Monthly Archives: September 2014

20% of this post delivers 80% of the information

Notes based on Week 9: Reading and Symposium

Pareto’s Law: The 80/20 Rule

Observation of economic inequalities: In most cases four-fifths of our efforts are largely irrelevant.

  • 80% land owned by 20% of population
  • 80% profit produced by 20% employees
  • 80% crime commited by 20% criminals
  • 80% web links link to 15% webpages
  • 80% citations go to 38% scientists

Bell curves:

  • pattern in most quantities in nature , with a peak distribution and very few on the extremes ends.
  • A signature of random networks.
  • Disorder

Power laws:

  • a continuously decreasing curve, implying many small events coexisting with a few large events.
  • Acknowledgement of hubs.
  • transition from disorder to order

How does order emerge from disorder?

network

Some fascinating visualizations of networks.

‘These

hubs

are the strongest argument

against the Utopian vision

of an egalitarian cyberspace. Yes, we all have the right to put anything we wish on the Web. But

will anybody notice?

If the Web were a random network, we would all have the same chance to be seen and heard. In a collective manner, we somehow create hubs, Websites to which everyone links. They are very easy to find, no matter where you are the Web. Compared to these hubs,

the rest of the web is invisible.’

(p.58.)

Peer Review

In the face of all the uncertainties of large infrastructures such as the Internet and the power grid, Carli wonders just how dependent we are on these networks, and how vulnerable we may be when these now, essential parts of our living suddenly fails. Callista thinks there is a lacking of definitions of the terms (e.g. neutrality) we often debate in symposiums, which lead to massive confusion. And suggests that we need to define our terms before launching into discussions. I totally agree with her on that.

And last but definitely not least, Marcus urges us to think about where we are headed in terms of technology, and how this may affect what kind of future we have. He mentions that all these technologies are in our hands, some use it to bring change into the world, others to “impose peace” on others. However, further on, he takes on a much more technological-deterministic point of view: saying that technology makes our lives easier but also ‘endangering’ us. There are some great questions raised by Marcus, but I think we also ought to review the way we speak about technology, as it very much reflects our state of mind. We sometimes say ‘technology does this’ without even meaning to be tech determinist, but it slips into the way we talk because we are not consciously choosing to not be determined by it. By acknowledging not only the power we have to change this attitude in the future, but also the social factors and our intentions that have influenced history as well as technology has, we will start to speak less of what technology did but rather how has it contributed and affected us in return.

Marcus’ post brings up a really thought provoking question: we can choose to use technology for the better, for peace even. But can we create or invent technology with the same motivation? Most of what is available to us today began as technologies invented and used as national defense, “war prevention”. Maybe its time our major technological advances are created with more peaceful intent – with the greater good in mind or to advance our species civilization or contribute to how we can progress as a species instead of as a country.

sky_rocket_by_spoof_or_not_spoof-d654o8k

Collage on Readings

Here are some ideas from the week 8 readings:week 8 reading collage1

“MY PART IN THIS STORY BEGAN, AS MANY STORIES DO, MORE OR less by accident, in a small town in upstate New York called Ithaca. And a place named after the mythical home of Odysseus is, I suppose, as good a place to begin a story as any. Back then, however, the only Odysseus I knew was a small cricket, who along with his brothers Prometheus and Hercules was part of an experiment I was running as a graduate student at Cornell University with my adviser, Steven Strogatz. Steve is a mathematician, but pretty early on in his career he started to become much more interested in the applications of mathematics to problems in biology, physics, and even sociology than in the math itself.”

In one of his paragraphs, Duncan J Watts demonstrated, with subtlety, an example of social networks. The end of his previous sentences is directly connected to the start of the next, hinting at the six degrees of connection. He also describes his involvement in the story as an ‘accident’. Knowing now that there is no such thing as random network or accidents, Watts choice of words plays cleverly on the very nature of networks.

Collage of symposium notes

Hammer
Different perspectives influences utility, hence not neutral. 

Not digital, but networked

< Real world doesn’t have a plot

plot ≠ narrative

Technological Determinism

Verbal/oral > remembering, reciting

Bird/human\termite

What does neutral even mean?

> Narrative = Experience?

Writing } storage of information

Reddit > constantly changing, phases,

Murphy & Potts: Technologies are neutral

Shields: plots are for dead people

Post literal world, we have abstracted the world in all sorts of ways

| building up own story about Reddit

Nothing can be neutral in relation to something else

@

In the most ‘creative’ way, I chose to use this symbol to represent how I felt about David Shield’s “Collage” text. The letter ‘a’ is situated within the circle, but it is also a part of the circle. Each fragment within the collage are individual identifiable parts that are also an indispensable contribution to the collage’s concept.

Usually, in our writing and reading, we communicate through making logical points, sequentially setting up our arguments, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. But in the “Collage” extract – ideas, notes, observations, arguments etc. are piled in an archival collage. Structure and logic has been temporarily abandoned by the author. In turn, the ‘visitor’ must experience each fragment individually, before assembling, in a reflective process, the logic or argument of the overall picture. This is an inspiring work and a beautiful and fascinating  experience because, like Zen meditation, thought and judgement is suspended during the experience while the participant discovers every piece of the puzzle. And it is not only about the non-linear structure it created, but there is also a duality presented in this experience: one has to focus on the individual fragments while, at the same time, acknowledging the collective body that it is a part of.

Narcissism

The highlight of this week’s symposium was, yet again, the never ending clash between Adrian and Betty and the awkward, inappropriate examples from Adrian. Both which are very entertaining. Things that stood out for me during discussion was the different definitions or interpretations of narcissism. Betty relates it to the idea of self image, and projecting an image of our identity while Adrian argues that it has more to do with perfection. To me, the idea of perfection is closer to self love and confidence, where as projecting one’s image seem to imply a lack of internal confidence and is more associated with self-consciousness. This is generally triggered by more negative feelings towards ones self image. We are aware of our selves, our image because we may not necessarily have the confidence to not worry about it. More over, it implies that we are not perfect, which is quite the opposite to self love. It all depends on which approach we take initially, whether it is psychoanalysis or philosophical or social.