 |
|
Hardcover: 224 pages |
Gary Stager pointed this one out, via Twitter, @’ing it to Will Richardson, Chris Lehmann, and myself — including me in very fine company, I might add.
It’s about a new book by Jaron Lanier, You are Not a Gadget. Perhaps most known for popularizing the term, Virtual Reality our paths intersected several years ago through Advanced Network and Services, where he was exploring potential VR applications of Interent 2 and I was working with ThinkQuest, which was created by Advanced Network. He’s a fellow that some readers of my blog might find a bit odd, but mostly he is oddly talented, described as a computer scientist, composer, visual artist, and author.
 |
|
Jaron Lanier, computer scientist, composer, visual artist, and author |
I’ve not read the book, though it’s on order and should be in by Educon. But it appears, from it’s Amazon page, that Jaron is rejecting Web 2.0. “(the) emerging Golden Age of information sharing and collaborative achievement, the strength of democratized wisdom.” His position, according to the Amazon.com review, is that,
(the) unfettered–and anonymous–ability to comment results in cynical mob behavior, the shouting-down of reasoned argument, and the devaluation of individual accomplishment. ((“You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto.” Amazon.com. Jan 2010. Amazon.com, Web. 21 Jan 2010. .))
Not having read the book, I can’t comment on its content. But the Amazon page includes an interview with Lanier, which reveals many of his objections, carrying on themes that seem to be pretty consistent with his ongoing philosophies of technology and humanity. Acknowledging that the Internet and Web have enabled individual expression and empowered “vast classes of people” in the developing world, he claims that,
The problem is not inherent in the Internet or the Web. Deterioration only began around the turn of the century with the rise of so-called “Web 2.0” designs. These designs valued the information content of the web over individuals. It became fashionable to aggregate the expressions of people into dehumanized data.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307269647?ie=UTF8&tag=resourcesforprog&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307269647
Lanier readily asserts that a group, collaborative, and frictionless (my words) exchange of information are useful in solving some problems, such as setting a price in the marketplace and elections. But, he continues…
The phrase “Design by Committee” is treated as derogatory for good reason. That is why a collective of programmers can copy UNIX but cannot invent the iPhone.
There is nothing in the interview that I disagree with, and some things, about which I have expressed deep concern in 2¢ Worth. He rightly claims that, “..if the issue is contentious, people will congregate into partisan online bubbles in which their views are reinforced.” “Partisan Mobs,” he calls them.
But all in all, I think that Jaron is attacking, what is attackable about Web 2.0, specifically questioning the arguments of its champions, and not so much the evolving applications that regular people are using in the participatory Web. I look forward to reading this book on the train, on my way to Philadelphia.
Added 10 Hours Later:
I just watched an interesting video archive of a Q2Cfestival session (October 2009, @ Perimeter Institute, Waterloo, Ontario). The panelists were Neil Gershenfeld, Director of the Center for Bits and Atoms at MIT; Raymond Laflamme, Director of the Institute for Quantum Computing at the Perimeter Institute; Jaron Lanier, Computer Scientist, author, composer, musician, & artists; Neal Stephenson, Author; and Tara Hunt, Author and Marketing Consultant. The title was Wired 24/7?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Pretty sad that I haven’t read the book, and I am only commenting on the post of someone who also has not read the book.
Like you I have no fundamental disagreements with the ideas I see here and on the Amazon page, and I think that it is healthy to regularly examine the positive and negative directions in the growth of social media.
My only objection, if it is that, is with the “grumpy old man” “all this new stuff stinks” feeling I see in the bits that I have read. Perhaps he does present enlightened, forward-moving solutions in portions of the book that I haven’t seen, but these comments don’t light a candle, they merely curse the darkness.
I’m sure I could be wrong, critiquing an unread manuscript is risky, but…
“..if the issue is contentious, people will congregate into partisan online bubbles in which their views are reinforced.”
I hope that one resonates in the bastion of intellectual incest that is the ed-tech sector.
I hate to boil this thing down to simplicity, but I’m just wondering what that strange instrument in his mouth is.
Greg,
I just got the book and the little I’ve read rings true for me – especially the stuff about the artistic and intellectual process being reduced to remixing and mashing-up. That and the all-too common conflation of mob and democracy should generate significant reasons for concern.
Mr. Lanier is at least as credible an authority, I think more so, than the Web2.opians breathlessly touting PLNs, crowd-sourcing and the artistic process as a mere form of collage.
However, the greatest concern I have about your comment is the implication that “cursing the darkness” is a less than reasonable or constructive act. Critics are important and should not be required to offer an alternative (even if Lanier might in his book) to that which they criticize.
Somehow, in matters of education it has become “bad form” to criticize any idea, action or policy without offering a positive (re: perky/upbeat/complimentary) alternative. That is a profoundly unfair and anti-intellectual position that reduces thoughtful criticism to sniping and impugns the motives of the critic.
I’ve said it in other forums, but education cannot be immune from criticism. Art, literature, film, music, politics, science, theatre – are all criticized yet nobody demands that Roger Ebert make a better film himself if he doesn’t like “All About Steve.”
Criticism is important to a culture and to the practice of any profession. Educators would be wise to embrace it.
Thanks for posting this, David. I just listened to a podcast of “On Point with Tom Ashbrook” which features an interview with Lanier. I also haven’t read the book, and in the interest of finding alternative points of view, I do hope its a little more cogent than his interview. Although he does make some very good points about the investment of people’s creative energies, he also makes some very specious comments about creativity in online communities, and a ‘cult-like’ religious fervor from proponents of ‘web 2.0’.
I’m all for criticism, but if this interview was any indication, this isn’t the constructive kind.
Here’s a link to the interview, in case anyone is interested.