double distraction

Maybe I'm a relic of a fading generation, that whether we achieve it or not, does however think being able to focus on one task at a time is a good thing, and that while enjoyable, the distractions of the modern age are things we need to handle carefully if we are to concentrate on anything at all.

However I have read that the 'youth' of today take multitasking to new heights, not just texting and surfing while watching tv, but even watching two programmes simultaneously with regular flicking between the channels...

So I guess it's no surprise to hear about a new startup 'Starling' whose goal is to promote a tool for 'co-viewing'. On the one hand co-viewing, whereby lots of people are watching the same thing at the same time sounds like a nice return to the old days of fixed (and hence shared) TV schedules. However the tool would provide a second internet window on the TV, to allow chatting/surfing/tweeting with others. The statement from the founder was that it explicitly wasn't a main focus for attention, but just something to catch that surplus bit of attention which he claimed we all have when watching TV. I.e. it is the ultimate distraction - something which is only meant to be just that - a distraction! Now it might seem that being able chat in parallel with a show is a nice idea - but didn't the old method of discussing after make more sense?! Maybe again I'm old fashoined, but nothing annoys me more than someone providing an alternative commentary to what I'm actually trying to watch - it's why I'm watching it in the first place!

I'm not sure what sort of shows this guy watches, but if something is so mediocre that one needs to bring one's own secondary entertainment with one, then it maybe isn't worth watching after all?!

Again fits in with the notion of the internet, for all its power, promoting thin, surface attention, without the deep post-pondering and consideration needed to properly learn things. It seems in this world view television, and everything else, is meant just to be another light stream of semi-interest, to dip into and splash about with in parallel, but not as a means to itself. A lot of partial content may add up to a full occupation, but surely this can't be good for our mental powers - not just couch potatoes, but diced and chipped potatoes as well.

http://www.mobile-ent.biz/news/36716/Starling-unveils-co-viewing-social-TV-platform

mixed signals

Almost got knocked down at a pedestrian crossing the other day, and would have been completely my fault - set off across the road when the red man was still standing resolutely at attention. It's not even as if I wasn't watching him, but I still managed to misread the most basic and well learned set of signals in modern society - wait for the green man!

How could I have managed it?! What I realised had happened was when I pressed the button on the traffic light to summon said individual, an orange message popped up below the red man opposite. It actually said "green's coming" but the problem was, this red+orange combination is exactly what you get at Austrian traffic lights for cars, to indicate green really a second or two imminent and you can start revving up. Being more conditioned to seeing the lights from a car's perspective, this signalling combination triggered my 'start moving forward'response - and I only realised my mistake when halfway across the road and the written part sank in!

I wouldn't mind, but at the next set of lights, while I was still pondering the first incident, and my stupidity, it almost happen again. Red+orange, click, whirr, my brain revved me up to move.

Think says something slightly interesting about how we are conditioned by modern signalling to have automatic responses, and the dangers for mixing similar symbols in the wrong domains. And just show's even having the message 'green is coming' spelled out (literally) in front of me couldn't compete with the more basic colour flags I react to day in day out.

Just shows, no interface is fool (or conditioned fool) proof...

why have a cake if not to eat it?

actually always thought there was something wrong with the "have your cake and eat it" saying - for a long time thought the point of it was that the world was so ironically cruel, that if you wanted cake, then when you finally mangaed to actually 'have it' (in your possesion), some evil twist of fate would always prevent you from eating it! i.e. you can try to get the cake - but it will be useless by then!

And what would be the point of having cake if you couldn't eat the damn thing!

Eventually realised meant 'keep your cake and eat it' - makes more sense that way!

Why memory can't be googled

A modern misconception is that with the semi-infinite storage and search capabilities we now have, there is little need to remember anything. The problem with this, is to recall something, one has to know what one wants to remember, which means have to have some stored 'locally'. Ok, so maybe we could just have an index of titles, and would be able to look the details up when needed, but then the problem is - how much 'index' info is enough? And the answer i I think is, nothing is enough - and the more the better, which nullifies the original argument.... The reason is memory is rarely a simple search and recall task, but is a constant background illumination of possible related facts and ideas. If I am writing about a topic, then i can google for the interesting details, but this is just one use of memory, and the least important. Where memory comes into its own is when we are thinking about one topic, and gain inspiration or see relevance in another...

take for example something like the civil rights movement. Maybe if I just knew Martin Luther King's importance, i could find out some interesting facts when needed. But if I didn't know myself the details, then if i saw Glen Beck's rally at the washington mall, on 28th August, i might not see anything related between the two. Only if I knew where King had his rally, and which date, would the significance be revealed...

Also - like words in language, memories are more than mere meaning, but are associative. A word is subtly influenced by how it is commonly used or heard, and this colours our interpretation of how we perceive the world. Similarly with memory, if things, places, times etc. are linked, however slightly, with other things, this changes how we consider them. Memory changes the paths of our brains and this changes our minds - it is the influence of these structures on our thinking, and the resemblance of structures for different events, like Beck's rally with King's, that is irreplaceablt currently.

of course, there is the possibillity, that there will some day be a tool. However it would first of all need to have access to ALL our daily inpu data, not just what we read/watch, but what we see and hear, and how we feel about it. Some of these maybe could be captured by an ever-on recording device, but the emotional colouring? Allowing even if, with enough historical info this was possible, the second problem ], and probably the harder one, is it would need to pattern match the data constantly and pop up relevant information to us in a way our subconscious currently does. To identify the same info and provide it in a similar way is I think the hardest task, way beyond current technology. but it is in theory maybe possible, but we're a long way off yet

The basic point is memory is more than content, it is also relationships and structure, and for the moment, that can't be googled.