Tag: Entrepreneurship

Attention Economy

Wikipedia defines “attention economy” as “an approach to the management of information as a scarce commodity”. Davenport and Beck claim that attention is “focused mental engagement on a particular item of information” (Wikipedia contributors, 2019). 

The scarcity of a resource denotes its value. Attention has become a scarce commodity based on the vast amount of information available. Average consumers are bombarded by exposure and networks. As marketers predict revenue by click-through rates, campaigns are increasingly targeted and commercial efforts have become precise. 

Crogan and Kinsley (2012) address the “economization” of our cognitive capacities on which such attention economy is based. They claim that a reconstitution of capitalism occurs with the emergence of “immaterial labour” where the notion of time shifts as an aspect of physical productivity to one of attention. As such, what we spend our time on (doing) and what we focus on are increasingly intangible yet, profitable. 

Crogan and Kinsley (2012) reference four ways that attention is “commodified, quantified and trained”; one of them is via the internet as a “mediator of contemporary intellectual and social activities”, which they identify as a “threat to our mental capacities” (Crogan and Kingsley, 2012, p. 4). Nicholas Carr (2008) agrees that longterm engagement with the Net depletes “concentration and contemplation” abilities. Both Harris (2016) and Morgans (2017) attribute the Net’s tampering with our brains via a calculated design of content delivery. We become addicted to the interaction. More importantly, according to Carr (2008), our brains are rewired in a manner that weakens the “higher cognitive faculties”. 

Attention therefore, represents shorter intervals of focus no longer associated with deep thought. So what kind of economic benefits would this type of attention manifest for corporations? If the internet promotes what Carr (2008) refers to as mental habits of “staccato” quality, then what becomes the foundation in such “attention economy”?

References

Carr, N. (2008, July 1). Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

Crogan, P., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Paying attention: Towards a critique of the attention economy. Culture Machine, 13, 1-29. 

Harris, T. (2016, July 27). The slot machine in your pocket. Speigel Online.

Morgans, J. (2017, May 19). The secret ways social media is built for addiction. Vice Magazine. 

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 4). Attention Economy. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 1:34, March 5, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

Are we post-human?

Human consciousness has always intrigued me. Humanity’s greatest achievements in both arts and science are attributed to a unique capacity and intelligence that is solemnly human. However, computation has advanced to where information, automation and digital networks are shifting our roles, responsibility and identity. Who we are has been closely tied to what we do, that is our societal contribution and our relationship with one another. Technological tools that were created to assist us are not only reshaping human relations but also gaining a presence that changes how we think of ourselves. 

According to Dataism (Hariri, 2015), the entire human specie can be seen as single data-processing system where individual beings serve merely as chips. All of humanity’s history can be summarized by four methods of gaining efficiency: increase the number processors, variety of processors, number of connections between processors and freedom of movement along existing connections. We are therefore, mere information at our core. 

If the human experience is unoriginal and humanity’s goal is the Internet-Of-Things, then how would we explain creativity and imagination? Are they too, algorithmic information flow?

Jaron Lanier (2010) claims that as developers of digital technology design programs that require users to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they are asking for our acceptance that at least a part of our brain functions as a program (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). Our exchange with the machine “locks” us into a grid of suppositions based in minimalistic ideals and explicit commands. 

While simplicity in digital designs gets a job done, inexact details that attribute to the whole “human program” may be lost. Peripheral data that does not precisely comply to the task are ignored, resulting in an exchange template based solely in transactional efficiency. Such fragmentation of what Lanier refers to as “personhood” not only reduces our expectations of each other, but also “who a person can be and…who each person can become” (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). 

Lanier (2010) claims that we take for granted the countless ways we are networked, including via social media. We buy into surface proficiency but in truth, networks perpetuate a “program” in us that is not actually (the whole of) us. As we extend our adoption of these technologies, we empower networks through dependency. Information becomes us. We socialize and work (produce) in a “symbolic environment” of “real virtuality” (Castells, 2000). 

While dataists view such developments as human evolution, their potential results alarm others. A cybernetic “posthuman” is interchangeable with the next. S/he (it) applies “lenticular logics” (McPherson, 2012) where nodes are observed without perception of the whole. Perception rises beyond intelligence into consciousness. This is the realm of meaning, understanding and awareness. In the context of human-versus-machine, this realm represents an argument against human as information. Organisms are greater than algorithms. We are complex beings on a quest. 

Johanna Drucker references an “interior life” that is tampered by the “grand narratives” of Silicon Valley (Simanowski, 2016, p. 43). Lanier (2010) points to an augmenting “hive mind” as the result of our alikeness and displacement from the “whole”. Humanity rests at a crossroad where artificial intelligence (AI) propels singularity. Our reliance on AI for productivity must be balanced with the acknowledgement that we are not only in charge but we also reserve an authority and a sovereignty that is uniquely human. Such self recognition requires an awareness that surpasses our roles and responsibility in the social construct. 

If we were mere performances (of tasks) then we are undoubtedly replaceable by machines. Computers can outperform us. But if we are a capacity greater than information flow assigned to transactions, then it is up to us to summon that force within. Lanier refers to it as consciousness “situated in time” (Lanier, 2010, p. 42). It is a context and an embodiment that sustains us outside a performative dimension. It is “us” in a space where no information flows and yet fully defined. 

 

References 

Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5-24. doi:10.1080/000713100358408

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Homo Deus: A brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper, An Imprint of HarperCollins.

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

McPherson, T. (2012). Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. Debates in the Digital Humanities, 139-160. doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017

Simanowski, R. (2016). Digital humanities and digital media: Conversations on politics, culture, aesthetics and literacy. London: Open Humanities Press.

How am I made for the world?

“How am I made for the world”? ~David Whyte

One of the most frequent questions asked in childhood is, “what are you going to be when you grow up”, as if there is only one destitute of vocations. There is one career path that we are meant to follow. Once found, all falls into place. We will receive satisfaction from our work, regular pay checks and scheduled leisure with friends and family.

In “The Three Marriages”, David Whyte invites the challenge of work-life balance. Our sense of self, derived from our commitment to our partner and loved-ones, from our work and from our own wellbeing, is in fact the very foundation of joy in all three areas.

In juggling the tasks of spouse, parent, child, sibling, boss, mentor, employee and many more, we ought to be aware of who we are, i. e. our “marriage” to the self. This ever-present undercurrent not only drives our external relationships but also integrates all of which that is “us”.

Marriage is a great analogy for the most intimate kind of relationships. One where the boundaries of self and the other are blurred.

In Ken Robinson’s “Finding Your Element”, he discusses the search for passion; “what do you love and what do you love about it”? But is it simply that we find what we love to do, do it and happiness proceeds?

Paulo Coelho refers to the “personal legend” as what “makes the world more alive for you and makes you more alive within it”. But what truly makes us happy can elude us. Whyte, therefore delves into the inclinations by which we are called, the tendencies that are in fact “bigger” than the finite path.

There is, within us an innate leverage of fulfilment that gives our lives purpose and meaning. That influence embodies not only what we do and to whom we marry but also, who we ultimately are. We are engulfed by a greater force that motivates us to explore certain paths. And if these paths don’t enhance one another in a way that ultimately empower that great virtue, they will lead us to disappointment and sorrow. But if we can discover what truly drives us and propel our decisions, we enhance that strength. That strength is our essence.

Our choice in what we do, who we marry and how we interact with the world depends upon our relationship with that which is innate. When we enforce that which motivates us, our paths are not only clear but they entwine. All decisions become of less weight. They are the most natural unfoldings. We no longer choose between our job and our family. They are one. And how we integrate them calls on the keystone of self-knowledge, an understanding of our inner being so innate that we may be afraid.

Naturally, we are afraid of what could be revealed. But this conversation with the self is so important and significant. Once conquered, we are invited to a banquet with all those we are connected to and we can celebrate. We celebrate the love and the passion, the joy and understanding. The recognition of what made us and therefore, how we are made for the world.

Armed with such affirmation, we brave the world and establish our significance. And how apparent we are. We are indeed wonders of creation for which the world requests. We are elated beings so adept to what the world needs. All our relationships observe such celebration. We are made to rejoice. We are called to be glad, in all of our endeavours, the spouse, the work and most importantly, the self.

Music is the Space Between the Notes

“Music is the space between the notes.” ~Claude Debussy

When I was a young pianist, I loved playing Claude Debussy. His first Arabesque was one of my favourites; the romantic interlude, fluid melody and vaporous softness enticed buoyancy through my imagination.

In classical music, arabesque denotes a piece of floral and decorative music that merges exotic and flow. Debussy was known for his Deux Arabesque, which were composed in 1888 and 1889 amidst French Impressionism. He was influenced by art forms at the time that depict natural lights in its mutable gaze. His first Arabesque contains many gestures of such luminous arch. As each melody phrases into his harmonic presence, translucent movement contours through pace.

Such beautiful consonance is in fact, interpreted as much by audible as by what is unheard. Deliberate absence highlights dulcet presence. Focus allows space to emerge as full being. What isn’t there gives shape to what becomes the process.

Our work, in so many instances is simply to yield that space. Whether creating music, writing a poem, solving a problem or addressing a speech, the “work” had already been done. Our job in the moment, is to allow.

Framing the space is the craft. How do we determine what goes and what stays? Marie Kondo claims in her book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up” that, “the question of what you want to own is actually the question of how you want to live your life”. “Attachment to the past and fears concerning the future” cultivates clutter. Instead, choose to keep only what truly “spark joy”.

Space cultivates being. That which “sparks joy” emerges from the recognition of redundancy. As we reduce noise and invite space, harmony derives. Our natural lyrics converge into focus. Expressed as presence.

Simplicity is Hard to Build

“Simplicity is hard to build, easy to use, and hard to charge for. Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for.” ~Chris Sacca, Investor

Chris Sacca knows a thing or two about business. As a former Google employee turned Silicon Valley venture investor with capitals in Twitter and Uber, he is known for stating that, “simplicity is hard to build, easy to use, and hard to charge for. Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for.”

Not only is simplicity hard to build and charge for, it is what we all take for granted and want more of. When great products seamlessly enter our lives, we integrate them with ease. It is what defines well-designed websites, hand soap, toothbrushes, paper clips, electronic devices etc etc.

They enhance the user experience by amalgamating the essence of the task with thoughtfulness. The product integrates into its setting so pleasantly, as if it were there all along. The user unknowingly calls forth the product. It then guides him to complete a task with grace and comfort.

According to John Maeda’s “The Laws of Simplicity“, comfort often means saving time (Law 3). A user perceives time reduction in many cases, as simpler. In reality, he has been given the chance to use the extra time for something else. Maeda gives the example of shortening a commute that amounts to extra time with loved ones, which ultimately enhances a person’s wellbeing. In the case of overnight deliveries, they allow a sooner product arrival, which also increase the customer’s satisfaction level and bring about joy.

A simple product must fundamentally embody the user’s intent. Products that come fast serve their purpose. But while time reduction can sometimes translate to a simpler user experience, time merely denotes one dimension of our experience. In order to develop a simple product that elutes a user’s effort, the creator must understand what to take away. And as the chef design officer at Apple said, “to be truly simple, you have to go really deep” (Isaacson, W. 2011 Steve Jobs).

Steve Jobs was known to have cared deeply about his products this way. Both the external appearance and the intrinsic arrangements were essential to the whole. He understood that superior products do not distract, instead they add value. He knew how to connect a consumer’s need with what the product ultimately offers. And he arranged the products from the inside out even though most consumers would never see a product’s interior. He fully embraced wholistic simplicity and his products do not even entertain fuss and clutter. In the end, users are invited to an easeful focus that brings about clarity of usage.

Maeda gives the example of the iPod as the quintessential simple product that combines “blurred grouping” and function organization (Law of Simplicity Number 2). Although users may not instinctively know how to operation the product, it generally does not take long for them to become familiar. Such product’s grouping boundaries are “blurred” which according to Maeda, allows the abstract aesthetics to shine through. And when a consumer looks at a simple iPod, it is easy to overlook its value. In truth, layers of interpretations and knowledge are required to create an extraordinary simple product. Compared to a “complicated” product with “bells and whistles”, where a consumer can easily become “hooked”, a simple product’s value lies in the skillful deciphering of the its true essence, i. e. the depth of what the product is and why it exists.

In order for a product to remain authentic while focused on delivering its genuine usefulness, its creator must not only stay curious but also loyal to the conviction of its success. How do we all, create such innate efficiency and fluid simplicity?