Archive for the ‘wondering’ Category

The illusion of feeling pressed for time

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Running out of time

Psychologist Elizabeth Dunn has a fascinating take on why we feel increasingly pressed for time.

The pace of life is increasing; people are working more and relaxing less than they did 50 years ago. At least that’s the impression I got from the popular media. But as a social psychologist, I wanted to see the data. As it turns out, there is very little evidence that people are now working more and relaxing less than they did in earlier decades. In fact, some of the best studies suggest just the opposite. So, why do people report feeling so pressed for time?

A beautiful explanation for this puzzling phenomenon was recently offered by Sanford DeVoe, at the University of Toronto and Jeffrey Pfeffer, at Stanford. They argue that as time becomes worth more money, time is seen as scarcer. Scarcity and value are perceived as conjoined twins; when a resource—from diamonds to drinking water—is scarce, it is more valuable, and vice versa. So, when our time becomes more valuable, we feel like we have less of it. Indeed, surveys from around the world have shown that people with higher incomes report feeling more pressed for time.

Over the past 50 years, feelings of time pressure have risen dramatically in North America, despite the fact that weekly hours of work have stayed fairly level and weekly hours of leisure have climbed. This apparent paradox may be explained, in no small part, by the fact that incomes have increased substantially during the same period. This causal effect may also help to explain why people walk faster in wealthy cities like Tokyo and Toronto than in cities like Nairobi and Jakarta.

Her full essay is here. She goes into more detail of a clever study that found that people felt more time pressure when they merely perceived themselves as being wealthy.

This explanation rings true to me. When I was younger, I could get lost in an art project or book for days and not feel like there was anything better that I should be doing. But now that I think of all the projects I could and should be doing, I get stressed just thinking about it. People I could be meeting, projects I could be starting, investments I should be considering, blog posts that I should be writing.

Maybe convincing yourself that your time isn’t so valuable is a good way to relax. Or rather, remembering that feeling un-hurried is more valuable than anything you could be doing with your time.

 

Tweeting for the machines

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

I’ve been having wonderful conversations these days with my temporary host, Rob Johnson of GNIP.

GNIP is doing well, and they’re doing in in a way that goes against normal internet wisdom. They are selling tweets.

A random Joe, somewhere in the world, sends out a little tweet like, “Enjoying a tasty burger with the gang at McDs.”

Does this interest you? Probably not. It’s the classic “Who cares?” criticism of Twitter. But the fact is that everyone has at least a few people for whom the smallest tweet matters. If you were part of “The gang” of Joe’s, you would take a little pleasure and interest knowing that he mentioned you. In science-speak, this is the “social grooming” that takes place in all human relations, similar to how apes will groom each other by off picking lice. (See all of Robin Dunbar’s work.) But if you’re not in Joe’s circle, this tweet boring drivel.


The genius of GNIP (and other emerging companies) is that when you take enough of these tweets together, you can find gold. Twitter supports lots of these little social grooming and social signaling messages, and then GNIP can roll them up and sell the aggregate data to a whole new class of interested parties.

The Wall Street Journal reports how Hedge Funds now use data from GNIP to directly influence trades. Enough people tweeting about their hamburger meal can be important information for beef futures, the performance of McDonalds, and a hundred other small signals that aren’t so obvious.

This calls to mind the classic essay by George Dyson about his visit to Google. His hosts explained, “We are not scanning all those books to be read by people, … we are scanning them to be read by an AI.” In the same way, these tweets are now a signal back into “the machine” that more and more directly effects the world.

These are fascinating times.

The internet is for gossip

Friday, January 6th, 2012

There is a gossip-y connection between the history of the internet and the history of human speech. I was reminded of this by reports last year on the amazing growth of social networks, particularly Facebook.

It was generally assumed that human’s started talking in order to share information. Factual information. Stuff like, “I saw a bear, don’t go over there.” or “Let me show you how to make this new thing that I call ‘Fire’”.

Primatologist Robin Dunbar challenged this notion by asserting that gossip was the primary use case of language; the “killer app”, so to say. If you’re living in a social group with a lot of members, the most useful information you can exchange is about those other members. Knowledge of bears and fires takes a backseat to knowledge of enemies and lovers. Non-human primates share this information by grooming each other. We humans do it by gossiping. In his research, he found that “two thirds of conversation time is devoted to social topics, most of which can be given the generic label gossip.

Note that he’s using “gossip” in a wide sense; including assurances of friendship, “catching up” on  people’s lives.

Similarly, the web was originally conceived as a place where scientists could exchange scholarly papers. And it was that way, at first. But the arcane worlds of usenet and IRC, geeks were already gossiping away by the 80′s. And now, with the rise of the “Social” buzzword, you the volume of gossip online is coming to match the volume offline in speech. Americans now spend 23% of all internet time on social networks. And if you count the time that people spend texting and the non-business emails, it’s clear the total gossip-usage of the internet is much higher.

Social networks are the natural evolution of talking. No wonder no one calls anymore!

 

Tech Politics: AppStore and MalWare, Steve Jobs and Gaddafi

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

The tech world is a lot like politics these days.

After a holiday season where much time was spent removing truly evil malware (I’m looking at you, bastards at Win 7 “Antispyware” 2012),  I felt my net-politics shifting rightward. Gulp! Am I getting tech fascist sympathies?

In the human sphere, you understand that people living in unchecked violence and terror would turn to a strong dictator who promises security and order. This was the case made by Muammar Gaddafi when he warned that the country would descend into chaos without him. A good dictator promises order, control, safety.

App Stores promise the same thing. And let’s be honest; they do deliver. If my sister had an iPad, there’s no way I would have wasted a day running system scans and ultimately throwing up my hands and re-installing the system. Centralized control keeps the bad guys out, and a bad guy that snuck in can be instantly eliminated with the flip of a switch from App Store HQ.

I bet Gaddafi wished that his police could have been so efficient at removing threats.

And therein lies the rub. Who is to say what a threat is? Once the central authority has brought peace and safety by eliminating the original “bad guys,” its only a matter of course that they re-define bad guys to include threats to their central power. And extract as much tax as possible for access to their market.

This is the tech libertarian view, to which I would like to subscribe. But after some days in the trenches of average computer users, I am sympathetic to more centralized control — for the moment.

The question is: can the tech world find a balance between App store totalitarianism and malware-infested libertarian anarchy? What does tech democracy look like?

As per my old thesis project, I think trust needs to a tech overhaul. But for now, it’s interesting to watch the pendulum of tech swing rightward.

 

 

Family Tech Support Standard Setup for 2012

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

Holidays mean getting together with family, and if you’re the tech guy in the family like me, it also means updating your family’s computers and gadgets. I wrote about my standard setup two years ago, but a lot of things have changed since then. Here is my updated list. This is based on my family which uses primarily Windows, but most of these programs and tips work for Mac as well.

Remote Support: Logmein

If you do nothing else for your family’s computer this holiday, install Logmein. The wonderful program allows you to work on their computer (including seeing what’s on their screen) from anywhere in the world. Even from Germany I could walk my parents in Colorado through sharing a photo of Facebook, or install software updates on my sister’s laptop. (Previously I recommended Microsoft Sharedview, but it requires a complicated dance of logins, invitations, and access codes that was overwhelming to people.)

Anti-Virus: Microsoft Security Essentials

For years I used Avira but in the last months the nag screens became unbearable, popping up every day and with the “close” button hidden by visual tricks. I switched my family to Microsoft Home Security Essentials and have been pleased so far. Be sure to do a full system scan once you’ve installed it, especially if they had no antivirus before.

Broswer: Firefox or Chrome

I’ve kept my family on Firefox even as I’ve moved to Google Chrome, but may move them in this year.

Remove all the bookmarks bar and replace with one’s that make sense for your famliy member. Change the name of each bookmark because the defaults are really long. My standard set is this:

  • Search: Google.
  • Email: Gmail (see below) or whatever web email service (if any) they use.
  • Wikipedia: Wikipedia
  • Maps: Google Maps, with default location set to their home.
  • NewsGoogle News, with local news set to their city.
  • Weather: Weather Underground, with location set to their city.
  • Dictionary: Wordnik, new online dictionary that I worked at. It’s better than the boring dictionary.com in that it also contains slang and unusual words. E.g. my Mom used to learn about “gamification.”
  • Facebook, if they use it.
  • Radio: Pandora. Ask your family member for a few songs or bands they like, and watch as they are amazed at the music that Pandora delivers. (You’ll have to create an account for your friend to save their stations.) My Mom loves listening to Jimmy Reeves.
  • Their bank, local library, and other sites that they might enjoy. My mom loves the OneAcross crossword helper, for example.

Older people can be overwhelmed by the advertising of many sites. Install Adblock Plus add-on to save them from advertising overload.

My parents had a problem with accidentally pressing “F11″ and making Firefox go fullscreen. (F11 is directly above the Backspace key on their keyboard.) Using the Keyconfig add-on you can disable (and add) keyboard functions to solve problems like this.

Photos: Picasa

You’d be surprised how many people I’ve met who have a digital camera but never figured out how to get the pictures onto their computer! I did a lot of research on this one, as my Dad has scanned 10,000+ photos and needs to manage them. (More here) The best free solution has been Picasa from Google. Of course, only install this if they don’t have any image program, or are unhappy with what they are currently using. I find many people are using crappy software that shipped with some product they bought. My Dad, for example, was using a absolutely hideous program from HP that had installed itself with his scanner.

  • If they have been using a different program, or have downloaded images scattered around, move them all to their “My Pictures” folder.
  • Have Picasa then scan only their “My Pictures” folder. Otherwise it will find all sorts of random crap from other programs.
  • Remove the “Blog This” button unless they are a blogger. (Right-click on the button area to configure this.)
  • If your friend uses Gmail, configure the “Email Image” button to work with their Gmail account. If they use a web email other than Gmail, configure Picasa to remove the “Email Image” button.
  • If your friend uses Facebook, install the Facebook Uploader button and connect it with their Facebook account. Very important: Once you have installed the Facebook App, you must do a few extra steps: In Facebook, click on “Applications” in the bottom left, then “Edit Applications”. Change the “Show” option to “Authorized”. Find the “Picasa” application and click “Edit Settings”. Grant the application “Extra Permissions” so that your friend won’t be confused by having a 2nd step where they have to approve uploaded images within Facebook.)
  • Show them how to print an image using the “Print” button at the bottom.

Digital Camera Setup : Eye-fi

My parents could never get the hang of plugging their camera in the computer, or ejecting SD cards. This problem was solved nicely with the ingenius Eye-fi card. You’ll have to set it up for them, but once working, this little card will automatically transfer photos to their computer using their wifi connection. Watch their eyes glow in amazement as a photo appears in Picasa mere seconds after they take a picture. As an added bonus, photos are automatically geo-tagged.

Telephony & Chat: Skype

I’m not a fan of the new version, and who knows what Microsoft will do since they bought it, but Skype remains the safest video chat solution. It gets through most strange firewall situations, and isn’t tied to a specific email provider like Google Talk or Yahoo Video. And at least in my family, it’s what most people already have. Many tech-support sessions consist of a simultaneous Skype call and Logmein remote-control session. This works great, as I can explain what I’m doing while working on their computer in real-time.

  • You’ll have to create an account for your friend. Be sure to give them the login details in case they need it someday.
  • Add as friends any people that you know your friend might want to call.
  • Add a picture to their profile, if you can find one. People like that.
  • To reduce spam for your friend, change the settings to only accept chats or calls from people in their contact list.
  • Configure Skype to login automatically and to launch with Windows.
  • Configure Skype to use their webcam for video and for the microphone.
  • Restart the computer and try making a call to make sure that all the default settings are correct.
  • In all browsers, remove the stupid Skype add-on that is added by default. Sheesh.

Backup: Mozy

This one isn’t free, but Mozy is something that you should encourage them is worth the $5/month. I honestly haven’t used others, but hear good things about Carbonite. You should also setup a local backup using the built-in Windows Backup. If they don’t already have one, go out and buy an external drive to backup to. Storage is cheap these days.

Office: OpenOffice

If they haven’t bought Microsoft Office, they certainly don’t buy it. But of course, they are bound to need to read (and sometimes create) files in Word, Excel, or Powerpoint formats. OpenOffice does a not-great but passable job. As a side note, Gmail has gotten really good at displaying Microsoft document attachements without the user needing any software at all.

  • Important: Change the default saving format to the Microsoft formats. (Yes, we all should support open formats. But believe me, you don’t want to try and explain this to not technical friends. Like it or not, Word and Excel are the de-facto standards.) Go to “Preferences->Load/Save->General”. For each “Document Type” (Text Document, Spreadsheet, Presentation) change the “Always save as” option to “Microsoft XXXXX 97/2000/XP”.
  • Java will be installed as part of this process. Be sure you do NOT get tricked into installing the Yahoo toolbar as part of this. (See Todd’s jihad against toolbars.)

Fun: Google Earth

While maybe not as strictly “useful” as other applications, Google Earth is downright impressive and people, especially older non-technical people, find it to be amazing. Furthermore, your friend can use it to Geotag images in Picasa if they later feel ambitious.

Final System Cleanup

If they’ve been using their system for a while and haven’t had a good tech support person, you’ll have lots of garbage to clean up.

  • Uninstall Java. Lately it has become a nuisance, wanting to update all the time and always trying to slip in the Yahoo browser bar.
  • Remove all shortcuts from the desktop except for Firefox, Picasa, Skype, Google Earth, and programs that your friend specifically mentions using.
  • Check the “Launch at Startup” folder to see what crap may be set to automatically launch. Remove anything that your friend doesn’t actually use.
  • Clean out any toolbars from Internet Explorer and Firefox.
  • Remove links to Internet Explorer from the desktop and start menu. Rename the Firefox shortcut to something like “Web Browser – Firefox”
  • Remove unused programs from taskbar (Windows 7) or the “Start” menu (XP, Vista)
  • Remove unnecesary icons from the system tray.

Playing tech support for a friend or family member is a noble and often thankless task. Good on you for taking it on — it’s a holiday gift that will last the whole year through. If you have other suggestions or ideas, please leave them in the comments.

 

Musings on Maslov and Media

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Maslov’s “Hierarchy of Needs” comes up pretty often in conversations with my friends. The basic idea of this theory is that people have many needs: a need for food, a need for air, a need for companionship, a need for respect, etc. But moreover, some needs are more important than others, and can be grouped into hierarchical categories. This makes a lot of intuitive sense. If a lonely person falls into a river and is about to drown, her thoughts while thrashing in the water are not about how she needs deeper relationships — she’s thinking about how she needs air! Of course, as one considers “higher” needs, the valuations become harder. Do you really seek morality only after you have satisfied your need for relationships? Wikipedia provides a useful diagram of the needs.

The theory makes so much intuitive sense, and is talked about so often, that I was a little surprised to learn that it is not respected in Psychological circles and has been much criticised.

Still, some time ago I had the idea of trying to quantify the needs in Maslov’s heirarchy. That is, I wanted to put hard numbers on them based on real data. For example, how much money do American’s spend on food versus shelter? How has this changed over the last century? How is this different from Germans or Zimbabwaens. Perhaps raw data could paint a clearer picture than Maslov’s speculations.

This turns out to be a harder question than it seems at first. For example, we rarely satisfy one need at a time. When you rent an apartment, you are not just paying for shelter from the rain. You are also paying for the security of walls and doors. You are also paying to be close to the shops in the area, or perhaps paying to be in a beautiful area. You are also paying something for the social status that comes with having that kind of apartment. And you are also paying something for the aesthetic style of the apartment; the fixtures, the quality of the painting and so forth.

In first world countries many of these things have become so standardized that you don’t even consider that you are paying for them. For example, when was the last time you had to choose between indoor or outdoor plumbing? Between electricity or not? I was surprised last year in Berlin when I rented a beautiful apartment that had no automatic heating, but only a stove in which I could burn coal.

Still, I haven’t completely given up on my quest. At the very least, it should be possible to look at trends in a country over time. For example, the USDA has information on the cost of food, showing that Americans now spend half as much money on food as they did 80 years go. Similar data for spending on other Maslovian needs over this time would be interesting: shelter, for example.

If you read this blog, you know that I am also obsessed with the role of “Media.” Maslov’s hierarchy always seemed wrong to me from this angle as well. From my anecdotal experience, it seems that people in developing countries who are “moving up the pyramid”, who have secured food and shelter and security, move quickly to get media — not “self actualization.” This is otherwise known as the “satellite dishes in slums” phenomena, as poignantly expressed in this image.

Lastly, how does the Internet address Maslov’s hierarchy? It seems that the most successful web companies must be tapping into some human need. Some mappings are obvious, like Facebook to friendship. Others are unclear. What needs do Google or Wikipedia satisfy? Where is our need (“need”?) for entertainment, as expressed by YouTube, Netflix, and others? Here is my rough take on assigning web companies to needs in the hierarchy.

Even is Maslov’s theory is flawed, it expresses the right idea that we pursue different needs and attach different values to them. So it will be fascinating to see how technology and especially media has changed out behavior in respect to these needs. I’ll let you know what I find!

Self-Trickery for Good

Monday, August 15th, 2011

I’m writing this at 12:11am on a Tuesday night in Reckjavick, Iceland. In a little over eight hours I’ll be on an airplane taking off (if all goes well) headed for Berlin. I’ve finished packing, written a few last-minute postcards, said goodbye to my host (Thanks Luke!), and figured out the torturous path to the airport which requires me to be up in four hours.

And yet I am writing this. Why? I certainly don’t want to. Rather, it’s because three weeks ago I paid a friend four hundred dollars on the condition that he would “pay” me a hundred dollars for each blog post I write. They are due Thursdays at noon. We haven’t yet clarified which time zone this is, an ambiguity that I have already used to my advantage more than once. [His comment: Just keep trying to go East, my friend, your luck will run out eventually.]

This is crazy. But it’s what I want. Or rather, it’s what I wanted three weeks ago. From where I’m sitting now, it’s a pain in the rear and the only thing keeping me from blissfully slipping into the bed behind me. My internal engine calculates something like, “I was upset today when I overpaid by thirty bucks for gas in the rental car. So how can I just throw away a hundred dollars now over a blog post?” This is made even worse since losing the money would have nothing to do with being swindled or being stupid. I have no one to blame but myself, quite literally. And my better self at that. The fact of the matter is that I want to write more, and so I have constructed this psychological mechanism to compel me to write.

It is out of sheer laziness (and a dash of tiredness) (and a dash of loving anything self-referencing) that I am fulfilling my commitment by writing about my commitment.

There should be a word for that thing that happens so often in blogging; when you want to write a little something, and then a few searches reveal that you’ve barely scratched the surface of the idea. So it is now as I sit down to write about little self-motivational tricks.

It turns out that not only that they are more widely written about than I thought, but there is even a cool internet company build around them. So I’ll just outline my favorites, and link you to sources on for more.

Perhaps the most basic trick is to tell people what you’re going to do. The idea is that then there will be social pressure for you to do what you said. For example, you tell everyone that you’re going to run a marathon this year. You say this knowing that, come summer, people will ask you about the marathon you said you would run. However, some research points that this is a bad idea. Derek Sivers in this TED Talk points out that just saying that you’ll do something gives you a psychological reward. It turns out that often this little reward feels so good that you don’t even bother to do the thing that you were talking about. It’s the standard human tendency to under-value the future. To paraphrase Top Gun, “Your mouth is is writing checks that your future self can’t cash.”

A more promising self-trickery technique is the “anti-charity.” You give some amount of money to a trusted confidant, with instructions that if you fail to reach your goal, they are to donate this money to a charity that you dislike. So if you are a Republican, it could mean a donation to Obama’s re-election campaign. And if you are pro-choice, it could mean donating to a pro-life organization. (As done by Brad Feld did.) This technique is fascinating, but I knew that I would certainly fail on occasion, and I couldn’t stomach the thought of my money going to a charity I despise.

In this talk from the Quantified Self blog , a couple used an innovative self-contract to to lose weight and get in shape. They each put $2000 in a pot, and then auctioned off the “contract” to their friends. The friend with the winning bid (turned out to be $75) would win the $4000 if they were to break the conditions of their self-contract. That is, if the guy were to skip a day of doing pushups, the friend who bid $75 would then win the $4000. On the other hand, if they succeeded in meeting their goals, the friend gets nothing. This is an ingenious idea, but has the bad side effect of motivating the friend to make you fail–it was worth $4000 for their friend if they were to fail! I can see the friend now, anonymously delivering donuts to their work and giving them a free NetFlix subscription!

One approach that I have been talking with friends about is to have the money donated to a random charity which (most importantly) you will know nothing about. Ignorance is important because knowing that your money went to a specific good charity could make you feel better about missing your goal. And lets be honest, the point is for you to feel bad! But a little bit of searching got me to the website StickK.com, which is dedicated to these self-motivational tricks. They offer this, along with anti-charities and other ways to keep yourself in check.

The most radical self-motivational approach was used by author Oliver Sacks when writing his first book back in the 1960′s. Frustrated at his inability to get started, he made a promise to himself: If he didn’t finish the book in a month, he would kill himself. Yikes! Thankfully for him, and for fans of his books like me, he managed finished it in time. And as he tells the story, after a few days he entered a state of complete joy in writing. (This story, and some others, was told on this episode of the RadioLab podcast.)

With this paragraph, I am have written more than double the number of words required of me each week. But it has been the same every time: I just need the motivational “push” to get started, but the words start to flow once I’m going. And now now it’s out in the open, and you too know my commitment. Now it’s time for bed, and dream about what to write next week.

What do we get for all our media choices?

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

On the one hand, the Internet gives us access to an infinitely wider set of knowledge and ideas than were available previously. On the other hand, it allows us to find the one channel of thought that most closely matches our own and never have to stray from it.

Consider a student growing up in small-town Kansas in 1951. She would be mostly informed by the ideas of people in her town. News of the outside world would come only via the available forms of mass media. A few radio stations, a newspaper or two, and the local library. Her interests and relationships would correlate almost exactly with her geography.

This was bad because it meant that she didn’t have much choice in the ideas that she would encounter. This was also bad because it concentrated so much control in hands of the mass media owners. Napoleon had a point when he said that “four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” But an unintended good side effect of these very limited communication channels was that our hypothetical student would also occasionally be exposed to ideas that she would not have usually sought out. Serendipity. Because the mass media is by definition “mass”, it has to serve the interests of a large cross section of people. Thus, on her way to find the Sunday comics, our 1951 small-town student might stumble on a review of a New York Broadway show. On the radio she might hear an interview with someone of polar-opposite political views that leads her to change an opinion on an issue.

A similar student growing up in small-town Kansas in 2011 can be informed from literally thousands of sources. With an internet connection, our modern-day student has the potential to get information and form relationships anywhere in the world. He could get his news reporting from Al Jazeera and the BBC. He could learn of a new technology which invented last month in Japan. He could form a deep friendship with a girl in Brazil.

This is good because it means that he has a lot more choice and opportunity; in where he gets his news, in possible career paths, and in possible relationships.

The catch is that while all these things are now possible, they are not what actually happens for most people. The truth is, give people a thousand choices of where to get their news and they will home in on those channels that most agree with what they already believe. As this happens, it becomes less and less likely that they will encounter an idea they don’t believe in.” Paradoxically, access to a thousandfold more viewpoints has resulted in people being a thousand times less likely to confront new ideas.

This effect is also getting stronger. In the 1980’s we moved from having three major network television networks to having hundreds of cable channels. In the 1990’s we got the internet, with tens of thousands of sites—every network, newspaper, and then some. And then in to 2000’s we got blogs, Google, and Facebook. And now almost everywhere you have complete personalization. Media today struggles hard to show you exactly what you want to see and tell you what you want to hear.

—-


I haven’t read it yet but The Filter Bubble goes in depth on this.

“Why does this matter? Educators say that, for adults, one way to nudge neurons in the right direction is to challenge the very assumptions they have worked so hard to accumulate while young. With a brain already full of well-connected pathways, adult learners should ‘jiggle their synapses a bit’ by confronting thoughts that are contrary to their own, says Dr. Taylor, who is 66.” How to train the aging brain.

Image from Matt Ulrich

 

Thoughts on an email from Dad

Thursday, July 21st, 2011

Many years ago, long before I was born, a particular stream of light burst away from the sun, the result of a nuclear explosion. There’s nothing particularly unusual about this—the sun itself is ongoing nuclear explosion that has been exploding for four and a half billion of years. But I was moved to consider this particular stream last year when I sat down at my laptop and opened an email from my dad. At that moment I was hit with an overwhelming feeling of recognition and amazement. When I think back of all that went into making that feeling possible, I feel amazed all over again.

Like all the light coming from the sun, this particular stream consisted of photons emitted when hydrogen atoms fused together to create helium.(1) This stream of photons left the sun traveling at the usual photon speed of 670 million miles per hour—the speed of light. Yet even at this incredible speed it took them about eight minutes to cover the distance between the sun and the Earth. They didn’t know it, but they were headed for California, and about to hit a barrier.

About the time that light began it’s journey, a little boy was climbing on a pony outside his house in Fillmore, a little town surrounded by Orange groves an hour north of Los Angeles. On that particular afternoon, a photographer was going house to house with the pony offering to take pictures of children.

When the light finally arrived, it hit that boy on the horse. These were very real but very gentle “hits”—it would take trillions of them to have the weight of a feather. Many of these photons were absorbed by the clothes he was wearing, the skin of his face, or the tree behind him. But some of them, depending on their wavelength and surface that they hit, bounced off and continued. And of those photons that bounced, a few of them ended on a particular path through that hot summer air that took them into a piece of glass. This glass bent their course ever so slightly, aiming them at a small rectangle of cellulose film coated with a layer of silver salts. Specks of the film turned dark as the the photons interacted with these salts; salts laid on the film by a process perfected by Eastman Kodak.

Some days later another stream of light would be shown through the film and projected onto a piece of special paper, with the dark spots blocking some of that light. In the end, this paper with patterns of light and dark in just the right places was given to my father’s family. In exchange his mother gave the photographer several green pieces of paper bearing the words “Legal Tender.” She then wrapped the print in a book, along with others, and kept it in the house.

Decades passed, and sometime in 2005 in the mountains of Colorado that particular print was pulled out of the book and placed on a glass plate, just like others my father had pulled out in the previous month. As a motor hummed, bright light from a moving fluorescent bulb below showered millions of photons upward to the print. In an echo of that process many years before, some photons were absorbed and some were reflected. And some of the reflected photons ended up on a course to hit a “Charge-Coupled Device.” In this device the movement of these light photons was converted to movements of electrons. All of those photons in that particular pattern of dark and light were transformed into a pattern of current running across silicon wafers, and eventually through wires in a USB plug and into a computer. The pattern of light was now a pattern of electricity, was now a pattern of bits.

Inside the computer, this pattern of bits was then processed and transformed into a new pattern, one with far fewer bits. Much of this bit-reduction was done by throwing away those bits representing patterns which the camera perceived clearly, but which a human eye could not. This particular bit-reducing procedure was invented in 1992, by the “Joint Photographic Experts Group.” Today it is simply called JPEG.

Inside the computer, this reduced pattern of bits was then pushed out onto a small metal arm hovering above a magnetic disk spinning over five thousand times a second. The the electrons of those bits perched at the tip of this arm caused some of the small magnets in the disk to change direction. The pattern of electricity was now a pattern of magnetism, spinning on a hard disk in my dad’s laptop.

Sometime the next day, at after a mouse click from my father, that small metal arm went to the same spot on the disk and the process went in reverse: the pattern of magnetic spots went back into patterns of electricity. But this time, this electricity set off on a long journey. It left via an ethernet cord, where it went to a router. From there it went to a DSL modem which shifted the pattern onto the telephone wires of my father’s house. This pattern of electricity moved quickly, almost at the same speed that the photons left the sun, crossing the mountainous terrain of northern Colorado on wires hanging from poles 20 feet above the ground. At some point they went underground, and eventually reached a computer belonging to Google’s Gmail service. There is no way of knowing where this computer was, but it probably was not at Google headquarters in California.It is more likely that it landed at one of Google’s huge data centers spread throughout the United States, mostly in places chosen for access to cheap electricity to power.

The very first bits to reach Google represented four letters, spelling out “HELO.” This is the first step in “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” which we know as simply “email.” Then came the rest of the bits, containing that special pattern.

Later that day I was sitting on my couch in New York City. It was a tiny apartment in a crumbling century-old building. Two hundred square feet wasn’t much, but it had a magnificent view of the Empire State Building. The bits of data from the Google server—in the same pattern that was on my dad’s computer—zoomed across the country, crossed the Hudson river onto Manhattan, zipped under the city streets, climbed a perilously hanging wire outside my building, and finally passed through a DSL modem and into my laptop.

Another stream of photons,  the last one in this long journey, was flying away from a bright fluorescent light in the back of my laptop. The photons rushed forward—again at that incredible speed. But barely a millimeter later some were blocked by small liquid crystals, rotated into blocking position by electric signals. The crystals were laid out in a grid 15 inches diagonal: 1024 across by 768 down, with three crystals at each point, precisely positioned behind vertical bits of color. Millions of tiny stained-glass windows of red, green, and blue. This pattern of blocking and non-blocking crystals was carefully orchestrated by my laptop to match that received pattern of bits, then piped through the flexible hinge and into the Liquid Crystal Display, or LCD.

The unblocked photos streamed through the color and out of the laptop, crossing a few inches through the air of my apartment before falling on my face. Some tiny percent of them fell on my eye, continuing first through a small plastic contact lens, then through the transparent cornea, on past the brown-colored iris (Which looks green in the right light!), and a few millimeters further their course was ever-so-slightly adjusted by my eye’s lens, pulled into focus by tiny muscles. (My lens is already not as flexible as it used to be. Perhaps in ten years they both will need help from reading glasses?)

On the backside of my eye, the light passed through a thin layer of blood(2), and then into the retina at the back of my eyeball. The blood was there to sustain a layer three special cells; cells tuned exactly to the frequencies of red, green, and blue. (I have to thank my mom for the third variety of cell. My dad, being colorblind, has only two of them.). These cells converted the light into a pattern of small electrical pulses of neurons, each pulse like the firing of a tiny gun. Like a moving highly choreographed wild-west shootout; a train headed to the space between my ears.

This pattern, which had travelled so long and so far, was now in my own body. Small chemical-electrical patterns of my nerves echoed the pattern of scattered light from that sun explosion so many years and eight minutes before.

Once in the brain, different aspects of the image stimulated different parts. Low-level areas in the visual cortex, in the back of my head, responded to edges between dark and light, or that long straight section. Later areas, fed by earlier ones, responded to recognized objects. A horse, a fence, a tree! Half a dog! In the parahippocampal cortex, close to the exact center of my head, the stimulus from the eyes was compared and integrated with my stored memories. And so many memories! Meanwhile, still less than a second after the photons hit my eye, this pattern of neuron firing reached the Fusiform Facial Area. It began firing wildly because it recognized these impulses as having a special sort of pattern: a human face.

Some of these neurons along the visual part of my brain have what are called “mu-opioid” receptors. In fact, these receptors become more numerous in areas handling the more complex patterns. When these receptors were found there in the 1980’s it was a bit of a surprise, since they had previously been found only in brain areas correlated with feelings of pleasure. After all, it is these exactly these receptors which can be tricked into action by smoking Opium.

Activation of even a few would have been enough to draw the attention of my eyes. A level of “pleasure” so low as to be unconscious. But like a secret handshake that gets you into the deepest chambers, this particular pattern passed through almost every visual area of my brain, triggering these mu-opioid receptors all along the way. This gave rise to a now-conscious good feeling. Further neuron firing in a brain area called the Amygdala somehow connected this with my emotions, causing me to smile.(3) 

Somehow I feel a glow of recognition. Somehow a flood of memories is summoned. Somehow I feel a connection between myself and my father. Somehow I feel like I should write him back, and start to think of what I should say.

“Somehow,” yes. But how? It’s here that the trail goes cold, at the boundary between processes and brain-parts I know about, and the mysterious thing I call “me.”

But what a trail it is!

From “me” to my brain. From my eyes to the brain. From the laptop to my eyes. From Google to my laptop. From a house in Colorado to Google. From the photo to his computer. From the film to the photo. From my father’s face to the film. And from the sun to a young boy, sitting on a pony in California.

 

———-


(1) Okay, to say it was made of photons is not strictly correct, as any modern physicist will tell you how Newton was wrong, and how light is both particles (aka photons) and simultaneously a wave.
(2) If you look at a clear blue sky and defocus your eyes a bit, you can actually see your white blood cells as they pass over. Interestingly, other species have different eyes of “better” design, where blood flows from the back.
(3) For people with the rare disease Capgras, this connection between emotions and vision doesn’t work, leading them to percieve people as imposters. See here.

 

 

Facebook and your eternal destiny

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

“The World-Wide Web was developed to be a pool of human knowledge, and human culture…”[1]

And so goes the story: a network designed to facilitate military communications in a nuclear war, a system of pages designed for scholars to link to each others work. Things don’t always turn out like they were planned, do they?

Okay, it was obvious years ago that the Web would not be an ivory tower of knowledge and culture, but nevertheless we just passed a landmark moment: Last year Facebook officially overtook Google as the most visited site on the internet.[2]

Facebook reports that their users now spend over 700 billion minutes per month on Facebook. It’s incredible that so many people think its worthwhile to spend so much time looking at this particular arrangement of pixels. They are not looking up facts, not soaking in culture.

This line of thinking always reminds me of an provocative idea from the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. Over a hundred years ago he said, paraphrasing, that the certainty of a belief is inversely proportional to the existential importance of that belief. [3] What does this mean in practice?

Consider two facts:

  • Paris is the capital of France.
  • Your friends care about you.

Both are true, right? But there’s a difference. In the case of Paris, you can be very certain. Thousands of books will confirm the fact, as will most any passing stranger. You can even go to Paris and inspect various government buildings. But is this fact important to you—you the existing, feeling, needing, mortal creature? Unless you live in France, not so much. On the other hand, your friends care about you. But how can you be certain? This isn’t written in books you can’t look it up in Google or Wikipedia. There is no place you can go and inspect to confirm their feelings for you.[4]

Kierkegaard’s books didn’t have graphs, but if they did, our two facts would show up like this: kierkegaard_certainty_paris_friends You could add some other points to the line as well. Kierkegaard would put mathematics to the extreme left: facts infinitely certain, and infinitely irrelevant to your existence. And he would put your eternal destiny to the extreme right: a fact infinitely uncertain, yet of infinite concern to you.

This is the point where he continued on talking about faith, but let’s get back to our original, geek-ier, subject.

Those objective, Paris-ish, left-side facts can be confirmed with Wikipedia or Google. But where you can find the subjective, Friend-ish, right-side facts? You guessed it: Facebook. Of course it doesn’t give you hard evidence. There are no citations or PageRanks to rely on. But all those “likes”, “pokes”, “friends”, “updates”, “tags” and the rest add up to a general picture of caring, support, involvement. People are sharing with you, interacting with you. On college campuses, friends will ask if your new relationship is “Facebook Official” [5] That is, have you updated your profile to show you are in the relationship?

It’s all our attempt to bring a little certainty to things that matter deeply.[6] And it’s nothing new. In the pre-Facebook days we had to rely on other sources. Letters. Phone calls. Talks over coffee. An embrace. None of these were perfect indicators, of course. People misrepresent themselves all the time. And we all have “friends” there who are nothing of the sort.[7] The thing about Facebook, and the key to its success, is that it dramatically lowers the cost of getting a tidbit of that information. Just as Google and Wikipedia are easier than a trip to the library, a visit Facebook is “easier” than those letters, calls, or coffee dates.

Who could have predicted that this nuclear-proof system designed for furthering human knowledge and culture would one day be dominated by a program of ”likes”, “pokes”, “friends”, “updates”, and amateur photos? It seems that this, after all, more closely approximated what we wanted.

———

[1] Wikipedia: World Wide Web

[2] Techcrunch: Facebook Overtakes Google To Become Most Visited Website In 2010. Facebook: Facebook Stats.

[3] Wanderingstan: The rise of subjectivity on the web. For example, ”Kiekegaard thinks that to whatever extend something can be known through intercourse with the world-historical (i.e. objectively), the potential response elicited from an individual will necessarily be proportionately less passionate, resulting in less inwardness and less “truth.”" Michael P. Levine

[4] At least, not yet. For example see this study: The neural basis of romantic love (pdf)

[5] Urban Dictionary: Facebook Official

[6] Kierkegaard’s main point, in fact, was that Christian apologetics was a futile attempt to bring faith –and your eternal destiny– further to the left.

[7] Wanderingstan: Facebook acquaintances the new TV stars


Featuring Recent Posts WordPress Widget development by YD