Is Google Making Us Stupid?

As a follow up from our last class discussion Nick Carr's article could not have been more appropriate. I realize of course that our last class was quite some time ago so just to refresh your memory we spent a good deal of time discussing the implications of social media changing how we act and socialize in real life. This article may not be about socializing, but arguably about something more important, how we read, learn and process information due to the rise of the internet. The author Nick Carr, a professional writer, poses a thought, "My mind isn't going - so far as I can tell - but its changing." Now this change he argues is due to his decade long presence on the internet.

Last class we discussed the appearance of a "change" in our social behaviors in the real world due to our increased use of social media. However, the conclusion I came to from our discussion was that this change is not so much an actual change in our habits or social interactions, but more of a proactive consciousness about what is put on the web. Our discussion further my conviction that people are not changing their behavior, merely their social media usage so it more accurately reflects how they chose to share their personal information in real life. Consider a student with pictures of drinking or illegal activity on the web. That student would never share with an interviewer that they excessively drink on the weekends. Hence, making their pictures private on the web or not posting them all together is not actually changing their behavior (they are still drinking and taking pictures), but reflecting the way in which they engage with authority figures in real life. Adjusting privacy settings or controlling the content uploaded to the web, is not a reflection of changing someone's real world behavior, but making them more conscious of the way its displayed on the web. This need to privatize personal information, as one does in the real world, has become more popular as more figures of authority have joined online networks. The entrance of these moral compasses however, definitely benefits online these communities because it makes people reevaluate what is appropriate to post online and more reflective of real world standards.

Now that I have given my two cents on an apparent "change" I want to discuss the implications of an actual change. This change is occurring in how we think and process information, due to the rise of the internet. First off, I must say that this article, while not rooted in scientific studies or stone cold facts, explained a lot about why I am the most distracted reader when it comes to long articles or academic text. As an avid reader, I don't see the internet infringing upon my ability to read a good book, but when I am reading for the extraction of information I tend to run into some problems. I am the type of person who drives my mother nuts, I do just about everything at 100 miles an hour including using the computer. Not only is my use of a computer a flurry of high speed interactions, but the way I extricate the information seems to reflect my need for speed. The article mentions a study conducted by the University College London, that examined the computer logs of visitors on two popular research sites and found that people were practicing '"a form of skimming activity,' hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source." This study could not have more accurately captured my viewing habits on the internet. It is very rare for me to spend more than two minutes reading an article and even rarer if I return to the article ever again. Now, to be fair I am not doing research, but reading news articles or pop culture pieces, however I think this study explains why staying put on a particular research site or particular academic article and revisiting it several times becomes so difficult. I have been conditioned to have information instantly at my finger tips through my persistent use of the internet, so imagine my frustrations that I cannot process a long research article just as quickly as I found it. In thinking more about my online reading habits there is definitely a correlation between my dislike of reading long articles on computers. Whenever I have to read a long article pertaining to school I have to print them it, otherwise I tend to zone out, get distracted or jump around from place to place on the internet, until, invariably I make a pit stop on Facebook that turns into a 25 minute departure from what I was supposed to be reading.

Thinking more about my need for speed when ingesting information on the internet and this phenomenon that "we may be reading more today...But it's a different type of reading," I feel as though these tendencies are the roots of our identity as a multitasking generation. I see a direct correlation between our tendency to read many short articles, rather than one long article and our need to be watching TV, listening to music, talking on FB chat and doing our homework all a the same time. This scattered fragmentation of attention baffles some, but I think I better understand its appeal, rather than focus all of your attention on one big effort, fragmenting you time and attention between lots of little things makes the tasks appear less odious and allows you to complete several tasks at once. Granted, it is for this specific reason that when I really need to get ONE important done now the very first thing I do is unplug myself: no phone, no internet, no TV and if at all possible NO COMPUTER. All of these things in their own way are a black hole of unproductiveness, coupled together say goodbye to any hope of writing that 10 page paper.

So, my question for the week: Do you think the success of Twitter and people's fascination with Twitter is driven by this change in the way we read. Can you think of any other social media tools or technology that further reflects this change in how people process information as a result of the internet.

Community Relations 2.0

Forgive me tonight, there are several ideas I want to explore in my blog post tonight, so forgive me if it seems somewhat disjointed!

Firstly, this week I had the opportunity to read Professor Kane's article on "Community Relations 2.0" (don't worry Professor Kane I really enjoyed it and found it to be very insightful). The article, coauthored by several members of the information systems department here at BC, was written to explore the ways in which community outreach has changed due to the persistent rise in social media. What the article did really well, was pick a focus. Rather than use numerous industries dealing with the evolution of social media, the article stuck with the healthcare industry, making note that the findings based on the healthcare industry could be likened to a wide array of industries. The article through a focus in healthcare, breaks down the enhanced power of social media into four specific ways: Deep relationships, rapid organization, improved creation and synthesis of knowledge and better filtration of knowledge.

Now onto the good stuff. The first thing I wanted to discuss stems from a quote provided in the article, "40% of Americans say they have doubted a medical professionals opinion or diagnosis because it conflicted with information they'd found online". I read that and went, WOW 40% is a lot of people, especially when you consider a time when you were told, don't believe everything you read on the internet. Now obviously the reliability of information on the internet has increased immensely since its inception, especially when you consider the stunning accuracy of Wikipedia. In a recent study done by Lara Devgan from Johns Hopkins University, " a sample of Wikipedia medical articles did not contain a single egregious factual error... the vast majority were considered by researchers to be appropriate references for patients". So here in lies my thought, how do you balance the trained knowledge of a professional who has real life experience and attend at least eight years of college to enter into the provision of medical care with the increasing reliability of information online that is not only been proven to be accurate, but progress more quickly in the acquisition of new information and knowledge? While I most certainly see the value in online communities like Patientslikeme.com and the ability to aggregate and share medical information, I still question the safety of patients who take it upon themselves to generate "the first real-time, real-world open and non-blinded study", especially when the trial occurs within months and not years. I think my interest with this subject matter stems from the fact that we aren't sending doctors to medical school for nothing and while there is value in the collective information that can be found on the internet I feel like I have has skepticism about its validity drilled into my head. In my mind just because Web MD. says it doesn't make it true.

The next and completely independent thought I would like to explore is actually some what related to my blog post from last week. For those who missed it, I decided to play the devils advocate and explore the negative impacts of technology and social media on our generation's interaction with our peers. Another aspect of technology and social media that I did not cover, but came up in the lead example in Professor Kane's article, was this idea of today's "hyperconnected world". Connectivity has its pros to be sure, the world is smaller for one and information travels across the globe and back in the blink of an eye. BUT, this connectivity is demanding more and more of our time. As tools and social media become more and more mobile, there is this perception that someone is available ALL the time. No longer does the workday consist of a 9 to 5 day, rather through Twitter, texting, Facebook, email and thousand other tools people are expected to read and respond to queries and complaints any time day or night. Lets just put it this way, just because it is the weekend does not stop an angry blogger from posting a comment at 3am on Sunday morning about a grievance it has with a company. One of the "Mandates for the Social Media Team" in this article is to "continually survey the online landscape to identify potential threats", the issue of course here being the continually. This continual ability to be connected and in contact with those from work really seems to blur the lines between ones time at work and time OFF from work. Social media of course waits for no one.

Thinking about this blurred line, brings me back to last nights conversation about limited access to Gmail, Facebook, Twitter and other communication tools at work. Thinking about our conversation in conjunction with this expectation of perpetual connectivity, whether you are in the office or not, makes me question if its fair for companies to deny their employees the right to access their personal lives within the office, when a company at any given time can encroach upon their personal lives?

One final idea I wanted to touch upon, which was mentioned in "The Mandate for the Social Media Team" was Mandate number 3 "Engage Online Communities". I thought this mandate really encapsulated why Communispace gets it right. The reason they have found success is because the communities they create allow for companies to develop an online presence, so that "people can talk to [them], not just about [them]". Providing customers for a forum that allows them to feel listened to is essential to succeed in harnessing the powers of social media. At the end of the day it is all about the costumer and whether or not they feel satisfied with a company. If a customer is dissatisfied with a company or specific product, a company can use this negative and further improve their company by listening to their customers and giving them what they want. But again it is this idea of a two way conversation, rather than an angry outcry from the consumer.

I don't have a final question for the week, but I think there are several strewn throughout my post!

The Devils Advocate

This week I read the case "How Large U.S. companies can Use Twitter and Other Social Media to Gain Business Value". While informative and very systematic in its assessment of the corporate use of social media, I found this case to be rather dry and less than inspiring for my blog post. So, this week I have decided to finally take on the role of the devil's advocate.

I have decided tonight, to finally write about the pervasive and fairly addictive role that technology has assumed in the wake of my generation, which has prompted myself and many of my friends to comment, we were born in the wrong generation.

It cannot be denied of course that our society has benefited from the technological innovation and improvements that have occured, including improved medical care, access to information and an overall raised standard of living. However, while the world has become increasingly smaller as connectivity has exponentially increased, I tend to question this connectivity and the quality of the social ties that are formed through various forms of social media and texting. While their is something to be said about becoming friends with the click of a button, can you really call that person is a friend? The world of social media while instant, is really just an overwhelming collection of loose ties, but can you really say that all these ties are worth as much as 20 strong ties? Obviously it depends on your end goal, but considering these ties in a non job hunting capacity I would have to say no. For me I truly could not call the majority of these flash boiled, instant "friendships" actual friendships. When I consider my best friends, there is no doubt in my mind that they would do anything for me, but can I really say the same for the 1,135 other facebook " friends" of mine. While mediums like Facebook and Twitter serve as good means of bolstering and allowing for maintenance of close friendships, I think it is impossible to truly create something as personal as a friendship when your interactions are NOT in person.

And yet I cannot turn on the TV without seeing at least one commercial for Match.com or various other digital dating services. I think one of the reasons I am most envious of my parents' generation is that communication and friendships were about the people and not about the tools of connectivity. Sitting here in the library, I cannot walk two feet in any direction without seeing at least one kid on facebook, everybody is doing... myself included. And there in lies the problem, if you aren't doing it, what are you doing and how are you connecting with your generation because Facebook has taken on a life of its own. Just in the past six years since Facebook's inception, the Facebook culture has led to the creation of virtual goods, farms... you name it, but sadly it is also creating these weakened, impersonal and digitally based relationships. I feel like people get so caught up in the tool that they forget why it is there in the first place. If we spend half as much time actually WITH the people we are "stalking" on Facebook I feel people get a deeper, more substance based bond rather than a mere superficial "wall to wall" connection. As people's tendencies become predominately Facebook focused and introverted, I feel that they are missing out on the real world social interactions that are so important in life, not to mention stunting the potential growth of strong long term friendships that go beyond the superficial surface.

So, there is Thing One and obviously there is Thing Two in the realm of social media and communication. Thing One being Facebook and Thing Two being TEXTING. If there is one thing that drives me crazy it is the obsessive texting culture that has slowly consumed our generation. Cell phones are great and all and I really don't know how I would contact anyone or make plans without one, but the idol chitchat that occurs via texting is infuriating. Any given time or place, it is completely standard to see a smattering of students, at the very least, heads down staring intently, as they type feverishly away while staring at the tiny display of their mobile device, while simultaneously ignoring the real world unfolding around them. The worst being when two people are sitting at the same table and one of them is so completely consumed by their digital conversation that they forget to listen and contribute to the real life conversation unfolding in front of them.

Apart from being consumed by our cell phones, in our ever pressing need for speed and instant access, texting also means we must forgo quality conversation and interaction that you gain from personal interaction. More and more I hear people stressing out about the subliminal messages within a text message because so much is lost in translation that texting become somewhat of a complicated art form of decoding. When you speak to someone in person there are never such issues because feelings and emotions shine through and make it very clear as tot the meaning of a message. I can't bear the thought of everyone walking around heads down so all consumed by messages that in effect are more trouble than they are worth.

So sure there is the practicality component, but in the grand scheme I ask, are the tradeoffs worth it? In our attempt to stay connected, are we not hoping on a runaway train and getting dragged along, riding full speed ahead towards past the point of no return?