networks - The Heralds Of Resource Sharing (Arpanet, 1972)Ìýcontinues. It's a lovely film capturing the early days of the internet. If you haven't dipped into this piece of history please do - and if you know anyone who knows anyone who knows Steven - please do let him know we're trying to contact him about his film. As @TaiwanChallenges pointed out - this is our own little foray into the - though at the moment I suspect we'll reach before we reach Steven King...!
Many thanks to those of you who are already helping us in our search. As, - but nothing has come of this contact (so far).
Experiments
@A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT suggests: '@´óÏó´«Ã½DigRev team --- maybe send a help request out to a site like
to get some interviewee or test case perspectives on the differences in
concentration they're finding online compared with their lives off-line?'
We include some of Aleks' photos from the trips in her vlogs, but for the full experience of her journey so far with Digital Revolution here's Aleks' Flickr stream from the production:Ìý
---------------------
Digital Revolution's next phase
The Digital Revolution open source project reaches a new milestone this week. Film rushes are returning from the crews already on location and we are gradually getting these processed, transcribed and ready to place online for your delectation, download and use.
Yes - download and use. You can take the longer clips of rushes that we put up and use them under the terms ofÌýa unique ´óÏó´«Ã½ permissive license. I'll leave the technical details of the license to Dan Gluckman to explain in a subsequent blog post, but the essence is that you could make your own documentary about the web, based on our interviews and footage, before we do. An utterly unique proposition in the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s history - we are incredibly proud to be able to make that offer.
This signals a shift in the production team's workflow - a second phase of the open source documentary. As we commit more time to delivering the rushes video content, and the programme teams finalise their scripts and set out filming that content, the discursive 'think piece' posts of the blog will need to give way to the video content - the interviews and opinions raised in those interviews - and, of course, the opportunity to download that content and create your own new films.
We do have more guest blogs to come and the conversation continues. All content we're delivering (video, text, stills...) remains on the blog platform, and so open to comment and debate as before, but the opportunities for the multiplatform team (Dan Gluckman and myself) to create detailed posts such as this one will no longer be there. Nor will this round up (digest) of the blog be as accessible to the teams filming in the field. So this will likely be the last detailed Revolution Round-up for a while. Fear not - I'll still be reading and commenting though - I ain't going anywhere!
An exciting new phase. A lot of content to come. A chance to share the video from a series you have helped to shape. Watch this space and keep the comment and analysis coming.
Aleks Krotoski| 15:17 UK time, Friday, 25 September 2009
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Dan Biddle| 11:43 UK time, Thursday, 24 September 2009
More interview rushes arriving from the filming sessions last week; these clips very much around the theme of education and learning between the generations.
Previous guest blogs from Baroness Susan Greenfield, Nicholas Carr and David Nicholas have raised concerns for the effects the web is having upon people's brains and their learning abilities. Here Charles Leadbeater offers an alternative vision of the future of young people's minds and learning in the context of the digital revolution:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
In contrast to this,ÌýÌýconsiders the potential pitfalls in education produced by the digital revolution - specifically with regard to his fears for the demise of books in the learning process of younger generations:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
And talking of generations - this clip from Charles Leadbeater's interview will really test the age of its viewers. Do you find yourself nodding to sweet (or rueful) memories of times gone by, or shaking your head in disbelief that life could ever have been this way...?
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Dan Biddle| 17:24 UK time, Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Rushes from interviews with and 's have come in and we're able to supply a couple of brief clips straight away to whet yourÌýappetitesÌýfor more content to come.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee
recounts his experiences of the early days of the web - the novelty and excitement that led to obsession in some of his friends.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
We also to offer questions for Sir Tim;Ìý:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I'm not sureÌýwe hit the 'details' part of your question there, Dave... ;)
Shami Chakrabarti
Director of human rights campaign group , Shami Chakrabarti, was citedÌýby Baroness Susan GreenfieldÌýas a person who would have something to say about the dissolution of privacy as brought about by the web (as suggested by during the Web at 20 event earlier in the year). It therefore made sense that we should ask Shami just what her views were regards the web's effects upon our privacy and safety:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
So, do you share Shami's sanguine views on the web? That the web's communication and data dissemination potential is no more threatening to privacy than the telephone or the printing press?
As with Sir Tim, the chance to pose their own questions to Shami. Ìý:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Dan Biddle| 11:26 UK time, Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Would you like to see a snapshot of the history of the internet? Our archive researcher, Briony Clark, has discovered this wonderful piece of film titled: Computer Networks - The Heralds Of Resource Sharing (Arpanet, 1972)
This film was made in 1972 by Steven King (not ).ÌýIt includes interviews with lots of the key figures involved in the at and an explanation of how these computer were networked / linked together.
This film is important to the story of Digital Revolution as it is, as far as we are aware, one of the only contemporary films of the ARPAnet project. The film provides a rare insight into the environment and some of personalities which helped shape ARPAnet, and consequently the internet into what we know today. The film also includes some interesting predictions into the future of the internet and how it will develop. (.)
We would very much like to include a short clip from this film within the final Digital Revolution series, but have so far been unable to track down a high resolution copy or the rights holder - Steven King.
If you have any information about this film, have a copy of it, or have any information about Steven King or how we might contact him, we would love to here from you - either here or via the contact us form. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
David Nicholas| 13:16 UK time, Monday, 21 September 2009
(Professor David Nicholas is the Director of the at , a group which specialises in evaluating behaviour in the digital environment using deep log analysis techniques. The group has evaluated behaviour in the news, health, charity and scholarly fields and, perhaps, is most widely know through its work in evaluating the behaviour of the . The following post is published with kind permission and represents David's views; this does not necessarily reflect the views of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or the Digital Revolution production.)
Over the past seven years has been studying the virtual information-seeking behaviour of millions of people from a variety of subjects and countries and has assembled a unique, massive and robust evidence base of how people actually behave on ; not how they say or think they behave (the territory inhabited by the ubiquitous questionnaire and most commentators). Self-report data are flawed because people do not remember (or do not want to say) what they do in cyberspace so we should be wary of what they tell us.
However, the evidence we have collected, obtained from the logs of the websites used, certainly supports Nicholas Carr's contention that we endlessly 'skitter' to cope with living in an information rich, boundless and volatile environment. It shows that information seeking is rapid and horizontal as a result of massive choice, unbelievable and direct access (you can search, yourself, anywhere and anytime), a shortage of time and a reliance on search engines. People bounce along the surface, look at a page or two, prefer shorter items to long ones, rarely spend more than a few minutes on a visit and do not often come back (they are promiscuous).
Where we would disagree with is whether 'skitting' or, as we prefer to call it 'bouncing' and 'power browsing', is a wholly new phenomenon. The virtual environment allows us to view information usage and seeking and the resulting outcomes in detail and on an unbelievable scale because every action of everyone who uses a site is recorded. However, this was not the case in the physical information environment and we really knew nothing about how people behaved and, in the information vacuum, when someone took out a book or bought a paper, the assumption was that they read it all.
So maybe we were living a lie and now we know the reality - we have always been 'skitters'; the universe of linear exposition, quiet contemplation, disciplined reading and study was just an ideal which we all bought into and (more worryingly, perhaps) developed information services and products around accordingly. The difference is, of course, (and this is where the concerns really should lie) is that the opportunities for skittering are now legion and this has created ever more skittering and the pace is not letting-up. It is whether this is all leading to major changes in the way we obtain knowledge, particularly whether this constitutes a possible '', that concerns us most.
Dan Biddle| 16:39 UK time, Monday, 14 September 2009
I should go away more often. The blog has been afire with comment and debate! Many thanks to everyone who has read and shared here.
Looking at the comments of the last week, it's clear that Chris Anderson's projections of the 'Free' world online aren't taken as granted by many.
In response to Chris Anderson's Free discussionÌý²¹²Ô»å @TaiwanChallenges questions, @A_Person_Not_A_Bot offered a bevy of economic considerations and arguments, including a kick out at Moore's Law, proposals of a need for a holistic economic model, and - in wondering what people will pay for on the 'free medium' of the internet - suggested that 'It may be a good idea to interview some tech investors to get additional perspectives on what the market is prepared to pay for and how.'
Not something I'm currently aware we're looking at, but the suggestion has been passed on to the programme three team. A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT also offers 'WE NEED TO FIND WORKABLE INCENTIVE MODELS. That's corporate language
for some form of payment --- in cash / in kind --- for online
participation from us, the ordinary netizen.'
'Likewise, people write reviews on Amazon / eBay / YouTube for fun or
they blog. Before we know it, there's a book deal in place or an
opportunity to be a paid comments reviewer or community manager at
Amazon / eBay / platform X. It's simply the nature of our species and
our innate propensity to exchange and earn value from those exchanges.'
And only yesterday referring us to '' - which appears to be engaging its existing community of trusted reviewers on a more business-like level than before.
Visualising the web
In the last round-up I mentioned ideas for visualising the web, and how conversation on the blogs had led me to think of the web in terms of an anatomy, rather than a geography. A thought that @SheffTim expanded upon with a combination of the ideas - that of a coral reef, which 'dispenses with the need for a controlling 'mind''.
From which seeds and a @TaiwanChallenges developed these ideas further as an ecology in which there are big species - big sites - whose collapse might cause disaster in that web ecology: 'Staying with our ecology analogy, I am going to compare those very few
people who create most of the free content out there with bees. They do
the work that everyone else depends on to make things happen. Bees are
in the news because they seem to be dying out, and without them there
will be no pollination of plants so no food for people and animals, and
no more plants. This new application of PageRank presumably allows us
to figure out which species would be impacted by the loss of the bees.
Can the original PageRank tell us what would happen without a tiny
minority of people producing the majority of content on the internet
for free?'
And: 'I'm intrigued by A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT's comments to the effect that
eventually people are going to get tired of creating free content for
the benefit of commercial organisations. Especially as they don't even
have proper business plans. If normal economics do reassert themselves,
then we're not only facing the loss of the key sites that hold the web
together. We're facing the loss of the worker bees, the tiny minority
that actually produces anything.'
From which arrived an even more scientific vision (analogue) of the web from A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT (though still with a bee theme): 'It's my belief that what we need is to cross-pollinate our quantitative
(aka mathematical) approaches with some holistic qualitative approaches
which are in evidence in biochemistry, such as the way DNA or any
organic mechanism works. We really will benefit from perceiving the
Internet as an ecosystem rather than simply a series of hyperlinks,
document files etc. Web 1.0 can be analogized with the discovery of carbon in its graphite form --- simply sheets of documents. Web 2.0 is the equivalent of carbon as the diamond --- there's more structure, clusters (aka social networks) are being formed. However, what we really want to get to is carbon as it sits and interacts organically within.......DNA.'
Though, they too, liked the notion of a bodily system rather than a geography: 'The body and the brain way of visualization would enable us to
appreciate the interdependency and connectedness of each moving
element.' And further developed the idea here.
An interesting web content visualiser was highlighted: with an example .
@earthgecko considered the possibilities and usefulness of mapping the internet; however this mapping of the internet is an with whom we have met, but we are thinking about the web and mapping that ecology / anatomy which lies across the Net's structure.
Programme four - is the web rewiring us?
@A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT highlighted a number of great links to content to consider. One of my favourites being this presentation by Dr Michael Wesch. It's long, but it's both interesting and entertaining (though please be warned it does contain some strong language when discussing YouTube comments):
Elsewhere she pointed to the which taps into that final moment of the video above, of an opportunity to share and experience others, known and unknown across the globe. And to make a difference beyond the 'cult of me'. (Interestingly the 10 to the 100th project has yet to reveal its winners - something to watch perhaps.)
Web addiction
As ever, one of the joys of Digital Revolution is the opportunity to put our ideas out to you and get them batted back with informed gusto; Aleks' mention of there being no evidence of web addiction in people being a classic case, as to after clinics opening up across the globe were sited as indication of , if not belief.
Molly Milton, director of programme four, also believes there is a case to be made for the existence of online addiction. Presenter Aleks doesn't. Some of you do. It's this discussion at this stage of the process that makes this project so interesting and challenging for the programme makers. Yes-men or women need not apply :)
@SheffTim offered a comment regards online addiction, featuring a list of tell-tale signs you or a friend may 'have a problem': Take a look at the- how many do you put a tick by? I'm almost afraid to check for myself...!
@SheffTim also introduced a precognative item (in light of subsequent blog posts from Susan Greenfield and Nicholas Carr), siting, in relation to ADHD:
'Some psychologists argue that ADHD is not truly a diagnostic disorder
but rather the brain's adaptation to its continual exposure to multiple
bits of data delivered through today's fast-paced technology. They
contend that ADHD is not an illness but simply the result of new wiring
patterns.' Source: https://www.dispatch.co.za
Never dull, we were pointed towards , which moves off from similar base as Wesch's lecture, but then takes... a line of thought less travelled:
'I
suggest a different, even darker solution to Fermi's Paradox. Basically,
I think the aliens don't blow themselves up; they just get addicted
to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or colonize space
because they're too busy with runaway consumerism and virtual-reality
narcissism. They don't need Sentinels to enslave them in a Matrix;
they do it to themselves, just as we are doing today.'
The web's effects on our brains
Baroness Susan Greenfield's speech from the Web at 20 event caused some consternation from the Digital Revolution community. Many questioned her ideas, butÌýfrom the sparks of her statements came a wealth of ideas and suggestions regards the web's effects on humanity.
@Cyberissues pointed us to a study that offered . While Twitter's micro-updates are given by others - as pointed out by @JustinPickard - whose links also point to some (real and virtual).
@LeonCych suggested that the next steps in children's exposure to the web and technology will grow ever more virtual, guiding us towards an interesting blog on virtual technologies and education (and other fun). That inspired for participative and engaging learning in schools from @eyebeams, as well as a few examples of .
It was also pointed out by A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT that in all of these assertions and discussions we lack the voice of the young people Baroness Greenfield and many more are concerned for. Other comments have raised the same. I had the pleasure of attending Tomorrow's Web a few weeks ago, where I interviewed (I say 'interviewed' - I'm no Paxman...) a group of highly web literate and active young people. I have video of their comments on Facebook, monetisation (several of these teenagers already ran internet start-ups!), privacy and more. I will endeavor to get this on the blog asap. AND try to find other avenues for the production to gain more input from younger people.
A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT suggests that we lack female representation in our lists of interviewees and contributers; she proffers that, among many, we should speak to Mark Zuckerberg's mother: 'In my view, Karen Zuckerberg is a key influence in the Facebook
founder's thinking and why he created Facebook in the first place.'
While @earthgecko suggested Google's Marissa Mayer as a strong candidate for inclusion in the Digital Revolution production.
The Open Source documentary
There have been a few comments made regards the clarity of this project's aims, target audience etc.
@TaiwanChallenges asking: '...who your target audience is, and today SheffTim is asking what
your thesis is. A little more clarity about what you want would be nice.'
ÌýAnd we take this on board. The project's Multiplatform Producer, Dan Gluckman, offered a response to these questions and more; it's an evolving process serving to create an evolving documentary - hopefully it will yield more positives than negatives. Like A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT says: 'Potentially, this documentary series can be..........PHENOMENAL in its
socio-demographic inclusions and also, consequentially, affect the
Web's development in positive dimensions.'
as to the Digital Revolution online documentary and the levels of participation by members of the Digital Revolution community. It has set us thinking. We'll get back to you on this. But as I said in response to why we don't have a button to upload a video to the site - the web is there to be utilised in any way you can. If you've got content to share, but we're not providing the tools on this blog, please use other platforms and let us know about it - link to it and we'll come to you. If it's appropriate and we can embed it here - we will.
Another question raised is: 'What is ´óÏó´«Ã½ policy about possibly assigning production credits in the
4-parters to the commentators and those who participate in the content
mashups, which will form part of the project?' Hopefully Dan Gluckman's response that we're still working out the best ways of crediting ALL our contributors helps there.
For now, I can offer you the credit given above, and our considerable gratitude - of myself and the Digital Revolution team - for all your thought, inspiration and input into the project. Many thanks.
Nicholas Carr| 09:00 UK time, Monday, 14 September 2009
( is author of several acclaimed books on technology, writes for numerous publications (including the article ) and . The following post is published with kind permission and represents Nicholas's views; this does not necessarily reflect the views of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or the Digital Revolution production.)
The human brain is an organ that adapts readily to experience. It was once believed that the malleability of our neural pathways ended with childhood, but we now know that even the adult brain is constantly changing in response to stimuli and cues from the environment. "Plasticity," says Alvaro Pascual-Leone, a neuroscientist at the Harvard Medical School, is "the normal ongoing state of the nervous system throughout the life span."
The tools we use to aid our brains in gathering, analyzing, and storing information - what I call our intellectual technologies - exert a particularly powerful influence over the functioning of the billions of neurons in our skulls and the trillions of synapses that connect those neurons into the circuits that govern cognition, perception, and emotion. The influence has been documented by many neurological studies over the past forty years. It is also immediately apparent from even a cursory glance at mankind's history. Intellectual technologies like the map, the mechanical clock and the printing press helped to spur major shifts in the way our ancestors thought, with enormous ramifications for society and culture.
As we celebrate the 20th birthday of the World Wide Web, we would be wise to spare a moment to consider the effects the Web is having, and will continue to have, on the lives of our minds. The Internet is rapidly subsuming all of our traditional communications media, the various tools we use to transmit, discover and share information. We devote more and more of our time and attention to the Web because it is so cheap and convenient to use and so responsive to our needs and desires. A touch of a key or a keypad brings a gratifying response - an answer, a message, a connection. Who can resist?
But as the Web bombards us with an endless stream of entrancing multimedia tidbits, as it prods us to skitter from one task to another, it is also altering the circuitry of our brains. Just as the intellectual technology of the book taught us how to be deep readers (calm, reflective, patient), so the Web is teaching us how to be info-surfers (hurried, distracted, anxious). The neural changes do not go away when we turn off our computer; they persist in the structure and functioning of our gray matter. They become part of our mental "wiring." A Stanford University study, published just last month, showed that heavy "media multitaskers" score much more poorly on tests of attentiveness and concentration than do people who do little media multitasking. Heavy multitaskers are "suckers for irrelevancy," said the lead researcher, Clifford Nass. "They're distracted by everything."
For most of the past 500 years, the ideal mind was the contemplative mind. The loss of that ideal, and that mind, may be the price we pay for the Web's glittering treasure.
Dan Biddle| 10:30 UK time, Friday, 11 September 2009
Ìýintroduced her main concerns with the web's effect upon human being's adaptable brains and behaviour at the Web at 20 event, asking some of the challenging questions that feature in the developing themes of programme four - is the web changing us?
(You can also read the transcript of the video below.)
So, do you feel that the perfect plasticity of your brain is being moulded into a more infantile state by the constant 'yuck' and 'wow' of the web?
Transcript of Susan Greenfield's speech:
And the question I want to ask is not so much what can we do with the web, but rather what will it do to us.
So what fascinates me very much is if human beings, occupying as we do more ecological niches than any other species on the planet, do so because we adapt so brilliantly to the environment; if that environment is about to change, as I think everyone in this room seems to agree it is, then will the brain change in unprecedented ways too? And I think we need to sit back as a society and consider this because on the one hand like with all technology it can be good, and on the other hand I think it could be very bad if we get it wrong.
We might be entering a world that is more sensory than what we would traditionally call cognitive. By definition you have to have something on the screen. Very few, to the best of my knowledge, very few experiences of the screen are just reading words off a screen. So what does sensory images, sounds, what do they do that books do not do, and vice versa?Ìý
Of course I don't want to give a value judgement. You have to ask, is it more important and interesting to have a here and now experience, to have a process, to have the thrill of solving an abstract problem versus the rather lack lustre sensory-poor notion of turning pages for example in a rather clunky way, but having something that actually changes the way you will see the world in a much more perhaps deep or extensive way. I'm not saying that that won't happen if you're on the web, say, but I'm just thinking about young brains exposed to different experiences. And it could be that the multimedia, the sounds and the colours and experience, is so great that that becomes the premium - 'yuck!' and 'wow!' - 'yuck!' and 'wow!' And the short attention span, the thrill of pressing a button and seeing something back in your face, is very different from a long attention span, as you plod through following the author, holding their hand in a sort of slavish way.
One of the most important issues I think, as well as the good thing about IQ going up, is the issue of risk. Obama said that the current financial crisis is attributable in part to greed and recklessness. Now greed are recklessness occur as part of something called a frontal syndrome, when the frontal part of the brain is less active in various conditions.
Could it be - and also this frontal part of the brain only comes on stream in late teenage years - could it be, given the brain is so obliging in the way it adapts, that if you're putting it in a situation where you are living for the moment in a rather infant-like way with lots of sensory experiences, that that could be being changed? And I think that's one of the things that would be very interesting to look at.
My final issue is identity, and it does stun me, Twitter for example, where the banality of some of the things that people feel they need to transmit to other human beings. Now what does this say about how you see yourself? Does this say anything about how secure you feel about yourself? Is it not marginally reminiscent of a small child saying "Look at me, look at me mummy! Now I've put my sock on. Now I've got my other sock on," you know? And I'm just being neutral here, I'm just asking questions, right... What does this say about you as a person?
Molly Milton| 19:55 UK time, Wednesday, 9 September 2009
As Aleks and I discussed in the last blog post, Programme Four is about the web and us. We aim to find out whether there such a thing as 'homo internet-icus', or whether the web, as Sir Tim Berners-Lee has said, is . When we study the web does it reveal that we are changing, or does it actually reveal more about ourselves and our social networks?
Big themes that we want to cover include:
Generation Google
Viral Culture
Friendship and social connections online and in the real world
Whether our brains are being re-wired
Distraction & Multi-tasking
Collaborative Intelligence
People who say interesting things about these themes include:
Duncan Watts
Robin Dunbar
Sherry Turkle
Baroness Susan Greenfield
Jonah Peretti
Steven Johnson
Bill Wasik
Nick Carr
David Nicholas
Maggie Jackson
Connected Kids Ìý Dan Biddle mentioned in last week's round up that we are looking for examples of how the web is helping children make connections to other children in countries very different to their own.
Do you know of a school that has become virtually connected? I'd like to film a dialogue, ideally between 10-12 years olds (though they could be a bit older) from a non-UK (preferably Asian) country communicating with UK kids of the same age. It has to be a project that has been ongoing for long enough that the children have some relationship already. As readers of the last blog post will know, I've been thinking about South Korea as a good country to film in for a variety of reasons - but I am open to other suggestions.
Mind the Generation Gap
Tim Berners-Lee invented the world wide web twenty years ago. Now the children who were born around then (including Sir Tim's own!) are becoming adults; the first generation of real web natives. Never again will there be such a divide between those who have grown up with this new technology and those who haven't. We are looking for a 'Generation Web' family: parents who really feel there is a chasm between their world and the world of their kids. Anecdotally we've also heard that there are web-generation gaps between siblings; they are not just Generation Net, but sub-divided they include Generation YouTube, Generation Facebook and Generation Bebo. If you are such a family or know of a family just like this, please do let us know.
Distracted by Distraction
It's often been said that the greatest casualty of our mobile age is our . I know that I'm endlessly distracted by emails, text messages, phone calls, status updates - but what I'm looking for are real examples of someone's distraction changing the world in a significant way. Ìý Earlier this year, it is alleged that because the majority leader of the New York Senate was , .
Are there any other stories like this out there? Or even video clips - such as the moment when the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi delayed greeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a NATO summit because he was on his mobile.
Presenter Aleks Krotoski and Programme 4 director Molly Milton talk about the themes being explored for the fourth episode of Digital Revolution. (This was filmed at the end of last week before Aleks flew out to the US to start filming programme 1).
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Dan Biddle| 10:34 UK time, Friday, 4 September 2009
The Digital Revolution project just gets better and better to be involved with. The input from guest bloggers and the incredible standard of comments from our users are proving invaluable, both in terms of their information content and their inspiring nature for our production.
As ever, this is my attempt to pull the ideas and the arguments together from another busy week.
The big news for us in the office this week was the departure of the programme one team to start their filming. Things have been manic as the TV production really hit a higher gear in preparation for the flights out this morning - Friday 5 September 2009. If you've been following the tweets and pics, you'll have seen snapshots of the and , but we managed to grab presenter Aleks Krotoski and director Philip Smith for a quick idea of the mission ahead:
While the team is out in the field filming, Philip and Assistant Producer Tilly will be tweeting wherever possible on our . You can also follow the fireworks (literally perhaps, when in New Mexico) via Ìý²¹²Ô»å her video blogs which we should start getting back from location next week.
Or even sooner, if is anything to go by!
***
Meanwhile, away from the panic and planning of programme production, we have enjoyed a healthy, informed and informative debate across the themes of the series.
Programme three - the cost of free
Chris Anderson's videos have consistently sparked argument, and his latest on the subject of the internet as the world's first 'free' medium has again proved provocative. Chris argues that the costs of production (and dissemination) of media across the net are so low now as to afford a sustainable medium of free content; however this has been met with a number of rebuttles from @SheffTim and @A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOT that we in fact pay for 'free' internet content in numerous ways - utilities such as the Internet Service Provider charge and electricity itself to allow you to run the machines that access the free content.
@A_PERSON_NOT_A_BOTÌýmakes a number of compelling arguments against Anderson's 'free' model, one of which tackles the fees charged by 'talent': 'Chris Anderson argues for "free" at a time when, not only Murdoch and other media giants like Google/YouTube are examining more sophisticated pay business models, the likes of Simon Cowell were reported to be in negotiations to earn US$144 million PER YEAR to continue with American Idol, which arguably has the biggest viewing audience (and advertisers' dream) in the US. More than Wired.com enjoys, for sure!'
On Twitter we asked '? ie: if provider started charging you'd walk away or switch?' To which we received a good number of responses including:
@ateen83
@nevaliÌýÌý²¹²Ô»å followed up withÌý
@fuzzybugÌý
@cyberissuesÌý
@technicalfault
@magnusramageÌý
There have been a series of discussions around, not only free content, but (by association) free labour - be that through the efforts and diligence of the Open Source movement building free systems and web tools such as Linux, or the kind of crowdsourcing and group effort in evidence here on the Digital Revolution production.
@TaiwanChallenges offers 'a very interesting observation I came across recently is that extrinsic motivations (eg money) apparently lead to poorer outcomes than intrinsic motivations such as the joy of doing the task.' Following up withÌýÌýon the problems of incentivised tasks.
AddingÌýto Aleks' original thinking around the web's use of our data @TaiwanChallenges also offers: 'Most 'free' services are offered by people with something to sell, making use of their knowledge of how our minds work to change our behaviour. This much is verifiable fact. [...] we consent to be manipulated by people who want to redistribute wealth in their own favour, in exchange for services that are probably inferior to those that could be provided by by people who just want to make the world a better place.'
Although, this is then tempered by questioning the beneficiaries of the reCaptcha spambot busting / book digitising 'human computing' developed by Luis von Ahn (and described in his recent blog post).
Very much in line with the issues around privacy, @TaiwanChallenges also shared his proposal for to address the issue of identity and personal data being exploited - adding a layer of control (or at least choice) to the web user. What do you think about that idea?
Programme four - is the web changing us?
Programme four will introduce its themes next week, but as its main preoccupation lies with the effects the web is having upon human beings, these ideas are often touched upon throughout the discussions.
Programme four is indeed looking for UK schools that already connect with schools across the globe - preferably in South Korea or China - though @TaiwanChallenges may provide a link to Taiwanese schools for the programme.
Programme two - nations and the web
The programme two team are hoping to make contact with people who were principle disseminators of the information coming out of Iran via Twitter and/or blogs during the recent disputed elections. met with some anxious queries as to our motives and the public request for this information.
We should be clear that we are only looking for information that was already in the public domain - ie in the blogosphere or on the . We are not looking to compromise the safety of individuals within Iran; rather we want to talk to people who were active players in the transmission of information which became and was an example of the internet making it harder for people to get away with killing each other.
So, with that clarified, we're still looking for people in the UK or US who were receiving and spreading further the news coming out of Iran at that time. As ever, you can contact us confidentially via our contact us form.
Experiments
@TaiwanChallenges (who, if we were giving out prizes for contributions, would definitely be a strong contender) suggested . This, I think, leaves us on similar ground to the ethical difficulties ofÌýpropagatingÌýa lie online, and again, as @SheffTim points out, it is something we could probably observe already in action online rather than instigate (@SheffTim also pointed us towards , which was good fun.)
We continue to look for ways to a) map the web, and b) visualise that map. If anyone has an idea as to how we could approach that, be it in strata (blogosphere, infosphere etc.) or another route, we'd be most grateful for a steer. Interesting ideas came from discussions about the web as an evolving, self-organising entity - which led me to considering visualising the web as an anatomyÌýrather than a geogrraphy - each user performing a variety of roles ( as white blood cells for instance), all making up and working as organs within the larger bodily whole of the web.
Then I had a cup of tea and tried to stop thinking about it...!
Next week: programme four's themes are introduced in greater detail; Baroness Susan Greenfield shares her concerns for our brains under the web's influence; Nicholas Carr offers his thoughts on the loss of the contemplative mind.
As ever - many thanks for all your interest and support.
Luis Von Ahn| 14:04 UK time, Wednesday, 2 September 2009
( is Professor of Computer Science at , developing applications and pograms which harness the combined computational power of humans and computers to solve large-scale problems. The following post is published with kind permission and represents Luis' views; this does not necessarily reflect the views of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or the Digital Revolution production.)
At the height of its construction, 44,733 people worked on the . required 50,000 workers and the 400,000. No matter what you put on this list, humanity's largest achievements have been accomplished with less than a few hundred thousand workers because it has been impossible to assemble more people to work together - until now. With the Internet, we can coordinate the efforts of millions or even billions of humans. If 400,000 people put a man on the moon, what can we do with 400 million? That's the question that motivates my work. Ìý An example of this is the project, in which hundreds of millions of people have helped digitize books by solving on the Internet. CAPTCHAs are widespread security measures that you've all seen: images of squiggly characters on the Web that people must type to obtain free email accounts and access to other sites. By asking humans to do a task that computers cannot, CAPTCHAs prevent automated programs from abusing online services.
For example, CAPTCHAs prevent scalpers from writing programs to buy millions of tickets for concerts or sporting events. It is estimated that over 200 million CAPTCHAs are typed every day, each taking roughly ten seconds of human effort - that's 500,000 hours a day. ReCAPTCHA re-cycles this human mental effort into a dual purpose: transcribing books.
Physical books and other texts written before the computer age are currently being digitized en masse (e.g., by and the Internet Archive) to preserve human knowledge and make information more accessible. The pages are photographically scanned and then computers must decipher each word in the scanned images in order to index the books and allow people to search through them. Unfortunately, computers are not perfect at deciphering this text. In older prints where the ink has faded, computers cannot recognize about 30 per cent of the words. On the other hand, humans are extremely accurate at doing this. Ìý ReCAPTCHA demonstrates that old print material can be transcribed, one word at a time, by people typing CAPTCHAs on the Internet. Whereas the original CAPTCHAs displayed images of random characters rendered by a computer, reCAPTCHA displays words taken from scanned texts that computers could not decipher. The solutions entered by humans are then used to improve the digitization process.
It is important, of course, that the ultimate purpose of clicks online be revealed to the users. Sites using reCAPTCHA display a message that the words entered are being used to digitize books. Ìý To date, over 400 million people - 6% of humanity! - have helped transcribe at least one word through reCAPTCHA, making it perhaps the largest example of massive collaboration in the history of humanity.
Ìý Image above: the reCAPTCHA system displays words from scanned texts to humans on the World Wide Web. In this example, the word 'morning' was unrecognizable by the computer. re-CAPTCHA isolated the word, distorted it using random transformations including adding a line through it, and then presented it as a challenge to a user. Since the original word ('morning') was not recognized by the computer, another word for which the answer was known ('overlooks') was also presented to determine if the user entered the correct answer. Ìý
Dan Biddle| 13:22 UK time, Wednesday, 2 September 2009
At the Web at 20 event outlined his take on the opportunities the web provides content creators and content consumers to work within an emerging economic model - that of 'Free'.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and
Flash installed.
Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
A transcript of Chris' speech follows below:
The internet, Moore's law of processing and its equivalents for storage and bandwidth, is the first industrial economy in history that has for decade after decade continued to get cheaper every year. Every year whatever you did, whatever it costs to stream a YouTube video today, it will cost one half as much a year from now, and half again as much, and one half that a year after that, and continues to get cheaper and cheaper over time. And what this allows us to do is not only to use the internet wastefully, without regard to its underlying cost, to do, as Sir Tim says, to treat it as a blank page without rules and regulations about what is appropriate and responsible, but instead just to use it as our creativity dictates, because the economic cost of doing so is so low.
But it also allows us to build businesses without implicitly knowing how they're going to make money. It allows us to build large audiences at very low cost, and allows companies as small and as powerful as Twitter, to be run on fifty people, companies with network television sized-audiences to be run with cottage industry-size staff.
What this creates is a world where free, in both of its meanings - free as in liberty, freedom of speech, and free as in no cost, gratis - drive the underlying usage of the medium. And that's where the creativity comes from, because we're free to do what we want, we're economically liberated to do it at almost no cost. So from an economic perspective the internet is the first truly free medium that we've ever created, and we've just begun to see what we'll do with it.
Meanwhile, across town... Rupert Murdoch has declared that and his . And James Murdoch is making firm assertions that free content, of the like provided by the ´óÏó´«Ã½, distorts and damages the market for competitors and consumers alike.
So 'free' is far from a given across the board.
But this undeniable shift towards free content (and the expectation of free content) online is a major theme of programme three. The production team have a number of questions around the extent to which free content and services has proliferated the web; where do you stand with 'free'?
What do you now get for free that you used to pay for?
What do you get for free and also still pay for (eg media, professional advice)?
As ever - your thoughts and examples are much appreciated in the process of shaping the documentary.
Jon Webster| 12:33 UK time, Tuesday, 1 September 2009
(Jon Webster spent the early part of his career at Virgin, initially in retail, then the record label in the 80's, where he was instrumental in the founding of the . He has been a manager, founded the , worked for the BPI but left 'the dark side' in 2007 and now runs the . The following post is published with kind permission and represents Jon's views; this does not necessarily reflect the views of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ or the Digital Revolution production.)
Digitisation of music, combined with the internet, has wrested control of distribution from the rights holders - traditionally the record labels and music publishers. The truth is that music has always been susceptible to copying and sharing; the internet has made it so easy that music, as soon as it has been digitized, is effectively free. When you obtain it illegally it often comes with spyware and other nasty files but it is still free. And this hasn't only affected major labels. One recent victim of pre-release sharing, the band , wrote an impassioned piece on April 28th about their loss of control of their music including the line: "Some of us...just want to make the music we love and play it around the world without living in poverty".
And I guess that's the point. The fact that music is free is no longer a technological or legally enforceable issue; it is a social and moral issue and it is affecting all the artists in the world not just the rich and the rights holders of the past. It's affecting how artists are rewarded. Ìý But the loss of control, and possibly income, from recorded music is not all bad. It also creates huge opportunities for artists to connect directly with fans. From that direct connection comes trust, respect and ultimately faith that the artist and fan are in a relationship and each has responsibilities to the other. The artist has a responsibility to deliver to fans music in whatever form that the fan wants; this includes, for instance, not asking the fan to re-purchase music they already have to get new tracks on say a . The fan has the responsibility to recognize that artistry and effort need reward. That reward could be the purchase of a concert ticket, a T-shirt, a better quality music file, a CD with either special or normal packaging or whatever. And fans will do that if they feel connected. Ìý This process is in evolution and it is not without problems. The oft quoted solution that artists make money playing live holds little water. Many acts make little money playing live until they start playing to hundreds or thousands of people. Yes the superstars make a lot but they really are the few. And just because you make great music as an artist does not mean you have to stand on a stage and reproduce it. That's the choice of the artist. Surely , who hasn't played live for 30 years, should still be rewarded for making great music whether she plays live or not? Ìý These new models are working for artists big and small. They can be tough to operate and artists and their teams need new skills and hard work to make them function. But they will work.
The Virtual Revolution looks at how the web is shaping our world. Previously known as Digital Revolution (working title), it has been an open and collaborative production, which asked the web audience to debate programme themes, suggest and send questions for interviewees, watch and comment on interview and graphics clips, and download clips for personal use and re-editing.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.