Hi-Tech Society: Race to the Bottom?

[coberst]

Hi-Tech Society: Race to the Bottom?

Will our hi-tech hand-held gadgets lead us to becoming a less sophisticated society?

It appears to me that such gadgets seem to dramatically increase the interaction within the adolescent peer group. I suspect that this interaction tends to create a greater group-think than before. It appears to me that adolescence is reached younger and lasts longer than before; I would say that generally this age of adolescence period is from 12 to the mid-twenties.

Scientists are studying and trying to develop an ability to emulate the actions of animal swarms. The birds and the bees can do it; why cannot humans emulate their behavior to our advantage?

The collective behavior of animal swarms displays advantageous collective actions without the guidance of organized leadership. Ants, as individuals, are not clever—as a collective ants, bees, birds, caribou, etc. are amazingly clever—there seems to exist something one might label as swarm intelligence—simple creatures following simple rules equal swarm intelligence.

Computer engineers attempt to emulate swarm intelligence to solve complex human problems.

Compare animal swarm intelligence with group psychology.

What is the nature of the ‘group mind’, i.e. the mental changes such individuals undergo as a result of becoming part of a group?

A bond develops much like cells which constitute a living body—group mind is more of an unconscious than a conscious force—there are motives for action that elude conscious attention—distinctiveness and individuality become group behavior based upon unconscious motives—there develops a sentiment of invincible power, anonymous and irresponsible attitudes--repressions of unconscious forces under normal situations are ignored—conscience which results from social anxiety disappear.

Contagion sets in—hypnotic order becomes prevalent—individuals sacrifice personal interest for the group interest.

Suggestibility, of which contagion is a symptom, leads to the lose of conscious personality—the individual follows suggestions for actions totally contradictory to person conscience—hypnotic like fascination sets in—will and discernment vanishes—direction is taken from the leader in an hypnotic like manner—the conscious personality disappears.

“Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organized group, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization.” Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a barbarian—a creature acting by instinct. “He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings.”

There is a lowering of intellectual ability “pointing to its similarity with the mental life of primitive people and of children…A group is credulous and easily influenced”—the improbable seldom exists—they think in images—feelings are very simple and exaggerated—the group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty—extremes are prevalent, antipathy becomes hate and suspicion becomes certainty.

Force is king—force is respected and obeyed without question—kindness is weakness—tradition is triumphant—words have a magical power—supernatural powers are easily accepted—groups never thirst for truth, they demand illusions—the unreal receives precedence over the real—the group is an obedient herd—prestige is a source for domination, however it “is also dependent upon success, and is lost in the event of failure”.

Perhaps human groups cannot develop in a similar manner as does swarm intelligence but the existence of such successful ways of handling complex problems indicates that some critical thinking regarding human group behavior is certainly in order.

Questions for discussion:

Do you think it is possible for humans to significantly improve performance within a group?

Do you think that we can find a way to make group behavior more sophisticated?

Sources for ideas and quotes in this OP come from Swarm Theory--an article in the July 2007 edition of “National Geographic” and from Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego by Freud.

[billl]

Now THIS is an important topic, in my opinion. I enjoyed your discussion very much, but I'm not sure that these two questions at the end are the most important questions. I think the most important questions are about how we might work towards creating accountability among those who develop these rapidly advancing (and highly-consciousness-changing) technologies. The current technological imperative for networking (great efficiency/power/control can now easily be gained via networks, and so it is a focus for advancement among developers, businessmen, etc.) can indeed contribute to the group mind danger that you're speaking about. The mixture of these group-mind-enabling technologies, and the way that they are marketed and profitted from (now, or in the future) is not getting as much attention as it probably should.

There are other technological trends that stand in the way of our real progress here, too. One of them that Jaron Lanier discusses in You Are Not A Gadget is a trend towards "making people obsolete so that computers seem more advanced." Another (somewhat related point) discussed in the same book is the famous phrase "information wants to be free" which is an anthropomorphic way of claiming that we are somehow wrong to value human sovereignty and private endeavor.

I think (and Lanier wrote a fantastic book about it) that the efficiencies of the latest technology are being embraced much too automatically, without any clear understanding, much less discussion, of what the major players are doing behind the scenes, or of the effect that our human accommodation of this new technological playing-field might have on our value as individuals (or, indeed, what we might be valued for).




Questions for discussion:

Do you think it is possible for humans to significantly improve performance within a group?

Do you think that we can find a way to make group behavior more sophisticated?

Sources for ideas and quotes in this OP come from Swarm Theory--an article in the July 2007 edition of “National Geographic” and from Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego by Freud.

Regarding the first question, are you asking if humans can improve their individual performances as a part of a group? Or are you asking if they can (individually or as a group) improve the group's performance? Is performance improvement being measured based on the individual's service to the group, or on their performance on their own behalf. Or are these the questions you had hoped to have us ask? ;-)

For the second question, I think that there will always be room for improvement in situations where group behavior might be important. But I think that this is maybe a different topic from your discussion of group mind. I think that group behavior can become more sophisticated, but without recourse to increases in group-mind. However, such increases in sophistication of the group require increases in the sophistication of the individuals. That involves formal and informal education, as well as a struggle against propaganda, corporate-driven marketing, entrenched interests, and other things.

[coberst]

Bill

Critical Thinking is the best antidote for ideology.

Webster says a prism is “a medium that distorts, slants, or colors whatever is viewed through it”.

It appears to me that Marx was the first great thinker to have coined the word “ideology”. Ideology is a distinctive form of reasoning about the individual and about the individual in society. Ideology is a systematically biased mode of thinking. Ideologies vary extensively in so far as the idioms used, the extent of bias, the degree of sophistication, the manner in which bias permeates various aspects of theory, and so on.

While ideologies vary widely in certain aspects all ideologies share some common characteristics. An identifiable logical structure is shared by all. This structure includes: 1) a moral dimension, 2) it is biased toward a specific group and is biased against those out side this group, 3) an ideology cannot not directly defend it self because it rests on assumptions that have never been critically examined or even formulated, and 4) Marx believes these assumptions to be “nothing more than the intellectual ‘transcripts’ of the conditions of existence of the social group whose point of view it reflects”.

Like viewing the world through a prism, the ideologue experiences the world in a distorted manner. “What a man does not transcend in reality, he cannot effectively transcend in thought either. The limits of his existence are the limits of his thoughts. His basic assumptions are therefore ultimately nothing but his conditions of existence ‘reproduced’ in thought.”

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology Bhikhu Parekh

[billl]

Hi again, coberst. I agree about CT being the solution to ideology, and liked your discussion of ideology in general. The following might sort of steer these considerations back to the "Hi-Tech Society" theme from your OP.

Critical Thinking is important, but...
We have typed a great deal about Critical Thinking before, and we would both ideally have it be part of the formal education everyone receives. Still, I think there are many types of people: different personality types, people with different aptitudes, etc. Some are drawn to graduate-level Logic courses, while some prefer gardening. Also, there is probably always going to be some percentage of failure on the part of Critical Thinking instruction, with some neighborhoods or individual classes (or whatever) perhaps producing graduates with less preparation for Critical thinking, through no fault of their own. CT will help us make the best decisions, of course, but in the end, the issues we are dealing with will in very large part require discussion and decision-making on scales much larger than the individual level.

I think it is the duty of those who DO understand the development and implementation of the technology--and especially those directly involved (as participants or 'oversight')--to make decisions of such importance with an eye towards protecting those who have less aptitude regarding technological issues, or who are less inclined to pursue such knowledge. The use of these gadgets and applications is currently being made possible for everyone from children to the elderly. If all (or even the vast majority) of us are to participate in decision-making about technology, there is a need for those who understand (including many experts who do not have a 'stake' in things) to translate/explain the issues so that the rest can better decide.

Critical Thinking About What?
While there is a need for Critical Thinking, it is also true that the necessary information is not even available to us to make some decisions regarding the use of the technology. Only Google understands what is happening in its "cloud-computing." Only Facebook understands what it might be contemplating as possible uses of the information it will collect from users in the future, or the future uses of information already collected. And any flaws or biases in the algorithms that serve up information as a service to us (information filters, meant to make our lives more efficient) would rarely be understandable to any but the designers of those algorithms, and those who control the data.

The "evolution" or development of our society (our species, even...?) requires more attention than the eyes of select businessmen and technological gurus. I believe there should be a political and/or judicial component, which can only be possible when the behind-the-scenes workings and the "Big Picture" can be seen and then reported back to the public, and analyzed via Critical Thinking. There should be some transparency (probably limited, in order to protect competition) in these technological developments, and there should be accountability to the users of the technology.

Technology always changes things, but this is something new
It was simpler when technology was mostly discrete objects, often built of parts that even the layman could inspect directly. Defects in cars, buildings, toys, etc. could be pointed out, understood by many, and the responsible companies or individuals could be held accountable for inadvertent mistakes, past negligence, and/or purposeful disregard of users. Now, however, there are a myriad of interrelated and invisible activities going on under the hood of our browsers and touch-screens. It is not easy to pinpoint the cause (or even existence) of areas in design and implementation that require improvement, repair, or outright criminal prosecution. The complexity inside and beyond is too great to be considered only via our experience using the gadget.

I think that this sort of technological development (IT, networks, interface design, etc.) would better serve the culture/community/species/user/whatever if there were more of an effort to examine our relationship to this technology, and to understand the work of those developing it. The concerns, wishes, and dreams of the developers are, I think, different from those of most of their users.
(By the way, I think the pharmaceutical industry could probably deal with some review and rethinking, as that technology moves ahead just as quickly as the gadgets we have been discussing do).

A plunge into darkness?
The concern (danger?) is that we will end up adapting our expectations to a participation with technology that we don't understand, and which is less and less concerned with the support of humans living at their fullest capacity. In this race to market and develop these new technologies, it is the fullest capacity of the machines that is quite often the goal that is inherently sought--and in all of the haste, I think some users are adapting to and even serving trends that they might very well describe as unhealthy or undesirable, if they fully understood them.

[dizzydoll]

Hi-Tech Society: Race to the Bottom?

Will our hi-tech hand-held gadgets lead us to becoming a less sophisticated society?

Do you think it is possible for humans to significantly improve performance within a group?

Do you think that we can find a way to make group behavior more sophisticated?

1. I believe we are evolving into a more sophisticated society as as result of the electronic era. Certainly this proves to be the case in banking as I receive an SMS [text msg] on my cell phone if there is any movement on any of my bank accounts. There are many other advantages to cell phones. For one, in Asian countries cell phones have become banks in themselves as I can go shopping and charge my cell phone account now without having to carry cash or credit cards. This will become more of the norm in the future.

2. I am not sure people do better in groups. I would say no, we grow as individuals and stagnate in groups. Personally I dont think there is anything to worry about global uprisings as a result of electronic gadgets. If we look at the '60's as being the only time in history where the vast majority of the worlds population [instigated by the youth] openly rallied together against the war throughout the world... it made no difference. Money and power pulls the strings, not people.

3. There will always be good and bad groups of people and their behaviors are becoming more sophisticated as a result of using electronic devices.

Personally, and perhaps because I believe in reincarnation, I believe our soul's progress or soul's journey, is speeding up rapidly now. For instance, if it was not for the internet I could not have met and connected with people from all over the world. This means if it were not for the net I would have to come back to many more lifetimes to grow as I do from meeting people online in this lifetime. imo.


oh and...



Like viewing the world through a prism, the ideologue experiences the world in a distorted manner. “What a man does not transcend in reality, he cannot effectively transcend in thought either. The limits of his existence are the limits of his thoughts. His basic assumptions are therefore ultimately nothing but his conditions of existence ‘reproduced’ in thought.”

Thank you for pointing this out. However a thought always comes before any action can be taken.
:idea:

[coberst]

Does peer group networking, facilitated by hand-held gadgets, enhance the probability for the following kind of group behavior?

The following quotes come from the Washington Post article:

Kids Gone Wild, Parents Gone Missing by By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 6,

“It is either significant or merely interesting that William Golding dedicated his classic, "Lord of the Flies," to his mother and father. It is precisely the absence of parents, or any adult actually, that enables the boys of the island to descend into savagery, and it is the sudden appearance of an adult at the end that restores what we would now call law and order. This tale, way before its time, was a precursor to South Hadley High School in Massachusetts and the suicide of Phoebe Prince. It was the only way she could get off the island.”

“After a lengthy investigation, District Attorney Elizabeth D. Scheibel had nine students arrested on criminal charges. At the same time, she alleged that while the teenagers had tormented Phoebe to the point where she hanged herself, teachers and administrators were somehow complicit because they knew -- or should have known -- that Phoebe was being bullied by a coterie of aspiring fascists. Phoebe was a newcomer from Ireland and thus, as anyone with the slightest novelist bent would know, the stranger with no champions, no defenders and, in her mind, no way out.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503549.html

[Alexander III]

Im juts gonna throw my two cents in here, from experience with life I have found in humans, the individual tends to be wise, the mass tends to be a fool.