You Are Not a Gadget by Jaron Lanier is filled with interesting ideas but unfortunately these ideas are laid out in such a way that they are fragmented, repetitive, undeveloped and confusing. I read somewhere recently that the book was put together from Lanier’s Wired columns and if that is the case, it explains the book’s structure – or lack thereof.
Lanier is a computer scientist, musician, and pioneer in virtual reality. The man cannot be accused of being anti-computer or anti-internet. He is an über-nerd. And so for him to write a book about the pitfalls of technology, well, I was happy to bite.
Lanier’s main theme and warning in the book centers around what he calls cybernetic totalism. It is the belief among many other über-nerds in things like the singularity (when computers become smarter than people) and the intelligence of the hive mind. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it shuts out individuality, promotes group-think, and dehumanizes us. Those who believe in and promote the hive mind think that quantity becomes quality at extreme scale and that
a million, or perhaps a billion, fragmentary insults will eventually yield wisdom that surpasses that of any well-thought-out essay, so long as sophisticated secret statistical algorithms recombine the fragments.
I was constantly reminded throughout of the old schtick that a thousand monkeys typing away will eventually write a Shakespeare play. We are made to believe by the cybernetic totalism folk that this is inevitable, that the way computers and technology are currently evolving cannot be stopped or changed, that resistance is futile and we will all eventually be assimilated into what amounts to the real-life version of the Borg on Star Trek and we will all be smarter and happier for it.
Lanier counters that computers do not evolve on their own, that humans make decisions about the creation and use of technology, nothing is inevitable and we have a right to question, resist and demand technology that is a tool for our purposes instead of people serving technology.
It is a good argument and one that needs to be thought about and discussed. Unfortunately the argument is not really developed fully and what is developed doesn’t come in a continuous, coherent building of examples and studies and argument, but in bits and pieces that are sometimes self-righteous and sometimes couched in jargon that never gets satisfactorily defined.
There are other issues and arguments in the book too but they are just as fragmentary and even more difficult to piece together. And then there are the tangents Lanier goes off on like research in olfactory science and why we don’t have smell-o-vision yet and some wild theories about how the development of language in humans might be related to our sense of smell.
Overall I was disappointed in the book. I expected something more coherent. It is clear that Lanier is a smart guy who has thought a lot about technology issues but while he goes on about the evils of “the cloud” he fails to come down to earth from his own cloud enough to deliver a coherent argument that is understandable by the many people who still don’t know the difference between a right mouse click and a left mouse click. And this is a shame because it is them, perhaps as much as or more so, than the computer savvy that need to to understand the issues and what is at stake.
Hmm, too bad this was so scattered & disorganized, as the basic ideas you bring up do sound interesting. I actually had a jokey-turned-serious fight with a friend a few months ago about these “hive mind” issues, and would now be interested to read a thoughtful, well-organized study of them. Guess this isn’t it, however.
Yes, too bad that this doesn’t quite work. I wonder if his Wired columns, read one at a time, would be better. I do think this is something that needs to be talked about. As much as I love technology and value the collaboration it allows, I question a lot of what the digital evangelists have to say about it. And the idea of wisdom arising from algorithms puzzles me. From what I’ve seen so far, algorithmic recommendation systems, for example, leave a lot to be desired, mostly because they cannot take into account quirkiness and individuality.
Emily, the hive mind can be rather argument inducing, can’t it? There are so many popular books out there that promote it as ideal which to me is a scary thought. Lanier argues that the hive mind creates mediocirty, promotes herd mentality, and flattens creativity and innovation. The argument is there if you are willing to dig it out but he doesn’t make it easy.
I know a right mouse click from a left, but that’s about all. I was having some technical issues with my PC a few weeks ago and was on the phone with a tech guy. After the very first question, I knew I was in real trouble, “What operating system are you using?” Basic for most people, but not for me. I told him, “Look here, young man, if we are going to have any dialogue at all you must understand I don’t speak your language.” The nice fellow had a good sense of humor and was able to help me fix the problem, but I have the feeling he got off the phone and said, “x@% Old Fart!”
It sounds full of interesting ideas, but confusing. I must be wayyy out of the loop because I’m not even sure what the hive mind is. Isn’t it a sci fi term?
It’s such a shame when books put together from, say, newspaper columns, aren’t given the time and attention necessary to make them work in the long-length format. I’m not keen on the dominance of hivemind (because it’s essentially promoted in the interests of capitalism) and I don’t like the idea that everything is improved by technology (it isn’t – my geek friend made me laugh a lot by describing the complicated computer program she and her colleagues had put together to ascertain whose turn it was to make the tea). But most of all, I suppose I fear that technology appeals to one side of the brain, yin rather than yang (if that’s the right way around!), masculine rather than feminine ways of thinking and will push society even further into imbalance. We need all the different perspectives we can get. Technology is fabulous as a tool, not so great as the dictator of all decisions.
Teresa, I expect the columns would be better in that each one would be a coherent whole, at least I hope it would. But I suspect that there might be more jargon given the Wired audience is the computer/technology crowd. The whole “wisdom of the crowd” thing baffles me too. It is a limited “knowledge” at best. And while the book wasn’t fantastic, you are right, the issues do need to be talked about and for that the book is a step in the right direction.
Grad, oh, what a funny story! Thanks for giving me a giggle
Jeane, hive mind is term that is used in sci fi but it is also used in behavioral science and a few other disciplines. The word always makes me think of bees and ants
Litlove, what a number of interesting observations you make! I agree that hive mind is usually in the service of capitalism. And you are right, technology isn’t the solution to everything. That is a hilarious story about you friend! As for technology being masculine/ yin, I think it doesn’t have to be that way. I suspect it leans to the masculine side because there are and have always been more men involved in it than women. I imagine though that if more women were involved enough to tip the scales there would be some interesting changes.
I had a feeling that this book would fall short of its promise. It would have been nice if we heard some good criticism of some of the ways in which we use technology from someone that no one could accuse of being a Luddite. I like technology, but I think we sometimes push for advancement just for advancement’s sake.