5 ms·

The whole thesis falls apart if you accept that digitally-mediated communication can be as meaningful as in meatspace. And it should be obvious that many people

by ef4 12y ago

The whole thesis falls apart if you accept that digitally-mediated communication can be as meaningful as in meatspace. And it should be obvious that many people already treat it as meaningful in their own lives. Finding it meaningful depends on the fidelity of the technology. As the tech keeps improving, the circle of people who experience real community online keeps expanding. There was a time when only perceived-maladjusted uber-geeks found community through digital networks. Now the average young person does. Eventually everyone will, it's blindingly obvious that that's where the tech is going. I think most people lack an appreciation of the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system.

alexbecker 12y ago
I don't think the author's main problem is that communication is shifting to the digital, but rather some of the side-effects of that. 1. We live in "meatspace" to an extent no matter what, so it's unfortunate that we have a less fulfilling experience when we're there. 2. More importantly, the web gives us a great way to find people like us. In a lot of ways our digital communities are much more uniform than our physical communities, and there are serious downsides to this. (This is not explicitly brought up in the article, but is I think underlying several of his concerns.) Also: > Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system. This is an extreme misapplication of technical mathematics to pop psychology.
- ef4 12y ago
  > We live in "meatspace" to an extent no matter what, so it's unfortunate that we have a less fulfilling experience when we're there. The distinction is an artifact of our tech still being pretty immature. There's no reason you couldn't experience remote and physically-present people simultaneously on even footing. We keep our digital world locked behind screens, but only for now. > In a lot of ways our digital communities are much more uniform than our physical communities, That generalizes even further: the more freedom and choice you give people, the more they sort themselves. I understand why that freaks some people out, but I find it hard to get worked up over more people getting more of what they want. There are better ways to keep the peace between disparate groups than by forcing them share close quarters. > This is an extreme misapplication of technical mathematics to pop psychology. I think it's pretty uncontroversial. Short of proposing a soul or some weird quantum-based source of consciousness, we all just process inputs, and we can't tell the difference between the original signal and once that's been digitally sampled at sufficiently high frequency and reconstructed.
  - alexbecker 12y ago
    So you're predicating most of your argument on extremely good VR. I'll give you that, but I think VR at that level is quite a ways off. Specifically in response to > That generalizes even further: the more freedom and choice you give people, the more they sort themselves. I understand why that freaks some people out, but I find it hard to get worked up over more people getting more of what they want. There are better ways to keep the peace between disparate groups than by forcing them share close quarters. You've hit my concern on the head. You may be right that this won't create big problems. I'm quite worried that it will, but I admit my confidence in that assessment is low.
  - nl 12y ago
    That generalizes even further: the more freedom and choice you give people, the more they sort themselves. I understand why that freaks some people out, but I find it hard to get worked up over more people getting more of what they want. There are better ways to keep the peace between disparate groups than by forcing them share close quarters. Is there evidence that is the case? Things like "gamergate" - which could almost be summarised as technology-mediated crowdsourced rudeness - seem to indicate the vulnerability online communities have to uncivil behaviours.
    - tankenmate 12y ago
      The vulnerability of the community is inversely proportional to the invulnerability of the individuals? This almost sounds like it should be a social law (up there with Goodwin's etc)
vacri 12y ago
Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system. How do you experience smells in a digital system, without reverting to sci-fi magic? Edit: to be clearer, a lot of human communication involves non-verbal cues, often made unconsciously.
- ef4 12y ago
  Most of the unconscious nonverbal cues we experience can be captured just fine visually. I agree that haptics and smell are much longer-term technologies. But making you smell a certain smell is "just" a question of poking the right neuron. It doesn't require any magic, just a lot of engineering.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Coming from a neurology background, 'poking the right neuron' is a ridiculously difficult task. Then there's the vast gulf between "can you smell anything at all when we poke this" and "can you smell sea spray when we poke this". I would also disagree about 'most' unconscious nonverbal cues. People behave differently talking to a camera, and pick up a lot more in person.
aidenn0 12y ago
> Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system. You can use this argument once we have sufficiently advanced digital systems. Until then it's a non-sequitur. > As the tech keeps improving, the circle of people who experience real community online keeps expanding. This is obviously true. There are clearly both positives and negatives to this. Positive: If I like MLP: FIM & Dr. Who crossover fanfics, I can easily find hundreds of people who also do. This allows for even more niche communities than large cities did. Negative: Echo chamber. Digital communities make diversity possible, but they, perhaps counterintuitively, tend to have the opposite effect. People are more comfortable in a largely homogeneous social environment, and as technology advances it becomes easier to attain this.
fra 12y ago
In the case of neighborly and community life, I like to point out nextdoor as a good example of how the digital can be a source of more interaction rather thanl less: https://nextdoor.com/ https://nextdoor.com/
nl 12y ago
I think the thesis of this argument applies equally well (or perhaps even more so) to digital communities as to the offline world. A lack of civility has frequently been a problem in most online communities I'm aware of. It's true that the author seemed to find the use of technology uncivil. But I'm not sure he was wrong in this: in the context he mentioned (during his class, and bumping into people between class) the actions caused by the use of technology (inattention, and physical contact) are usually regarded as rude no matter what the cause.

by ef4 12y ago

alexbecker 12y ago

I don't think the author's main problem is that communication is shifting to the digital, but rather some of the side-effects of that. 1. We live in "meatspace" to an extent no matter what, so it's unfortunate that we have a less fulfilling experience when we're there. 2. More importantly, the web gives us a great way to find people like us. In a lot of ways our digital communities are much more uniform than our physical communities, and there are serious downsides to this. (This is not explicitly brought up in the article, but is I think underlying several of his concerns.) Also: > Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system. This is an extreme misapplication of technical mathematics to pop psychology.

ef4 12y ago
> We live in "meatspace" to an extent no matter what, so it's unfortunate that we have a less fulfilling experience when we're there. The distinction is an artifact of our tech still being pretty immature. There's no reason you couldn't experience remote and physically-present people simultaneously on even footing. We keep our digital world locked behind screens, but only for now. > In a lot of ways our digital communities are much more uniform than our physical communities, That generalizes even further: the more freedom and choice you give people, the more they sort themselves. I understand why that freaks some people out, but I find it hard to get worked up over more people getting more of what they want. There are better ways to keep the peace between disparate groups than by forcing them share close quarters. > This is an extreme misapplication of technical mathematics to pop psychology. I think it's pretty uncontroversial. Short of proposing a soul or some weird quantum-based source of consciousness, we all just process inputs, and we can't tell the difference between the original signal and once that's been digitally sampled at sufficiently high frequency and reconstructed.
- alexbecker 12y ago
  So you're predicating most of your argument on extremely good VR. I'll give you that, but I think VR at that level is quite a ways off. Specifically in response to > That generalizes even further: the more freedom and choice you give people, the more they sort themselves. I understand why that freaks some people out, but I find it hard to get worked up over more people getting more of what they want. There are better ways to keep the peace between disparate groups than by forcing them share close quarters. You've hit my concern on the head. You may be right that this won't create big problems. I'm quite worried that it will, but I admit my confidence in that assessment is low.
- nl 12y ago
  That generalizes even further: the more freedom and choice you give people, the more they sort themselves. I understand why that freaks some people out, but I find it hard to get worked up over more people getting more of what they want. There are better ways to keep the peace between disparate groups than by forcing them share close quarters. Is there evidence that is the case? Things like "gamergate" - which could almost be summarised as technology-mediated crowdsourced rudeness - seem to indicate the vulnerability online communities have to uncivil behaviours.
  - tankenmate 12y ago
    The vulnerability of the community is inversely proportional to the invulnerability of the individuals? This almost sounds like it should be a social law (up there with Goodwin's etc)

vacri 12y ago

Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system. How do you experience smells in a digital system, without reverting to sci-fi magic? Edit: to be clearer, a lot of human communication involves non-verbal cues, often made unconsciously.

ef4 12y ago
Most of the unconscious nonverbal cues we experience can be captured just fine visually. I agree that haptics and smell are much longer-term technologies. But making you smell a certain smell is "just" a question of poking the right neuron. It doesn't require any magic, just a lot of engineering.
- vacri 12y ago
  Coming from a neurology background, 'poking the right neuron' is a ridiculously difficult task. Then there's the vast gulf between "can you smell anything at all when we poke this" and "can you smell sea spray when we poke this". I would also disagree about 'most' unconscious nonverbal cues. People behave differently talking to a camera, and pick up a lot more in person.

aidenn0 12y ago

> Anything you can experience in "the real world" can be reproduced at arbitrarily-fine resolution in a sufficiently advanced digital system. You can use this argument once we have sufficiently advanced digital systems. Until then it's a non-sequitur. > As the tech keeps improving, the circle of people who experience real community online keeps expanding. This is obviously true. There are clearly both positives and negatives to this. Positive: If I like MLP: FIM & Dr. Who crossover fanfics, I can easily find hundreds of people who also do. This allows for even more niche communities than large cities did. Negative: Echo chamber. Digital communities make diversity possible, but they, perhaps counterintuitively, tend to have the opposite effect. People are more comfortable in a largely homogeneous social environment, and as technology advances it becomes easier to attain this.

fra 12y ago

In the case of neighborly and community life, I like to point out nextdoor as a good example of how the digital can be a source of more interaction rather thanl less: https://nextdoor.com/ https://nextdoor.com/

nl 12y ago

I think the thesis of this argument applies equally well (or perhaps even more so) to digital communities as to the offline world. A lack of civility has frequently been a problem in most online communities I'm aware of. It's true that the author seemed to find the use of technology uncivil. But I'm not sure he was wrong in this: in the context he mentioned (during his class, and bumping into people between class) the actions caused by the use of technology (inattention, and physical contact) are usually regarded as rude no matter what the cause.