4 ms·

A essentially similar view of technology's interrelation with media seems to be held by the computing pioneer Ted Nelson. He, however, frames it in a much more

A essentially similar view of technology's interrelation with media seems to be held by the computing pioneer Ted Nelson. He, however, frames it in a much more cynical way. In fact, the lack of care about its role as a medium with which the computer was (and continues to be) developed left him disgruntled with "technologists" as the social group responsible for this development. A frying-pan is technology. All human artifacts are technology. But beware anybody who uses this term. Like "maturity" and "reality" and "progress", the word "technology" has an agenda for your behavior: usually what is being referred to as "technology" is something that somebody wants you to submit to. "Technology" often implicitly refers to something you are expected to turn over to "the guys who understand it." This is actually almost always a political move. Somebody wants you to give certain things to them to design and decide. Perhaps you should, but perhaps not. This applies especially to "media". I have always considered designing the media of tomorrow to be an art form (though an art form especially troubled by the politics of standardization). Someone like Prof. Negroponte of MIT, with whom I have long had a good-natured feud, wants to position the design of digital media as "technology". That would make it implicitly beyond the comprehension of citizens or ordinary corporation presidents, therefore to be left to the "technologists"-- like you-know-who. [...] Hypertext is not technology but Literature. Literature is the information that we package and save (first just books and newspapers and magazines, now movies and recordings and CD-ROMs and what-all). The design of tomorrow's literature determines what the human race will be able to keep track of and understand. These are not issues to be left to "technologists". (Source: http://hyperland.com/TedCompOneLiners http://hyperland.com/TedCompOneLiners) Edit: What irks me somewhat about the above quote (and his other writings) is Nelson's choice of the word "technologist", which he sometimes shortens to "tekkie", to describe the kind of person who's too blinded by the shiny new thing and too oblivious of his/her users' needs to care about the designing whatever he or she produces for the long-term benefit of those users. I can't think of a better alternative, though. Care to suggest one?

mjn 14y ago
One thing I find interesting about Ted Nelson is that he developed some of those views as computers were just becoming widespread, not as a retrospective reaction to them. And, importantly, he developed them as a self-described fan of computers, not as someone who disliked them, as many technology-critical writers do. He was around when personal computers were just becoming available, and was keen on trying to ensure that regular people could harness their power for their own ends. His cynicism about "technology" as an industry and culture always seemed tinged with a utopian optimism about computers themselves, as encapsulated in his slogan, "You can and must understand computers NOW". So he was against the "tekkies", but not against computation, if regular people could get their hands on its power, bypassing the "computer priesthood" operating as gatekeepers. Here's something he wrote in 1974, in Computer Lib (unfortunately out of print, but there's an excerpt reprinted at http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf): > Any nitwit can understand computers, and many do. Unfortunately, due to ridiculous historical circumstances, computers have been made a mystery to most of the world. And this situation does not seem to be improving. You hear more and more about computers, but to most people it’s just one big blur. The people who know about computers often seem unwilling to explain things or answer your questions. Stereotyped notions develop about computers operating in fixed ways—and so confusion increases. The chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously. > This book is a measure of desperation, so serious and abysmal is the public sense of confusion and ignorance. Anything with buttons or lights can be palmed off on the laymen as a computer. There are so many different things, and their differences are so important; yet to the lay public they are lumped together as “computer stuff,” indistinct and beyond understanding or criticism. It’s as if people couldn't tell apart camera from exposure meter or tripod, or car from truck or tollbooth. This book is therefore devoted to the premise that > EVERYBODY SHOULD UNDERSTAND COMPUTERS.
- networked 14y ago
  His cynicism always seemed tinged with a utopian optimism I agree completely. In light of recent developments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627 you might say that his views are becoming better more widely accepted, even if their history is not acknowledged. In Computer Lib Nelson advocated what we today might call a "Wikipedia" or "Khan Academy" model of education. I'll allow myself to post an extended quotation from his reaction to dialogue-based learning systems because I find the entire thing fascinating and terribly prescient (keep in mind that this was published in 1974): "The alternative is straightforward. Instead of devising elaborate systems permitting the computer or its instructional contents to control the situation, why not permit the student to control the system, show him how to do so intelligently, and make it easy for him to find his own way? Discard the sequences, items and conversation, and allow the student to move freely through materials which he may control. Never mind optimizing reinforcement or validating teaching sequences. Motivate the user and let him loose in a wonderful place. Let the student control the sequence, put him in control of interesting and clear material, and make him feel good— comfortable, interested, and autonomous. Teach him to orient himself: not having the system answer questions, all typed in, but allowing the student to get answers by looking in a fairly obvious place. (Dialogue is unnecessary even when it does not intrude.) Such ultra-rich environments allow the student to choose what he will study, when he will study it and how he will study it, and to what criteria of accomplishment he will aim. Let the student pick what he wishes to study next, decide when he wishes to be tested, and give him a variety of interesting materials, events and opportunities. Let the student ask to be tested on what he thinks he knows, when he is ready, selecting the most appropriate form of testing available. This approach has several advantages. First, it circumvents the incredible obstacles created by the dialogue-item-sequence philosophy. It ends the danger to students of bugs in the material. And last, it does what education is supposed to do—foster student enthusiasm, involvement, and self-reliance. Under such circumstances students will actually be interested, motivated to achieve far more than they have ever achieved within the normal instructional framework; and any lopsidedness which may result will be far offset by the degree of accomplishment which will occur—it being much better to create lopsided but enthusiastic genius specialists than listless, apathetic, or cruelly rebellious mediocrities. If they start soon enough they may even reach adulthood with natural minds: driven by enthusiasm and interest, crippled in no areas, eager to learn more, and far smarter than people ordinarily end up being. Enthusiasm and involvement are what really count. This is why the right to explore far outweighs any administrative advantages of creating and enforcing “subjects” and curriculum sequences. The enhancement of motivation that will follow from letting kids learn anything they want to learn will far outweigh any specialization that may result. By the elimination or benign replacement of both curriculum and tests in an ultra-rich environment, we will prevent the attrition of the natural motivation of children from its initially enormous levels, and mental development will be the natural straight diagonal rather than the customary parabola."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
Its so archaic to see terms like "the computer" thrown around. The term is meaningless today as it was back then. What do we mean by this? My 286 DOS box in my basement has nothing in common with Nexus. My 64 core server has nothing to do with your newest Macbook. What he's really takling about is whole slew of things like interfaces, UI, networking, protocols, etc. Sorry, but those things are technology and should be worked on by technologists because there's literally no on else who can work on them. I hate this catch-all term that's just a strawman for critics to bash nerds with. If "the computer" is awful, then it might have more to do with management and the business owning class's inability to leverage all these amazing technologies into a product the end user is comfortable with. While nerds make an easy target, it behooves the ivory tower cynic to spread his hate more evenly. This is like Nelson pissing on the internal combustion engine and calling every engineer in Detroit, Seoul, and Tokyo a dimwitted anti-social jerk because his 1986 Datsun was a piece of crap. More than likely it was the engineers who were breathlessly fighting against requirements that forced them to deliver a substandard product. There's something too corportist for my tastes about pissing on nerds and ignoring the business owners and upper management who actually make the calls that determine how things will work in the end. Also, I really want to stress that the linked piece shows a very thoughtful essay from Alan Kay regarding his thoughts on the dynabook and its intended audience. So wait, Kay is the "tekkie" strawman we're supposed to hate? Sorry, but if Nelson can't handle guys like Kay then who exactly is going to design the future? Nelson? A group of elites he picks, making sure to carefully discriminate against anyone who shows the slightest inclination towards "tekkieness" which he solely identifies? Honestly, would Nelson even tolerate Alan Kay? I doubt it. Never meet your heroes. Heck, never read their opinion pieces.
- mjn 14y ago
  Sorry, but those things are technology and should be worked on by technologists because there's literally no on else who can work on them. That's exactly the viewpoint that he's arguing against: setting up "technologists" as a kind of high-priest class, the only ones who understand "computers", some nebulous thing that regular people shouldn't bother their heads with, and instead should buy polished, well-engineered consumer experiences. Like Kay and others, he's much more interested in a model of technology that's less black-box. In particular, the thing they object to is the merger of technology/business/design into designing these overarching "experiences" which regular people are just supposed to "use". When such experiences increasingly structure large parts of society, it becomes a bit dangerous of they're all black boxes that regular people aren't supposed to understand or exercise meaningful control over.
specialist 14y ago
[Nelson] sometimes shortens to "tekkie", to describe the kind of person who's too blinded by the shiny new thing... Technophile, as coined by Neil Postman. -- My early disappointment, disillusion with technology was largely validated and informed by Neil Postman's book Technopoly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly Computers et al were supposed to make everything better, right? Why are my users still struggling? Why after a decade and 100s millions of dollars are we still not seeing seeing a positive ROI, increased productivity, improved quality, or something? I reread Technopoly a few years back. While I still agree with Postman's thesis, especially how technological progress is often dehumanizing, I disagree with his pessimism. It is not enough to point out a problem. Whenever I criticize, I try very hard to figure out a fix. As a recovering technophile, I see in myself how its too easy to be NIMBY and against everything. But that helps no one. So I also try to go the extra distance and communicate what I am for, my affirmative position. Edit: typo.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > My early disappointment, dissolution [sic] with technology ... You were dissolved by technology? Or did you mean to say you were "disillusioned" by technology? > Computers et al were supposed to make everything better, right? No, but they spell better than most people can, and even correct people's spelling guesses. However, since "dissolution" is a real word, even a computer wouldn't have been able to correct this error.

mjn 14y ago

One thing I find interesting about Ted Nelson is that he developed some of those views as computers were just becoming widespread, not as a retrospective reaction to them. And, importantly, he developed them as a self-described fan of computers, not as someone who disliked them, as many technology-critical writers do. He was around when personal computers were just becoming available, and was keen on trying to ensure that regular people could harness their power for their own ends. His cynicism about "technology" as an industry and culture always seemed tinged with a utopian optimism about computers themselves, as encapsulated in his slogan, "You can and must understand computers NOW". So he was against the "tekkies", but not against computation, if regular people could get their hands on its power, bypassing the "computer priesthood" operating as gatekeepers. Here's something he wrote in 1974, in Computer Lib (unfortunately out of print, but there's an excerpt reprinted at http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf): > Any nitwit can understand computers, and many do. Unfortunately, due to ridiculous historical circumstances, computers have been made a mystery to most of the world. And this situation does not seem to be improving. You hear more and more about computers, but to most people it’s just one big blur. The people who know about computers often seem unwilling to explain things or answer your questions. Stereotyped notions develop about computers operating in fixed ways—and so confusion increases. The chasm between laymen and computer people widens fast and dangerously. > This book is a measure of desperation, so serious and abysmal is the public sense of confusion and ignorance. Anything with buttons or lights can be palmed off on the laymen as a computer. There are so many different things, and their differences are so important; yet to the lay public they are lumped together as “computer stuff,” indistinct and beyond understanding or criticism. It’s as if people couldn't tell apart camera from exposure meter or tripod, or car from truck or tollbooth. This book is therefore devoted to the premise that > EVERYBODY SHOULD UNDERSTAND COMPUTERS.

networked 14y ago
His cynicism always seemed tinged with a utopian optimism I agree completely. In light of recent developments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5285627 you might say that his views are becoming better more widely accepted, even if their history is not acknowledged. In Computer Lib Nelson advocated what we today might call a "Wikipedia" or "Khan Academy" model of education. I'll allow myself to post an extended quotation from his reaction to dialogue-based learning systems because I find the entire thing fascinating and terribly prescient (keep in mind that this was published in 1974): "The alternative is straightforward. Instead of devising elaborate systems permitting the computer or its instructional contents to control the situation, why not permit the student to control the system, show him how to do so intelligently, and make it easy for him to find his own way? Discard the sequences, items and conversation, and allow the student to move freely through materials which he may control. Never mind optimizing reinforcement or validating teaching sequences. Motivate the user and let him loose in a wonderful place. Let the student control the sequence, put him in control of interesting and clear material, and make him feel good— comfortable, interested, and autonomous. Teach him to orient himself: not having the system answer questions, all typed in, but allowing the student to get answers by looking in a fairly obvious place. (Dialogue is unnecessary even when it does not intrude.) Such ultra-rich environments allow the student to choose what he will study, when he will study it and how he will study it, and to what criteria of accomplishment he will aim. Let the student pick what he wishes to study next, decide when he wishes to be tested, and give him a variety of interesting materials, events and opportunities. Let the student ask to be tested on what he thinks he knows, when he is ready, selecting the most appropriate form of testing available. This approach has several advantages. First, it circumvents the incredible obstacles created by the dialogue-item-sequence philosophy. It ends the danger to students of bugs in the material. And last, it does what education is supposed to do—foster student enthusiasm, involvement, and self-reliance. Under such circumstances students will actually be interested, motivated to achieve far more than they have ever achieved within the normal instructional framework; and any lopsidedness which may result will be far offset by the degree of accomplishment which will occur—it being much better to create lopsided but enthusiastic genius specialists than listless, apathetic, or cruelly rebellious mediocrities. If they start soon enough they may even reach adulthood with natural minds: driven by enthusiasm and interest, crippled in no areas, eager to learn more, and far smarter than people ordinarily end up being. Enthusiasm and involvement are what really count. This is why the right to explore far outweighs any administrative advantages of creating and enforcing “subjects” and curriculum sequences. The enhancement of motivation that will follow from letting kids learn anything they want to learn will far outweigh any specialization that may result. By the elimination or benign replacement of both curriculum and tests in an ultra-rich environment, we will prevent the attrition of the natural motivation of children from its initially enormous levels, and mental development will be the natural straight diagonal rather than the customary parabola."

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

Its so archaic to see terms like "the computer" thrown around. The term is meaningless today as it was back then. What do we mean by this? My 286 DOS box in my basement has nothing in common with Nexus. My 64 core server has nothing to do with your newest Macbook. What he's really takling about is whole slew of things like interfaces, UI, networking, protocols, etc. Sorry, but those things are technology and should be worked on by technologists because there's literally no on else who can work on them. I hate this catch-all term that's just a strawman for critics to bash nerds with. If "the computer" is awful, then it might have more to do with management and the business owning class's inability to leverage all these amazing technologies into a product the end user is comfortable with. While nerds make an easy target, it behooves the ivory tower cynic to spread his hate more evenly. This is like Nelson pissing on the internal combustion engine and calling every engineer in Detroit, Seoul, and Tokyo a dimwitted anti-social jerk because his 1986 Datsun was a piece of crap. More than likely it was the engineers who were breathlessly fighting against requirements that forced them to deliver a substandard product. There's something too corportist for my tastes about pissing on nerds and ignoring the business owners and upper management who actually make the calls that determine how things will work in the end. Also, I really want to stress that the linked piece shows a very thoughtful essay from Alan Kay regarding his thoughts on the dynabook and its intended audience. So wait, Kay is the "tekkie" strawman we're supposed to hate? Sorry, but if Nelson can't handle guys like Kay then who exactly is going to design the future? Nelson? A group of elites he picks, making sure to carefully discriminate against anyone who shows the slightest inclination towards "tekkieness" which he solely identifies? Honestly, would Nelson even tolerate Alan Kay? I doubt it. Never meet your heroes. Heck, never read their opinion pieces.

mjn 14y ago
Sorry, but those things are technology and should be worked on by technologists because there's literally no on else who can work on them. That's exactly the viewpoint that he's arguing against: setting up "technologists" as a kind of high-priest class, the only ones who understand "computers", some nebulous thing that regular people shouldn't bother their heads with, and instead should buy polished, well-engineered consumer experiences. Like Kay and others, he's much more interested in a model of technology that's less black-box. In particular, the thing they object to is the merger of technology/business/design into designing these overarching "experiences" which regular people are just supposed to "use". When such experiences increasingly structure large parts of society, it becomes a bit dangerous of they're all black boxes that regular people aren't supposed to understand or exercise meaningful control over.

specialist 14y ago

[Nelson] sometimes shortens to "tekkie", to describe the kind of person who's too blinded by the shiny new thing... Technophile, as coined by Neil Postman. -- My early disappointment, disillusion with technology was largely validated and informed by Neil Postman's book Technopoly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly Computers et al were supposed to make everything better, right? Why are my users still struggling? Why after a decade and 100s millions of dollars are we still not seeing seeing a positive ROI, increased productivity, improved quality, or something? I reread Technopoly a few years back. While I still agree with Postman's thesis, especially how technological progress is often dehumanizing, I disagree with his pessimism. It is not enough to point out a problem. Whenever I criticize, I try very hard to figure out a fix. As a recovering technophile, I see in myself how its too easy to be NIMBY and against everything. But that helps no one. So I also try to go the extra distance and communicate what I am for, my affirmative position. Edit: typo.

lutusp 14y ago
> My early disappointment, dissolution [sic] with technology ... You were dissolved by technology? Or did you mean to say you were "disillusioned" by technology? > Computers et al were supposed to make everything better, right? No, but they spell better than most people can, and even correct people's spelling guesses. However, since "dissolution" is a real word, even a computer wouldn't have been able to correct this error.