8 ms·

Among the Disrupted

42 points by robg 12y ago

applecore 12y ago
The most important and significant challenge faced by intellectuals in the twenty-first century, according to this essay, is to fully comprehend the individual and societal implications of technology.
anigbrowl 12y ago
I thought this would be about someone who was put out of work by an app, but it's actually a challenge to the philosophical underpinnings of digital culture. Well worth a read.
- astanway 12y ago
  Although it was written by someone put out of work by that culture - Leon Wieseltier used to be an editor of the New Republic.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
GabrielF00 12y ago
>The streets of American cities are haunted by the ghosts of bookstores and record stores, which have been destroyed by the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry. I suppose this is a dig at Amazon and Apple. Two companies which have made it much easier than ever for anyone to share their creative work with a global audience. They've also made it easier than ever for a music lover or a reader to acquire music and books no matter the obscurity of the work or the consumer's location in the world.
- sedachv 12y ago
  Downvoting for PR BS. Amazon and Apple are definitely /not/ the "two companies which have made it much easier than ever for anyone to share their creative work with a global audience." Submitting music for sale on iTunes Store is impossible for independent producers - you have to go through a third party intermediary such as cdbaby (it's actually more complicated than that: http://www.audiorecording.me/how-to-sell-your-music-or-songs-in-itunes.html http://www.audiorecording.me/how-to-sell-your-music-or-songs...). Amazon Music didn't even launch until 2008. There is a reason why most small bands and producers sell through Bandcamp, Beatport, or Juno Records. If you're actually talking about "sharing" and not "selling" specifically, mp3.com and Soundcloud were the two companies that made the most impact for music.
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    I'm more familiar with publishing books than I am with publishing music. Getting a publisher for a book has traditionally been very difficult. Self-publishing is now a viable option (you have access to a retail channel that reaches a huge percentage of book-buyers). It may not be the best option for everyone, but I do think it makes contributing to literary culture possible for more people than ever before. I also think that people having the ability to buy books (or music) from anywhere, and to choose from an effectively unlimited selection is something that ultimately benefits literary culture.
    - sedachv 12y ago
      Oh, ok. Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were talking about books from your original post.
    - williamcotton 12y ago
      to choose from an effectively unlimited selection is something that ultimately benefits literary culture Prove it.
      - williamcotton 12y ago
        Well, there you have it. A quantum of "downvote" passes for an intellectual response. All I'm trying to point out is that a rather broad statement about literary culture was made with no attempt at justification. Perhaps one of the problems with HackerNews is the reliance on quantified measurements to score a discussion? It's almost like the article in question was bringing up issues related to this kind of philosophy...
      - GabrielF00 12y ago
        One of the biggest complaints that I hear from literary figures is that people are not reading. E.g. Philip Roth saying that the number of serious readers in America is going to drop to almost zero. So I would imagine that readers being able to find whatever book they want wherever they are located and buy it instantly would remove some of the barriers to reading. I would also imagine that having cheaper books would encourage people to buy more. And I think that all of the other new ways of getting books to people (Audible for example) are also vehicles to get people reading. I also think that ebooks open up a lot of possibilities for experimentation. For instance, in the past it may not have made a lot of financial sense to write a 60 page novella - you couldn't really put it on a shelf in a bookstore by itself, it would have to be packaged with other work. But with an ebook there's no reason you can't write a 60 page novella and charge $3 for it. I think a good analogy is print journalism and commentary vs web journalism and commentary. There's a lot more crap on the web, and a lot of the traditional institutions are hurting, but there are also so many more opportunities for new voices and for innovation.
- williamcotton 12y ago
  Do you know a single songwriter?
mathattack 12y ago
I am among the disrupted. - Books have never been cheaper. - I can video call around the world. - Almost anything can be delivered quickly. - Email has taken over my life. - I have free access to an evergrowing encyclopedia. There is some loss, but I'll take this life over that of a small-plot farmer or industrial worker. It's much easier to be an intellectual with access to all this on-line knowledge. It doesn't kill our humanity, it elevates what our humanity is capable of.
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  Nicely said. I never understand how some people who claim to be 'intellectuals' (whatever that means) seem incapable of grasping the following truism: Change happens. Something is gained. Something is lost. I mean, it's fine to lament the passing of a world, but Jesus, get some perspective.
  - williamcotton 12y ago
    Ok, so change is inevitable, but how about you get some empathy for the people who had other plans that were derailed in the process of "creative disruption"? Count your lucky stars that things are working out for you because you might be in the position some day where your skills and knowledge quickly become obsolete.
    - benihana 12y ago
      Please. This piece is not about empathy for people who've been disrupted. It's a self-proclaimed intellectual bemoaning the fact that the change that is inevitable isn't happening the way he thinks it should. He's not feeling for the factory worker in Detroit who is out of a job. He's feeling for himself because when he strolls around the East Village, he's sad that there aren't bookstores. He's sad because now everyone has a voice and his voice isn't as loud or meaningful. It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting: 'getting some' empathy for people.
      - williamcotton 12y ago
dctoedt 12y ago
FTA: The streets of American cities are haunted by the ghosts of bookstores and record stores, which have been destroyed by the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry. That's just what one would have expected from Leon Wieseltier. His columns at The New Republic often likewise came across as self-important, contemptuous, and entitled. The jury's still out about the recent management "changes" at TNR, but more than a few readers won't be sorry to see L.W. gone from there. (Except now he's at The Atlantic.)
- ser_tyrion 12y ago
  That sentence does seem out of place compared to the rest of the essay. If anything the thugs destroyed the thugs. His biggest contention is that "technologism" is a cultural infatuation with newness, and both digital music stores and record stores both used "newness" when advertising. And I guess that is what makes them "thugs" for reinforcing that view, as well as "nothing innovative about pandering for the sake of a profit".
hammerzeit 12y ago
If Wieseltier's aim was to provide an ex post facto justification of what went down at the New Republic, he's certainly nailed it. The strawmen he constructs without a whit of evidence wouldn't pass freshman comp; that he's accorded greater privilege demonstrates just how high the shit must have been piled at The New Republic's stables. What's interesting is we're starting to see the outlines of the narrative that will define the intellectual critique of silicon valley, and it's an old chestnut. It's the line that silicon valley is all machine and no soul -- a group of folks interested in success only without any capability for reflection, intuition, emotion. That in the quest to ask 'does it work,' we fail to ask 'should it work?' Robots and nerds, in essence. It's a line that can be traced back to Doug Bowman's '41 shades of blue' post[0] -- itself beginning to define the narrative of Google (and Marissa in particular) as pencil-necked spreadsheet jockeys who wouldn't know good taste if it hit them over the head. This narrative is, frankly, bullshit. Anybody who's worked on any sort of technology product knows the limits of data in decision-making -- I have yet to see any place where gut feel didn't radically dictate the shape and vision of every company. Similarly, to argue that the Internet is anything other than the most effective device for the production of the same humanistic, intellectual material that Wieseltier bemoans the loss of is to demonstrate an utter unfamiliarity with the internet and how it works. No, what Wieseltier bemoans is one thing and one thing only: That the means of distribution are no longer so dominated that he automatically, uncritically earns a right to them. The world doesn't need that any longer and we are the better for it. [0] http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html
- williamcotton 12y ago
  Ah, the old "gatekeeper" argument. Did you come up with this while reading "The Top 8 Reasons Why Silicon Valley Should Never Be Criticized" on Buzzfeed?
  - hammerzeit 12y ago
    There are many, many critiques of silicon valley that are relevant and problematic and need to be heard and engaged with more. This is absolutely not one of them.
malvosenior 12y ago
It's interesting to read this after the article earlier today about how teens use technology. This proverbial buggy whip manufacture laments his lack of brick and mortar book stores, while the teen already sees Facebook as being passé. It must be tough to fight progress. It's a battle you're never going to win.
- williamcotton 12y ago
  What you see as progress is subjective. The effect of blindly assuming that technologic and economic progress are the only objective truths worth worrying about is incredibly problematic. That's basically the whole point of this article.
  - malvosenior 12y ago
    Technological progress is most certainly objective. Computers are much faster today than they were 20 years ago. That is objective. I strongly disagree with this article (and I guess your argument). Technology is part of society. Technological progress IS societal progress. There's nothing "problematic" about that.
    - williamcotton 12y ago
      Technological progress is most certainly objective. Yes, of course, I never said it wasn't. I never said technological progress was problematic. I said that favoring quantifiable progress at the expense of qualitative progress is problematic. Because you work in technology you are benefiting from it's progress. People who work in industries who are being disrupted by technology are not. This is what makes progress subjective. Assuming that the people who are NOT immediately benefitting from technological progress are somehow involved with things that we don't need to worry about is problematic. Art and culture cannot be quantified. Communities that promote quantification and deride qualification are problematic. These things do not need to be at ends with each other. We don't need to look at the existing qualified members as "evil gatekeepers" who deserve their fate in the soup lines. We should be figuring out how their experience and skills are useful and how to integrate them these new technological and economic changes. There is wisdom in age and experience. That our industry is known as "agist" should be a further indicator on how it views the world. If you strongly disagree with the article, by all means, please write a counter-argument. You're gonna have to make it more than a single sentence as it addresses a number of issues. You might even need to research some of the topics the author was referring to. The onus is on you.
williamcotton 12y ago
Philistines, the lot of you!
robmccoll 12y ago
I honestly believe that a better essay could have been written algorithmically by machine.
- williamcotton 12y ago
  Really. That's your rebuttal to an argument that complains about the lack of intellectualism? What irony! Please, keep it going everyone, this is just amazing!
  - robmccoll 12y ago
    Absolutely. His brand of intellectualism is a blend of self-pity and "intellectual" condescension wrapped in a litany of the same grievances and arguments against the modern culture that technology hath wrought. Where is the originality? Where is the real emotion? If you are so perturbed, write something truly moving and relatable on a human level.
    - williamcotton 12y ago
      His brand of intellectualism is a blend of self-pity and "intellectual" condescension wrapped in a litany of the same grievances and arguments against the modern culture that technology hath wrought. Can you make some citations? I frankly don't see see any self-pity. Why are you putting "intellectual" in quotes? Because he's talking about the humanities? Personally, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel because of what I see related to the future of decentralized monetization of digital media, so I can see how we can rebuild industry around intellectual property. Still, he makes a lot of great points about posthumanist tendencies. We in this industry, an industry that is shaping the world with very little in the way of a conversation, are incredibly obsessed with quantifying things and we seem to think that "improving what we can measure" and economics are going to be the only things we need to think about. I mean, come on, your first response was about how a machine generated essay would be better than his well argued piece! Unbelievable levels of irony! Fantastic! Haha! Where is YOUR originality and emotion? Somehow a single snarky paragraph is enough? A quantum of downvote is enough? Open YOUR mind!
Niten 12y ago
Two things in this article stuck out to me: > Here is a humanist proposition for the age of Google: The processing of information is not the highest aim to which the human spirit can aspire That's an uncharitable paraphrasing of Google's mission statement which, taken to its logical conclusion, might as well say "To know everything there is to know in the universe, to grant agency to this knowledge, and to make it available to everyone." Maybe this just reveals a fundamental rift between my values and those of the author, but I cannot think of a higher calling for the human spirit. > Searches for keywords will not provide contexts for keywords. Patterns that are revealed by searches will not identify their own causes and reasons. The new order will not relieve us of the old burdens, and the old pleasures, of erudition and interpretation. The author is making an empirical claim here, and it is wrong. AI is already advanced enough that such absolutes as "searches for keywords will not provide contexts for keywords" are demonstrably false. To a limited but growing extent, software is already capable of erudition and interpretation; these are not uniquely human endeavors. The biggest problem with this article (and so many others like it) is tying an argument for the value of the humanities with unscientific denial of materialism. That the human mind is ultimately an emergent property of matter does not make art and literature any less worthy of study.
oconnore 12y ago
The article comes off as overinflated shit, but Wieseltier's beehive-kicking is sure working here. Perhaps his boot isn't entirely without substance.

42 points by robg 12y ago

The most important and significant challenge faced by intellectuals in the twenty-first century, according to this essay, is to fully comprehend the individual and societal implications of technology.

anigbrowl 12y ago

I thought this would be about someone who was put out of work by an app, but it's actually a challenge to the philosophical underpinnings of digital culture. Well worth a read.

astanway 12y ago
Although it was written by someone put out of work by that culture - Leon Wieseltier used to be an editor of the New Republic.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

GabrielF00 12y ago

>The streets of American cities are haunted by the ghosts of bookstores and record stores, which have been destroyed by the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry. I suppose this is a dig at Amazon and Apple. Two companies which have made it much easier than ever for anyone to share their creative work with a global audience. They've also made it easier than ever for a music lover or a reader to acquire music and books no matter the obscurity of the work or the consumer's location in the world.

sedachv 12y ago
Downvoting for PR BS. Amazon and Apple are definitely /not/ the "two companies which have made it much easier than ever for anyone to share their creative work with a global audience." Submitting music for sale on iTunes Store is impossible for independent producers - you have to go through a third party intermediary such as cdbaby (it's actually more complicated than that: http://www.audiorecording.me/how-to-sell-your-music-or-songs-in-itunes.html http://www.audiorecording.me/how-to-sell-your-music-or-songs...). Amazon Music didn't even launch until 2008. There is a reason why most small bands and producers sell through Bandcamp, Beatport, or Juno Records. If you're actually talking about "sharing" and not "selling" specifically, mp3.com and Soundcloud were the two companies that made the most impact for music.
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  I'm more familiar with publishing books than I am with publishing music. Getting a publisher for a book has traditionally been very difficult. Self-publishing is now a viable option (you have access to a retail channel that reaches a huge percentage of book-buyers). It may not be the best option for everyone, but I do think it makes contributing to literary culture possible for more people than ever before. I also think that people having the ability to buy books (or music) from anywhere, and to choose from an effectively unlimited selection is something that ultimately benefits literary culture.
  - sedachv 12y ago
    Oh, ok. Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were talking about books from your original post.
  - williamcotton 12y ago
    to choose from an effectively unlimited selection is something that ultimately benefits literary culture Prove it.
    - williamcotton 12y ago
      Well, there you have it. A quantum of "downvote" passes for an intellectual response. All I'm trying to point out is that a rather broad statement about literary culture was made with no attempt at justification. Perhaps one of the problems with HackerNews is the reliance on quantified measurements to score a discussion? It's almost like the article in question was bringing up issues related to this kind of philosophy...
    - GabrielF00 12y ago
      One of the biggest complaints that I hear from literary figures is that people are not reading. E.g. Philip Roth saying that the number of serious readers in America is going to drop to almost zero. So I would imagine that readers being able to find whatever book they want wherever they are located and buy it instantly would remove some of the barriers to reading. I would also imagine that having cheaper books would encourage people to buy more. And I think that all of the other new ways of getting books to people (Audible for example) are also vehicles to get people reading. I also think that ebooks open up a lot of possibilities for experimentation. For instance, in the past it may not have made a lot of financial sense to write a 60 page novella - you couldn't really put it on a shelf in a bookstore by itself, it would have to be packaged with other work. But with an ebook there's no reason you can't write a 60 page novella and charge $3 for it. I think a good analogy is print journalism and commentary vs web journalism and commentary. There's a lot more crap on the web, and a lot of the traditional institutions are hurting, but there are also so many more opportunities for new voices and for innovation.
williamcotton 12y ago
Do you know a single songwriter?

mathattack 12y ago

I am among the disrupted. - Books have never been cheaper. - I can video call around the world. - Almost anything can be delivered quickly. - Email has taken over my life. - I have free access to an evergrowing encyclopedia. There is some loss, but I'll take this life over that of a small-plot farmer or industrial worker. It's much easier to be an intellectual with access to all this on-line knowledge. It doesn't kill our humanity, it elevates what our humanity is capable of.

shanusmagnus 12y ago
Nicely said. I never understand how some people who claim to be 'intellectuals' (whatever that means) seem incapable of grasping the following truism: Change happens. Something is gained. Something is lost. I mean, it's fine to lament the passing of a world, but Jesus, get some perspective.
- williamcotton 12y ago
  Ok, so change is inevitable, but how about you get some empathy for the people who had other plans that were derailed in the process of "creative disruption"? Count your lucky stars that things are working out for you because you might be in the position some day where your skills and knowledge quickly become obsolete.
  - benihana 12y ago
    Please. This piece is not about empathy for people who've been disrupted. It's a self-proclaimed intellectual bemoaning the fact that the change that is inevitable isn't happening the way he thinks it should. He's not feeling for the factory worker in Detroit who is out of a job. He's feeling for himself because when he strolls around the East Village, he's sad that there aren't bookstores. He's sad because now everyone has a voice and his voice isn't as loud or meaningful. It's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting: 'getting some' empathy for people.
    - williamcotton 12y ago

dctoedt 12y ago

FTA: The streets of American cities are haunted by the ghosts of bookstores and record stores, which have been destroyed by the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry. That's just what one would have expected from Leon Wieseltier. His columns at The New Republic often likewise came across as self-important, contemptuous, and entitled. The jury's still out about the recent management "changes" at TNR, but more than a few readers won't be sorry to see L.W. gone from there. (Except now he's at The Atlantic.)

ser_tyrion 12y ago
That sentence does seem out of place compared to the rest of the essay. If anything the thugs destroyed the thugs. His biggest contention is that "technologism" is a cultural infatuation with newness, and both digital music stores and record stores both used "newness" when advertising. And I guess that is what makes them "thugs" for reinforcing that view, as well as "nothing innovative about pandering for the sake of a profit".

hammerzeit 12y ago

If Wieseltier's aim was to provide an ex post facto justification of what went down at the New Republic, he's certainly nailed it. The strawmen he constructs without a whit of evidence wouldn't pass freshman comp; that he's accorded greater privilege demonstrates just how high the shit must have been piled at The New Republic's stables. What's interesting is we're starting to see the outlines of the narrative that will define the intellectual critique of silicon valley, and it's an old chestnut. It's the line that silicon valley is all machine and no soul -- a group of folks interested in success only without any capability for reflection, intuition, emotion. That in the quest to ask 'does it work,' we fail to ask 'should it work?' Robots and nerds, in essence. It's a line that can be traced back to Doug Bowman's '41 shades of blue' post[0] -- itself beginning to define the narrative of Google (and Marissa in particular) as pencil-necked spreadsheet jockeys who wouldn't know good taste if it hit them over the head. This narrative is, frankly, bullshit. Anybody who's worked on any sort of technology product knows the limits of data in decision-making -- I have yet to see any place where gut feel didn't radically dictate the shape and vision of every company. Similarly, to argue that the Internet is anything other than the most effective device for the production of the same humanistic, intellectual material that Wieseltier bemoans the loss of is to demonstrate an utter unfamiliarity with the internet and how it works. No, what Wieseltier bemoans is one thing and one thing only: That the means of distribution are no longer so dominated that he automatically, uncritically earns a right to them. The world doesn't need that any longer and we are the better for it. [0] http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html

williamcotton 12y ago
Ah, the old "gatekeeper" argument. Did you come up with this while reading "The Top 8 Reasons Why Silicon Valley Should Never Be Criticized" on Buzzfeed?
- hammerzeit 12y ago
  There are many, many critiques of silicon valley that are relevant and problematic and need to be heard and engaged with more. This is absolutely not one of them.

malvosenior 12y ago

It's interesting to read this after the article earlier today about how teens use technology. This proverbial buggy whip manufacture laments his lack of brick and mortar book stores, while the teen already sees Facebook as being passé. It must be tough to fight progress. It's a battle you're never going to win.

williamcotton 12y ago
What you see as progress is subjective. The effect of blindly assuming that technologic and economic progress are the only objective truths worth worrying about is incredibly problematic. That's basically the whole point of this article.
- malvosenior 12y ago
  Technological progress is most certainly objective. Computers are much faster today than they were 20 years ago. That is objective. I strongly disagree with this article (and I guess your argument). Technology is part of society. Technological progress IS societal progress. There's nothing "problematic" about that.
  - williamcotton 12y ago
    Technological progress is most certainly objective. Yes, of course, I never said it wasn't. I never said technological progress was problematic. I said that favoring quantifiable progress at the expense of qualitative progress is problematic. Because you work in technology you are benefiting from it's progress. People who work in industries who are being disrupted by technology are not. This is what makes progress subjective. Assuming that the people who are NOT immediately benefitting from technological progress are somehow involved with things that we don't need to worry about is problematic. Art and culture cannot be quantified. Communities that promote quantification and deride qualification are problematic. These things do not need to be at ends with each other. We don't need to look at the existing qualified members as "evil gatekeepers" who deserve their fate in the soup lines. We should be figuring out how their experience and skills are useful and how to integrate them these new technological and economic changes. There is wisdom in age and experience. That our industry is known as "agist" should be a further indicator on how it views the world. If you strongly disagree with the article, by all means, please write a counter-argument. You're gonna have to make it more than a single sentence as it addresses a number of issues. You might even need to research some of the topics the author was referring to. The onus is on you.

williamcotton 12y ago

Philistines, the lot of you!

robmccoll 12y ago

I honestly believe that a better essay could have been written algorithmically by machine.

williamcotton 12y ago
Really. That's your rebuttal to an argument that complains about the lack of intellectualism? What irony! Please, keep it going everyone, this is just amazing!
- robmccoll 12y ago
  Absolutely. His brand of intellectualism is a blend of self-pity and "intellectual" condescension wrapped in a litany of the same grievances and arguments against the modern culture that technology hath wrought. Where is the originality? Where is the real emotion? If you are so perturbed, write something truly moving and relatable on a human level.
  - williamcotton 12y ago
    His brand of intellectualism is a blend of self-pity and "intellectual" condescension wrapped in a litany of the same grievances and arguments against the modern culture that technology hath wrought. Can you make some citations? I frankly don't see see any self-pity. Why are you putting "intellectual" in quotes? Because he's talking about the humanities? Personally, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel because of what I see related to the future of decentralized monetization of digital media, so I can see how we can rebuild industry around intellectual property. Still, he makes a lot of great points about posthumanist tendencies. We in this industry, an industry that is shaping the world with very little in the way of a conversation, are incredibly obsessed with quantifying things and we seem to think that "improving what we can measure" and economics are going to be the only things we need to think about. I mean, come on, your first response was about how a machine generated essay would be better than his well argued piece! Unbelievable levels of irony! Fantastic! Haha! Where is YOUR originality and emotion? Somehow a single snarky paragraph is enough? A quantum of downvote is enough? Open YOUR mind!

Niten 12y ago

Two things in this article stuck out to me: > Here is a humanist proposition for the age of Google: The processing of information is not the highest aim to which the human spirit can aspire That's an uncharitable paraphrasing of Google's mission statement which, taken to its logical conclusion, might as well say "To know everything there is to know in the universe, to grant agency to this knowledge, and to make it available to everyone." Maybe this just reveals a fundamental rift between my values and those of the author, but I cannot think of a higher calling for the human spirit. > Searches for keywords will not provide contexts for keywords. Patterns that are revealed by searches will not identify their own causes and reasons. The new order will not relieve us of the old burdens, and the old pleasures, of erudition and interpretation. The author is making an empirical claim here, and it is wrong. AI is already advanced enough that such absolutes as "searches for keywords will not provide contexts for keywords" are demonstrably false. To a limited but growing extent, software is already capable of erudition and interpretation; these are not uniquely human endeavors. The biggest problem with this article (and so many others like it) is tying an argument for the value of the humanities with unscientific denial of materialism. That the human mind is ultimately an emergent property of matter does not make art and literature any less worthy of study.

oconnore 12y ago

The article comes off as overinflated shit, but Wieseltier's beehive-kicking is sure working here. Perhaps his boot isn't entirely without substance.