Gadget--Regina, Yvette, Kevin, Denise, Donna

You Are Not a Gadget by Jaron Lanier—Chapter 1

I guess the author is spending the first 18 pages of this book pointing out that some programs, operating systems, and organization techniques (like MIDI, UNIX, and the file) have far-reaching effects on how things are done in the future that the original creators don’t foresee when they create them. Once systems are in place on computers, it becomes a monumental task to try to do things differently. I guess if I ever create something like this, I’ll try to consider what the ramifications are for 20 years and 100 years down the road…(KDH)

(DD)Ok –wow. If you can wait to page 21 you might get something out of this book. At least so far, this author makes pages of nebulous points that don’t go anywhere. It is a lot of hard work with very limited satisfaction to arrive at this author’s premise. What the hell is he talking about was my common thought throughout the first many pages. (RL)This has been a very difficult book for me to read and understand. Much is way over my head…(YS)Obviously an intelligent man, but appears to me to have had thoughts at random times during the day and night and put them into print.

I find it interesting that he spends so much time (and this is considering much of the book beyond the first two chapters) emphasizing that personhood is a unique quality to be reverenced and celebrated; yet, his worldview is founded on persons becoming who we are now through a process of billions of years of random mutations and other random evolutionary processes (and his version seems NOT to include a personal God or really any god at all). This seems like a paradox to me. Without some higher being (in my own view, the Christian God) responsible for the existence of humans in the first place, personhood seems like a concept that is extremely hard to define and somewhat irrelevant considering the blurred lines of both past and future in his particular philosophy of life. And yet he argues strongly for just this concept of personhood. I fully agree with his notion that people are unique, and we should not lower our standards to be happy with machines and technology that reduce us to a lower level, but I fail to see the cohesiveness of his passionate argument for personhood with his underlying presuppositions (KDH).

My favorite glimmer of hope came on page 19 when he refers to us as a “culture of reaction without action.” (19)

He seems to be criticizing the Web 2.0 world of anonymity. (He also briefly questions the future of copyright and privacy.) And he cautions that we should all struggle against being caught up in someone else’s recent careless thoughts. (22) (YS) I believe he is cautioning us against going with the crowd. When we look over the big picture, technology is only as “smart” as we (as a society) have made it. I think he embraces our individuality and the contributions that individuals can make.

His list on p 21 is the best part of the book so far. In part—

Don’t post anonymously unless you really might be in danger.

If you put effort into wikipedia articles, put even more effort into using your personal voice and expression outside of the wiki to help attract people who don’t yet realize that they are interested in the topics you contributed to. (RL) Is he suggesting blogging???

Create a website that expresses something about who you are that won’t fit into the template available to you on a social networking site.

(RL)I do like the idea of putting time in the creation of a video – not losing the concept of quality.

I also like the point about twittering simple external events – he says find a way to describe your feelings and thoughts – not just – “I’ve gone shopping” twitter.

(YS) Again, I think he is placing emphasis on our being individuals. He addresses our “personhood”.

I think he is criticizing a world in which we lose thoughtful scholarship and individuality in place of mob mentality. I don’t know if I agree yet. Have the masses EVER participated in thoughtful scholarship???? At least if one chooses to participate in Wikipedia, he has to worry about whether or not he knows anything. A lot of power in the hands of the people exists because of the web. That has never been true before.


Furthermore, technology has shaped and changed human experience, and tiny correct-at-the-time decisions by the people designing software have become huge influences on our existence as a result of “lock-in.”

His rant about Web 2.0 and his analogy to Maoists and Freudians is bizarre to say the least. His point I think???? is that the rushing headlong into a cultural revolution without careful consideration is dangerous. The current cultural revolution to which he is referring is the technology revolution

Final thoughts--
-- anonymity is dangerous
--lock-in makes us forget the lost freedoms we had. . .?????

--in the old days of the web —“People did something cooperatively, solely because it was a good idea, and it was beautiful.” (rather than because of the “classical motivators of people.) Chapter 1:
(DA) After spending entirely too much time on Chapter 1, here’s what I walked away with….
Lanier seems to be warning us that software often gets frozen in place and we find ourselves in a locked in state. I think what he is stating is that if we use existing software we will be restricted by the limitations of the software itself. He uses the example of MIDI software that was casually created by a musician to supplement the sound of a single keyboard. The software itself is limited in its ability and works much like a keyboard. It can go up or down but can’t musically create the notes in-between the two notes like string and brass instruments or even one’s voice. But this software only one of its kind has become the standard. He describes that once something has become a standard it’s close to impossible to change it. It becomes entrenched into part of the “defining unchangeable rules of our lives”. This is where it appears the software standards restrict any further human creativity that allows for improvement and growth.
Chapter 2:


Pg 27-28 He does have a point about some aspects of computer is “evolving into a life-form that can understand people better than people can understand themselves” – his example was Microsoft Word indenting, etc on its own. (RL)I don’t know how many times I have copied documents for my students only after which realizing that the numbering was wrong.(YS) This is scary when you really think about it. Think about the helpful tips in word….”were you trying to…” as if it’s reading your mind. Turn that thing off! I’m sure that programmers working on the software decided…wouldn’t it be neat if this happened and that happened….but it causes us to almost “rely” on the hints and tips too much sometimes.
I hate those auto-formatting functions as well (KDH)

So what the hell is a Luddite?--apparently it is a turn of the century term for someone who opposes technology. Interesting. This is my kind of guy-- aqlal about challenging the status-quo, but so far, he is hard to read--not a cool feature!
The original Luddite was Ned Lud, an embecile who broke two improved stocking frames at a factory. From 1811 to 1816 a body of English workmen endeavored to prevent the introduction of labor-saving machinery by burning factories and destroying machines and became known as Luddites(Websters Dictionary). The term seems to have come to mean exactly as you say, someone who opposes technology (KDH).

Pg 35 – Is it useful to portray computers themselves as intelligent or humanlike in any way? Does this presentation serve to clarify or to obscure the role of computers in our lives? Pg 36 – When people are told that a computer is intelligent, they become prone to changing themselves…blaming themselves when a digital gadget or online service is hard to use. (RL) I have been known to do this – I always assume I don’t have enough knowledge or experience with software/gadgets when things don’t work properly. I don’t know how many times I have asked my boys for help with new tech toys. The first time in AET Zone – I was frustrated and Blake easily made it do what he wanted. I don’t think I ever thought it was the designer’s fault – always mine.
(YS) I’ve been here before, too, blaming myself or lack of knowledge in regard to technology. I’ve even been told “OE”-operator error. Shame we aren’t born knowing all we need to know. “No Operator Left Behind” would be more suitable in our current times. (DA) But we must all remember without human input there is no information that can be added to the information systems of the world. I guess I'll just never forget those hours punching cards that allowed the running of a program on a computer and realizing that it was only going to be able to run successfully if there was no human error. The computer could not create the data nor could it fix the data without human intervention. I do feel that I have a lot more to learn about how to identify a reliable source out in the vast world of information. We give the computer the credit for being more intelligent but it seems that it is the vast combination of knowledge coming from humans from all parts of the world that create this intelligence. The computer is merely the vehicle we use to store and connect all the information.
This is somewhat off-topic here, but I am constantly amazed at how easily people are influenced by Facebook culture. I still don’t have my own Facebook account, but as I look at my wife’s account, I don’t recognize 80% of her “friends,” because they have changed their profile picture to a celebrity who they supposedly look like. Two weeks ago was “retro profile pic” week, and everyone looked like a little kid or a teenager I didn’t recognize. Everyone seems to just go along with these ideas without questioning whose idea it was in the first place … and these are just a couple of examples on Facebook. The author points out that people blame themselves for not understanding computers and software. In this case, they seem too easily influenced by the people who create the software and the people who make all these odd suggestions (KDH).

Chapter 3-Inner Trolls…Isn’t this real life? Think about a crowd of people. In every crowd there’s a leader that evolves. There’s also a “loner”. Isn’t it the same on the internet? I think that the internet makes it easier to “bash” someone due to anonymity. Sadly, for some, it’s a thrill to have fun at the expense of another who’s just a pseudonym on a site. Maybe we should question whether our lives have turned into a database. (DA) I'm hoping that the internet is helping introverted people find a voice. I hope for my students that this will help them learn to speak up in class and in other real life discussions. I also hope that online social communities will evolve into communities that will not allow people to be inappropriate. I feel that as the audiences grow so will the intolerance for inappropriate behavior. The author talked about quality over quantity. I hope that eventually communities will also demand appropriate grammar and spelling as well...maybe I'm dreaming!
I was glad to hear that he is not anti-Internet (p. 71). I think I'll post more about this chapter some other time. I'm getting really tired...(KDH)