Ms. Adverthinker

Is our increasingly technological media world giving us so much information that we are distracted from pursuing independent and in-depth knowledge? It appears that our country’s president believes that. In May, President Barack Obama gave a commencement speech at Hampton University in which he, the very same president that leveraged online information channels to win his current post, said:

“‘You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter,’ he told the students. ‘And with iPods and iPads, and Xboxes and PlayStations – none of which I know how to work – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.’”

President Obama seems to be criticizing the media, technology, video games and the internet in one fell swoop, lumping it all into an “information” category. When did having access to more information become a bad thing? Is not good to hear many sides of a story so we can form our own opinions? And if the information comes to us in an entertaining way, doesn’t that just make us engage with it more?

The discussion that sprung on the internet following this speech was surprising: while many were quick to defend the technology, most agreed with President Obama and felt they were constantly attempting to manage information overload, with no time for processing and understanding. This brought to mind the two-year-old The Atlantic article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (which has developed into a book just released this month entitled The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (see the Ms. Adverthinker review of this book here) Some highlights from the article supporting President Obama’s opinion:

“…media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”

“A new e-mail message…may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.”

“Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives-or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts-as the Internet does today.”

And, an excerpt that provides an argument for the other side:

“In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.”

One commenter had an interesting perspective in favor of the information abundance we are experiencing:

“…it may not be that the internet is making us stupid but making us more demanding. Before the internet we were given a limited number of topics that we could review from a newspaper, television, magazine etc. Since they were limited in scope they needed a greater amount of depth and description. However now that we can delve a wider range of topics there is no need for such depth. In fact if a person was to spend as much time on any given topic today as was 50 years ago or more it would be hard to stay up to date on the numerous happenings that are going on. No longer are people simply expected to know what is going on in their home town on a day to day basis, but all the important events of the modern world….So it is really a question of balance and of need. Is it truly necessary for us to wrap our minds around each topic that we stumble upon on the net, or is it more important to simply grasp the main points of each topic? In today’s world it is no longer necessary to be intimately familiar with each topic, I can say that I have often found it better to skim information so that I am aware of it’s existence, then when I find myself in need of it I can pull it up more quickly.”

The debate is an interesting one that has spawned books, articles and comments galore. The access to information is empowering. The knowledge we gain is the power. The question then becomes, are we turning that information into knowledge? Perhaps we are in the midst of an evolutional shift: those that can learn to navigate the information streams and turn them into applicable knowledge are the ones that survive.

The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains is a book by Nicolas Carr that provides a history of how our brains process and absorb information delivered in evolving channels from oral storytelling, to the written word, from broadcast media to now through the web.  The impetus for the book was a 2008 article in The Atlantic titled “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” So, the premise of the book is the possibility that our continued digital media consumption in bits and bites could be diminishing our capacity to understand and process complex issues the require in-depth information analysis.  The conclusion, however, is not that our intelligence is waning, but instead that our faculties are changing, even evolving.

The Brain Changes as It Needs to Change

Through the first few chapters of the book, we learn that our brains are amazingly adept at adapting to these changes.  The brain actually re-wires itself to deal with the new experiences: “Evolution has given us a brain that can literally change its mind–over and over again.”  Experts quoted in the book support this fact:

“Our neurons are always breaking old connections and forming new ones, and brand-new nerve cells are always being created.  ’The brain,’ observes Olds, ‘has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.’”

“‘If we stop exercising our mental skills,’ writes Doidge, ‘we do not just forget them: the brain map space for those skills is turned over to the skills we practice instead.’”

Are We More or Less Creative as a Result?

Our brains become more accustomed to cursory scanning of data for relevant bits of information; in turn, it becomes more difficult for the brain to focus on long-form, single-source reading.  This is not a bad thing, as we are able to gather the same amount of information, but now diversify the sources from which that information comes.  However, a question was posed about the stifling of creativity as a result of reduced focused on reading as a meditative act.  Many of those quoted in the book felt the opposite was true:

“Friedman told me…that he’s ‘never been more creative’ than he has been recently, and he attributes that ‘to my blog and the ability to review/scan “tons” of information on the web.’”

“Karp has come to believe that reading lots of short, linked snippets online is a more efficient way to expand his mind than reading ’250-page books’…”

“Muses Davis, ‘The Internet may have made me a less patient reader, but I think that in many ways, it has made me smarter.  More connections to documents, artifacts, and people means more external influences on my thinking and thus on my writing.’”

Conclusion

History has shown that our brains adapt to the way information is processed: we did it when converting from oral storytelling to the written word and we are doing it as we convert from the written word to the digital word.

Recommendation

Read The Shallows.  It is a quick, interesting and relevant read right now.

The Social Network. This trailer actually makes the movie look interesting. Looking forward to it.

Thanks to Blake’s Think Tank for passing this along.

I have never liked having my picture taken.  But a weird thing started happening a little over a year ago: I started taking pictures of myself with my iPhone and posting them to my various sites.  They were, of course, titled: Self portrait, followed by a description of what I was doing when taking the photograph.  I have no idea why I was doing this.  Perhaps it was boredom, maybe it was because I thought it was funny, but most likely I was doing it because I could.  I could take a picture and post it right away.  And I could review it before I posted it.  The whole process was in my control – which is not usually the case when someone else is taking my photo.  Scrolling through the photo library on my iPhone now shows many self portraits, sprinkled with photos of my dogs and then various other activities, usually plates of food or various beverages.  And all of these have been with the previous versions of the iPhone.  The latest iPhone edition has a front facing camera, sure to enable better self-portrait shots.

As it turns out, this self portrait phenomenon and observation is not unique to me.  According to the New York Times:

“With the debut last week of Apple’s newest iPhone, the latest show of vanity has kicked into high gear. With a second camera lens that faces the viewer (instead of the view), the iPhone has simplified something people have been struggling with — some covertly, some flagrantly — ever since they signed up for AOL more than a decade ago: taking a good picture of themselves. Finally, the iGeneration has a good head shot.”

…

“As a result, the self-snap is fast becoming as vital a facet of how we present ourselves as our clothes, figures or voices. Photographing oneself easily and well is a talent that, like being able to download music via mind control or reduce whole paragraphs to acronyms at warp speed, is now a given for young people.”

…

“‘This really represents the shift of the photograph serving as a memorial function to a communication device,’said Geoffrey Batchen, formerly of the City University of New York and now a professor of art history at Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand, who has written extensively on historical and contemporary photography. ‘The camera was used to record something that happened so it could be remembered. Now it’s used immediately. It’s uploaded to Facebook to say, “Here I am in Istanbul” or whatever, so it also goes back and forth between personal and promotional use. It really represents the refashioning of the self for a semipublic view.’”

I am a fan of the self-portrait: there is something intimate, incorruptible, interesting and immediate about the taking and online posting of these photographs.  While, I am relieved to know that I am not alone in this ridiculously narcissistic behavior, I am curious to see how the trend further develops as self portraits become easier to take and people are less inhibited when taking them.  I really like the thought of photography serving as a “communication device.”  After all, “a picture is worth a thousand words” and with our decreasing attention spans as a result of technologically delivered snippets of information (more on this later), pictures could be how we ultimately receive most of our information.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Self portrait, while writing a blog post.

Unless you were hiding under a rock this morning, you are aware that USA beat Algeria in a World Cup game.  I didn’t have to watch the game, I could just listen to the yelling right outside my office (where I have the unfortunate luck of sitting right beside the TV that everyone crowded around this morning).  It was quite a victory and even I – not a sports fan – was excited.  However, to a geek like me, one of the most interesting things about the match this morning is what happened online (stats courtesy of Mashable):

• “In the minutes following Landon Donovan’s game winning goal in the 91st minute of action (which sent the US to the round of 16), traffic spiked to 11.2 million visitors per minute, which moves the event past the 2008 presidential election as the 2nd highest traffic spike of all-time.”
• “The plethora of World Cup breaking news briefly knocked Yahoo Sports offline.”
• “Tweets containing ‘USA’ spiked to 6% of total tweet volume.”
• Many Twitter users encountered the “Fail Whale” as a result of the traffic volume on Twitter during the game.

And, I think every status update on my Facebook news feed was related to the game.  Yes, soccer has the power of influence this month.  It will be interesting to see how that influence is capitalized on by marketers both immediately and in the coming months.  Some of the lucky ones advertising during the World Cup coverage are even getting some of the chatter; a favorite among those I have talked to:

Enjoy the games.

Historically, six degrees of separation has referred to the idea that everyone is at most six steps away from any other person on Earth.  However, according to recent data, Twitter has now shortened our “degrees of separation” from each other: “On average, Twitter users have five degrees of separation between each other – meaning nearly everyone within Twitter is only five steps away.”  Therefore, “on average, a Twitter user will encounter 83% of all other Twitter users by visiting everyone’s friends up to a distance of five steps.”  So, in theory, it does not take a great number of “retweets” for a message to reach a large and diverse audience.

This is great news for marketers looking to justify a larger investment in social media as communications tools.  The news is even better for those looking to communicate in local (i.e., smaller) circles: “if a user traces their friends, and their friends and so on, in 3.32 steps on average they will discover a follower of their own. This means there are many small, circular connections on Twitter.” At this point, it almost seems negligent of a brand to not have a presence on Twitter.

When looking to wade (or dive deeper) into the social media pool, take the five-degrees-of-separation fact with a grain of salt and remember these few tips:

• Don’t build it and assume they will come.  Seek out quality followers: those active on Twitter who are predisposed to like the brand.
• Content should be relevant and interesting to warrant any “retweet” activity.
• Monitoring with the resources for rapid response are absolutely necessary.  A negative message will usually be spread faster than a positive one will be shared.

As Ms. Adverthinker, I feel compelled to direct you to this article in The Atlantic, titled “The End of Men.” A few highlights from the article:

“Earlier this year, for the first time in American history, the balance of the workforce tipped toward women, who now hold a majority of the nation’s jobs. The working class, which has long defined our notions of masculinity, is slowly turning into a matriarchy, with men increasingly absent from the home and women making all the decisions. Women dominate today’s colleges and professional schools—for every two men who will receive a B.A. this year, three women will do the same. Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women.”

And:

“Men dominate just two of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade: janitor and computer engineer. Women have everything else—nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation.”

And:

“But women are also starting to dominate middle management, and a surprising number of professional careers as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women now hold 51.4 percent of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1 percent in 1980. They make up 54 percent of all accountants and hold about half of all banking and insurance jobs. About a third of America’s physicians are now women, as are 45 percent of associates in law firms—and both those percentages are rising fast. A white-collar economy values raw intellectual horsepower, which men and women have in equal amounts. It also requires communication skills and social intelligence, areas in which women, according to many studies, have a slight edge. Perhaps most important—for better or worse—it increasingly requires formal education credentials, which women are more prone to acquire, particularly early in adulthood.”

And:

“Only 3 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and the number has never risen much above that.  But even the way this issue is now framed reveals that men’s hold on power in elite circles may be loosening. In business circles, the lack of women at the top is described as a “brain drain” and a crisis of “talent retention.” And while female CEOs may be rare in America’s largest companies, they are highly prized: last year, they outearned their male counterparts by 43 percent, on average, and received bigger raises.”

I have heard the argument made–as a rationale for highlighting men as future leaders of our state–that we have very few women in business in Arkansas.  I can only shake my head at this obvious oversight and antiquated way of thinking.  Even developing countries recognize the power of women:

“In 2006, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development devised the Gender, Institutions and Development Database, which measures the economic and political power of women in 162 countries. With few exceptions, the greater the power of women, the greater the country’s economic success.  Aid agencies have started to recognize this relationship and have pushed to institute political quotas in about 100 countries, essentially forcing women into power in an effort to improve those countries’ fortunes….Postgenocide Rwanda elected to heal itself by becoming the first country with a majority of women in parliament.”

Let’s have more discussion about the power and leadership of women in Arkansas.

Toyota has been running a series of commercials lately for their minivan, the Sienna, that are obviously targeting Gen Xers who are at that point in their lives where they are toting around young children.  And the spots are really funny.  They make fun of the minivan life and are so true.  I think these spots resonate with me because I have so many friends that are at this point in their lives and are excited and proud of their minivans now.

Check out the Sienna Family YouTube channel for all the spots.  Here is the music video that I just saw today and laughed out loud:

Here is a cool Facebook infographic shared over at Mashable.

[Source: Online PhD Programs for MashableMashable.com]

What is the point of Foursquare?  This social media location game is being billed as the next Twitter.  The application launched last March, and after a year of talk in social media circles, the New York Times has caught on and published an article about it.  This must mean it has finally reached its tipping point.  So, what is it and what is the point?

According to the site, Foursquare “is a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide and a game that rewards you for doing interesting things.”  Well, that explains it.  To put it more plainly: Foursquare is a social media application that allows for users to share their current location (businesses, restaurants, services) and offer tips about that location for other users.  For each check-in, a user is given points.  If you are the user that checks in the most at a particular location, you are deemed the “mayor” of that location (a title that can be stolen by the next person who checks in more frequently than you).  Some businesses are even giving “mayor discounts.”  Users can also be granted “badges” for doing interesting things at interesting places.  Yes, this is very vague.  I don’t exactly understand the badges yet, but per the Foursquare site:

“Badges are little rewards you earn for doing checking-into interesting places.  For example, staying out late on a school night or frequenting too many karaoke bars.  We’re constantly adding new badges and would love to hear your suggestions.

“A lot of our badges are tied to venue “tags”.  People use tags to describe the places on foursquare (e.g. jukebox, pool table, fireplace, pizza, etc)  Without giving away too much, here’s a few suggested tags you can add to your favorite places to help unlock badges :  airport, college, douchebag, food truck, frat, gallery, gym, karaoke, movie theater, photobooth, pizza, playground, socialite, sorority, tourist, etc.”

The honor of badges has even spawned an offline business called Nerd Merit Badges (brilliant!) that recently received approval from Foursquare to sell these badges for people to wear on their clothes, backpacks, etc. (there is even a velcro sash for attaching badges your laptop).  I am starting to see how this could be fun.  But, I am a bit of a nerd, too.

Admittedly, I haven’t used Foursquare much.  Yet.  I signed up when I first read about it;, but in the beginning, the cities were limited to only larger markets.  And although I could have still used it in Little Rock, it just felt pointless since no one else was really using it around me yet.  Recently, the service opened up to every city and we started to see some Little Rock users popping up.  So I spent some time checking it out.

The more I poked and prodded Foursquare, it first seemed that in order for Foursquare to be relevant, the user must route their updates through their Twitter feeds – a place where everyone is already hanging out.  But then I realized that the benefit of Foursquare over Twitter is that you can do a location search to find information about the place that you are or want to go.  Wait, isn’t that how we use Yelp, too?  Oh, but Yelp doesn’t have that game aspect and the nerdy-cool badges.  Ok.  So, I need Twitter, Foursquare and Yelp?!

Then, on top of it all, thieves are tapping into Foursquare to learn when we are home and when we are not?  Do we really need all of this?

For those of us who like to share our experiences and let others learn from our experiences: yes, we will use each and every one of these services.  For now.  Until the next iteration comes along and ties it all together and adds a new aspect.  We do this because it fun.  Because we like to help others out.  And because we are nerds.  But that is cool, right?

And that is the point of Foursquare: sharing, having fun, and giving the nerds something else to do.

Foursquare, here I come.

These are my rambling thoughts on Twitter use lately.  Clearly not well-formed yet, these notes are simply a way to ask you if you are using Twitter similarly or differently.

LOCAL POSTS

While I may not post tweets as frequently as others, I am reading tweets up to 15 hours a day.  I keep Seesmic Desktop active on my computer throughout the day and I frequently reference the Tweetie app on my iPhone when away from my computer.  I have noticed something about my tendencies as I scan the posts: I focus on the local people, but national news.  I follow 187 “people” on Twitter; that is a lot of news and information streaming in throughout the day.  And, while I glance at all of them, when in a hurry I look for the people I “know” and those tend to be locals.  And by “locals,” I mean the average, everyday person that is on Twitter and sharing news and information, not the local news (with the exception of a few, they still haven’t figured out how to make Twitter useful except when it comes to weather updates).

Posting constant Twitter updates is personally revealing.  As a result, you can feel like you “know” people you have no chance of meeting.  However, on a local level, there is a chance of actually meeting the people that you feel like you “know” from their Twitter updates.  Does this possibility make their posts more interesting and engaging?

FREQUENCY OF POSTS

The people and organizations that posts strings of tweets one after the other definitely get overlooked by me.  When they do this, I feel like they are crowding the space and trying to take it over.  That is not what social media is all about; social media is about sharing information in two-way communications.  It is putting something out there and looking for a response.  It is not a newscast.

LINKS

I am clicking through on embedded Twitter links more frequently; I am not sure if this is because more people are using them or if people are getting smarter about how to write their tweets in a way that intrigue people enough to click through.  If I click through on an embedded link in a tweet, I would consider that tweet successful: the message was effectively “teased” in the 140-character limit of Twitter.  However, if I am disappointed by what I find, the chances of me clicking through on link from that user again are slim.  The content that doesn’t disappoint can be anything from photos and articles to long-form video; it doesn’t matter what is there, as long as it was relevant to that tweet and ultimately interesting, it works.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I shun suits.  Even on occasions that “require” suits, I find a way to wear something else, usually a dress.  My preferred clothing, however, is jeans.  I can wear them anywhere, anytime and feel more confident and comfortable in the situation than I ever will wearing a suit.  The wearing of jeans by the account management (aka “client-facing) team has been a discussion at our office for several years.  And I think we have finally agreed that we hire smart people and smart people will use their good judgment to determine how to dress for the situations in which they are put.  And, when you know what you are talking about, what you say will be far more important than what you are wearing.  So, nine times out of 10, you will see me in jeans around our office.

As it turns out, this is a national trend.  So much so that the Wall Street Journal is even writing about it:

“Power jeans are increasingly common in high-ranking business and political circles. Indeed, jeans are now a legitimate part of the global power-dress lexicon, worn to influential confabs where the wearers want to signal they’re serious—but not fussy—and innovative.”

…

“Chosen well, jeans can suggest the wearer is confident and modern. Traditionally cut blue jeans carry a whiff of the laborer about them, so denim on a leader suggests a willingness to roll up the sleeves and dig in. There’s also something of the rebel in a pair of jeans. In the boardroom, that can read as creative.”

But there are still “rights” and “wrongs” to wearing jeans.  Just any pair won’t do.

“Few items of clothing speak as loudly, to the positive or negative, as a pair of jeans. As with tuxedos and Hawaiian shirts, wear them right (on the latter, only to a luau if you’re a mainlander), or not at all.

“To wit, fit is as essential for jeans as for tailored slacks. Eric Jennings, Saks Fifth Avenue men’s fashion director, suggests that men keep their executive jeans ‘dark and straight.’ And never dress as if the jeans had been switched out from formal suit pants at the last minute: No fancy French-cuffed shirts with jeans, he advises.

“In fact, getting power jeans right involves lots of no’s. No distressed jeans at work. No metal studs. No acid washes. No lavish embroidery. No boot cut. No skinny. No pedal pushers, shorts or cutoffs. No baggy high-rise. No super-low-rise. No holes. And no fussy ironing.”

Long live jeans!

Love this “Know Your Girls” video. Thank you, Yoplait.

As a supplement to yesterday’s post, here are some excerpt from a New York Times article today reporting that online videos are growing in length as technology improves for editing and viewing online:

“While online video is not going to replace television anytime soon, it is now decidedly mainstream. About 150 million Internet users in the United States watch about 14.5 billion videos a month, according to the measurement firm comScore, or an average of 97 videos per viewer. Although the Web lacks a standard for video measurement, comScore says average video durations have risen slowly but surely in the past year, to an average of 3.4 minutes in March.”

…

“Yet TV networks get much of the credit for the longer-length viewing behavior. In the past two TV seasons, nearly every broadcast show has been streamed free on the Internet, making users accustomed to watching TV online for 20-plus minutes at a time. By some estimates, one in four Internet customers now uses Hulu, an online home for NBC and Fox shows, every month. ‘Dancing With the Stars,’ the popular ABC reality show, draws almost two million viewers on ABC.com, according to Nielsen.

“’People are getting more comfortable, for better or for worse, bringing a computer to bed with them,’ said Dina Kaplan, the co-founder of Blip.tv.”

I am visiting my family this weekend and the DirectTV is not working.  Apparently, my dad has been without TV for a week now.  Initially, I didn’t think it would be a big deal:  with four computers in this house and a live Internet connection, and with an iPhone, I thought I wouldn’t miss the television.

I was wrong.  Yes, we can keep up with the world through our Twitter feeds.  And I can find something specific to watch online if I am looking for it.  But I miss the background noise of television.  Even in a house full of people, there is something about having the TV on that makes me feel like I am more connected to the world.  The house is too quiet right now.

This quiet time does have me thinking about multitasking lifestyles.  I spend a good portion of my day online and connected.  However, in reviewing my behavior, I realize that I am usually doing at least three things at once.  I am not alone.  When surveyed, over 80% of respondents are involved with another medium, activity or device while online and almost 60% of those say watching television is something they do while online.  Although media channels continue to get more segmented and fight for our attention, television is still a huge part of our lives; it still has value.  We have become accustomed to receiving information in several different formats with many of those delivered at the same time.  Does it enhance our knowledge or diminish the importance of the information that is delivered?  I believe it enhances our knowledge to receive information in a variety of formats, even if it is all at the same time.  Each delivery mechanism can resonate in a different way, giving the information a dimension it didn’t have when it is delivered in only one format.  When the television is on in the background, we can do several other things and still absorb that information.

There have been theories flying that television will soon be obsolete due to advancing technologies around DVR and online video.  But more recently others are saying that television viewership is growing: according to Nielsen, “the average American television viewer is watching more than 151 hours of television per month — an ‘all-time’ high — up from more than 145 hours during the same period the previous year.”

Obviously, television is not going away.  While I don’t feel like I am missing any news or cultural enlightenment by not having the television, I feel like I am missing an old friend.  The internet can provide me with everything the television can, true.  But I have to search to find that information.  The television just delivers it to me once I set the channel. The television enhances my online experience and the Internet enhances my television-watching/listening experience.  These media complement each other.

Of course, if I had to make a choice between television and the Internet, I would choose the Internet.