Achieved and ascribed identities

Here's an interesting piece in the Guardian, in the wake of the first recorded bar brawl over Kantian philosophy: two men in Russia got into a pub brawl over Kant, and one shot the other.

Kant cropped up again earlier this week while I was having coffee at my house with David Goodhart, the director of Demos, a thinktank that describes its mission as "to bring politics closer to people". We were recording a programme about community for Radio 4, in the course of which he said something extremely interesting: that the problem with the political class, and the reason they are often so emotionally and politically distant from many ordinary people, especially in settled working-class areas, is that their identities are often achieved, not ascribed.

What he means is that politicians, like many "successful" people, have achieved success by finding a route beyond the limitations of their background. They have come to define themselves not by where they are from, their community, but through what they have achieved in terms of education, qualifications, career and personal aspiration. Community is thus often a nostalgic background hum for many successful people, but not something they are completely embedded within. And if they find a new community, it is one they have chosen, not one ascribed to them by birth.

This, in a sense, is the Kantian ideal. "How recognisable, how familiar to us is the man so beautifully portrayed [by Kant]," wrote Iris Murdoch. "Free, independent, lonely, powerful, rational, responsible, brave, the hero of so many novels and books of moral philosophy.For Kant, the human being is at his or her best when they have successfully self-authored. It's all about self-determination. For such as these, freedom is about breaking free of allegiance, of the restrictions of the local and the particular. In such a world, loyalties are simply a temporary convenience.

Autonomy is not the whole of ethics.

 

People forget how to engage attention

Here's an interesting take in the New Yorker on how and why Facebook makes people unhappy.

What causes us to feel bored and, as a result, unhappy? Attention. When our attention is actively engaged, we aren’t bored; when we fail to engage, boredom sets in. As Eastwood’s work, along with recent research on media multitasking, have illustrated, the greater the number of things we have pulling at our attention, the less we are able to meaningfully engage, and the more discontented we become.

[...] Demands on our attention lead us to use Facebook more passively than actively, and passive experiences, no matter the medium, translate to feelings of disconnection and boredom.

In ongoing research, the psychologist Timothy Wilson has learned, as he put it to me, that college students start going “crazy” after just a few minutes in a room without their phones or a computer. “One would think we could spend the time mentally entertaining ourselves,” he said. “But we can’t. We’ve forgotten how.” Whenever we have downtime, the Internet is an enticing, quick solution that immediately fills the gap. We get bored, look at Facebook or Twitter, and become more bored. Getting rid of Facebook wouldn’t change the fact that our attention is, more and more frequently, forgetting the path to proper, fulfilling engagement. And in that sense, Facebook isn’t the problem. It’s the symptom.

In a broader sense, of course, the Internet offers much more opportunity for active engagement than staring at the television. And I'm not sure the point holds more generally. I'm typing this at my usual coffee shop in New York, a city which is a huge blaring multicolored kaleidoscope of things competing for attention - which is what makes it so stimulating. So why does big city buzz inspire, but online multiple pulls of attention enervate?

It must be something to do with energy and depth and unexpectedness. Any amount of shallow celebrity gossip and trivia must depress people after a while.

It must also have something to do with the right amount of stimulus. I'm reminded of Cziksentmihalyi's idea of flow, that the right amount of challenge, at the edge of our capabilities, puts us into a state where time just seems to pass almost without noticing because you are so absorbed in what you are doing.

Still, it's such a common experience now that people pay more attention to their devices than the person right in front of them that it must point to a deeper problem beyond Facebook.

I asked G about it. She says it's like a hunter-gatherer thing. You see something shiny or interesting, and the instinct is to grab it.

 

"Stop saying robots are killing jobs"

An article in MIT Technology Review disputes that technology is destroying jobs, especially arguments from Brynjolfsson and McAfee which we've seen before.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s mistake comes from considering only first order effects of automation where the machine replaces the worker. But when a machine replaces a worker, there is a second order effect: the organization using the machine saves money and that money it flows back into to the economy either through lower prices, higher wages for the remaining workers, or higher profits. In all three cases that money gets spent which stimulates demand that other companies respond to by hiring more workers.

It's the traditional argument that demand simply shifts to new goods and services. But it relies on the traditional assumption that new needs are similar in economic terms to the old ones. In the example above, what of the higher wages for the remaining workers induce them to take more leisure, so total wages remain the same or even fall? That has not happened much to date, but it is a matter of taste rather than economic law.

The fundamental issue is how and when things fall outside the monetary economy, so the flow above springs a leak. I keep arguing that more and more of the things we value as we rise up the hierarchy of needs are harder to package in monetary terms, because they are not excludable nor rival goods. As the underlying nature of the economy changes, our institutions have to adapt too.

 

Who will prosper in the New world?

Tyler Cowen asks in the NYT:

Who will do well? THE CONSCIENTIOUS Within five years we will are likely to have the world’s best education, or close to it, online and free. But not everyone will sit down and go through the material without a professor pushing them to do the work. Those who are motivated to use online resources will do much, much better in the generations to come.

Motivation - those who have it, those who can inspire it - is one of the main themes. It's an interesting take. I agree motivation - including incentivizing behavior - is the key issue for the emerging new economy. That's why I've been so interested in some of the classic psychology on motivation, like Maslow.

 

How technology wrecks the middle class

David Autor,a well-known Labor economist, and David Dorn write in the NYT today.

The good news, however, is that middle-education, middle-wage jobs are not slated to disappear completely. While many middle-skill jobs are susceptible to automation, others demand a mixture of tasks that take advantage of human flexibility. To take one prominent example, medical paraprofessional jobs — radiology technician, phlebotomist, nurse technician — are a rapidly growing category of relatively well-paid, middle-skill occupations. While these paraprofessions do not typically require a four-year college degree, they do demand some postsecondary vocational training.

It's not wholly new - a riff on the hollowing out thesis - but worth a look.

The "experience economy" comes to the arts

This is an interesting piece in the NYT. The art/ museum world is shifting towards a focus on experiences, it argues.

In this kind of world, the thrill of standing before art — except perhaps for works by boldface-name artists like van Gogh, Vermeer, Monet and Picasso (and leaving aside contemporary artists who draw attention by being outrageously controversial) — seems not quite exciting enough for most people. What’s a museum to do?

Glenn D. Lowry, the director of the Museum of Modern Art, has seen the future. In a speech he gave a while back in Australia, he noted that museums had to make a “shift away from passive experiences to interactive or participatory experiences, from art that is hanging on the wall to art that invites people to become part of it.” And, he said, art museums had to shed the idea of being a repository and become social spaces.

I discussed the book which, according to the NYT article, looks at the commercial aspects of this idea here.

Im fact, I was in the Metropolitan Museum yesterday, and walked around their newly rehung and expanded European paintings section. They now have what appear to be little iPad-like devices in front of some of the paintings, with simple analysis videos which are very effective.

Of course, they've had iPod-like audio devices for years, although I seldom use them. And I love their 82nd and Fifth series of two-minute videos about pieces.

But there must be so much more scope to put particular pieces or objects in context. Perhaps in five years, there will be video of some of the original settings for the Egyptian artifacts right beside them in the museum, for example.

Indeed, there could be a whole separate museum or area which looks for just a few pieces at a time in depth, using audio-visual means to delve deep into context, to enter into the world represented by the piece - the culture, the setting, the artist, ideas about art, how it fitted into the history of the time, audience and reception, technique, how it affected other art or ideas. The Met is dazzling in its breadth, but taking just a few things and looking very closely could be highly rewarding.

Instead of a room with twenty pieces of art, there could be one piece of art with twenty screens and a soundtrack. That could be inspirational, as well as a matter of participation and experience.

Artists often claim pieces speak for themselves. But they often speak in code, demanding knowledge of why and how the art has come about. More depth of context could challenge people much more to think and feel and respond to something encapsulating a different age and point of view. The key would be to go deep enough to challenge the superficiality or assumptions a viewer brings to the piece.

 

Moving on from Clippy

"Bill Gates says software assistants can save the world," says MIT Technology Review.

Readily accessible floods of data, combined with powerful cloud computing and advances in software, should allow personal assistants to “understand” what humans are doing and actively collaborate or help them out, said Gates. Smart assistant software could even be crucial in addressing some of the world’s most challenging problems, he said, as identified by his philanthropic organization the Gates Foundation.

Gates said, for example, that software able to intelligently interpret the available data about a person and respond could improve education.

The software agents could help make decisions, too.

Gates imagined an assistant helping a Kenyan farmer using the M-Pesa mobile banking system that handles roughly 30 percent of the country’s GDP (see “Shopping via Text Message”). “When I sell my crop after the harvest, it advises me to save some of my money and even makes that deposit,” said Gates, who praised the data M-Pesa has made available for such projects

Clippy, the notorious Microsoft paperclip "helper", had perhaps just been premature, he said.

Clearly, there's something to this argument. But for now, I find the services available surprisingly primitive. Nobody has yet developed an effective assistant to help prioritize an email inbox, for example (at least commercially). Junk filters and prioritizing some senders is about all email programs do. Compare this to the confident hopes about artificial intelligence and expert systems in the 1980s. Far from super intelligent computers taking over the world, they can barely sort important work time-sensitive email from routine information emails.

And for all the discussion of predicting wants and needs, I still find one of the most common examples, Netflix suggestions, amazingly primitive sometimes. It has not yet figured out there is a man and a woman in our house and they often like different movies.

The difficulty has always been computers have difficulty with context and meaning. Brute force and massive amounts of data, such as Google Machine translation, is starting to change that. However , it looks like we're just going to see specific small-scale helpers for the time being.

That could still have an impact in education or office productivity. But expectations have also fallen.