Online Friendship

Over at The Guardian Tom Hodgkinson has written about the people who bankrolled Facebook in an article called With friends like these… and it is not a pretty picture. Hodgkinson’s original beef seems to be that he actually does not like social network sites because they tend to isolate rather than connect people and that any form of social connections they create are inherently shallow. So far I am in agreement with him.

But the main beef of the argument is that the people financing Facebook are ultraconservative greedy capitalists who are unconcerned about the privacy of the users. Sure he is right and it is a shame. But how does this differ from almost every other corporation? I would have been more shocked if an online venture had been bankrolled by altruists.

I was skeptical to Facebook, indeed as I am to all social networking sites. But I decided not to knock it without trying. Early on I aired my skepticism by asking my friends the question: If I don’t get facebook – does this mean I am too old? Is this a mid(?) life crises? The answers were predictable which is unsurprising considering I was asking the question to other Facebookers.  I muddled along. Collecting friends adding applications but still unconvinced.

I joined causes and added applications. Recruited friends to causes and compared everything from movie taste to strange dating preferences. None of which revealed who I was. As with all online behavior it is a persona or a dimension – it is not me. Anyway, so now I have 136 friends. What does this mean? Am I popular yet? I still don’t get it. Isn’t a double espresso or a beer with a live friend infinitely better than all the online notes? Hodgkinson really puts his finger on the whole thing

And does Facebook really connect people? Doesn’t it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?

Rather than silly comparisons and online games I want real connections. Of course I cannot easily drink beer with friends in other countries but Facebook is no solution to this problem. I don’t have the interest or the energy to try to reform Facebook through campaigns or to attempt to leave it by deleting each contact one by one. So I will let Facebook be and let the activities continue. The whole thing will eventually just go the way of the dinosaurs when users find something new to amuse themselves with. Until then the advertisers will believe that they know something about potential customers, the researchers will believe they know something about online communities, the investors will believe that they will be rich forever and the users will believe that friendships exist online.

Real academics walk the walk they talk

Like most academics I know, I tend to say yes to most offers to do extra work. Your schedule seems too full? No way! Of course you accept to give a lecture, write a chapter, hold a seminar, write a short text, give an interview…

Therefore at the beginning of the new year I doubt that I am alone in playing Tetris with my calender in a vain attempt to fit in all the things I promised and still find time to work with the mundane everyday task of research. Despite being aware of this I have already promised to do several things besides my actual work for example:

  • Book chapter on digital resistance in Swedish
  • Revise two research papers
  • Review two research papers
  • Write a commentary on the GPLv3
  • Launch a new journal
  • Teach in Lund & Göteborg
  • Lecture in Stockholm
  • Hold a seminar in Göteborg

And it’s still only January. I must be more protective of my time or I shall be totally unable to implement my major plan for being a productive academic. Why is it that most academics seem to be only too happy to say yes to all the extra work? In the past I had an idea that if I turned an extra task down I would never be asked again. This may be true but it is still not really a strong reason for saying Yes.

Part of me says Yes because I am flattered simply by the fact that I was asked. Another part of me says Yes because I want to show that I can do the job. The academic system that schooled me taught that many of the extra tasks we do (for which the only reward is a dubious honor or community recognition) are all part of the way in which an academic should behave. Part of the norms which make up the academic community. In a sense the extra work is not our reward but it actually defines who we are as academics. Or could it just be that I am a glutton for punishment?

Seven Random Things

After reading the results of the Seven Random Things meme at both The Mummy’s Bracelet and The Little Professor I want to join in.

  • I grew up on the island of Malta where I attended an all boys catholic school. I have been an atheist as long as I can remember.
  • I once predicted that I would never need a mobile phone. I have lost count of how many I have owned.
  • As a child I was accident prone and required stitches on several occasions, I lost half a finger before I was two – but I have never broken a bone.
  • My first job was at McDonalds I survived 4 days before quitting.
  • I have been a vegetarian for twenty years but recently I have become aware of the fact that I don’t know why.
  • Science Fiction/Fantasy books bore me, but I like the films. Deep films bore me but I like to read the books. But I rarely read fiction.
  • I almost didn’t survive law school. Bad study routines, computer games (especially Diablo) and insufficient interest in general law almost made me quit. I wonder where I would be today.

Naturally its easy to tag friends like TechnoLlama, Jonas, Hesa, Cyberlaw… But I would also like to tag some of the blogs I regularly read so Mothugg, Stephen, Joi & Jill consider yourselves tagged!

Trashing the OLPC

The Economist trashes the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in a recent column. The tone is negative from the start with the title One Clunky Laptop Per Child the reader quickly gets the idea. The main argument is however strange. The criticism is not about the idea but is focused squarely on the technology that has been produced. The Economist goes so far as to call the idea brilliant.

The problem with this approach is that with its focus on the technology the field is left open to the idea that the project would have worked if the computer had been better. This approach ignores the problem that simply chucking technology at people will automatically solve problems.

Laptops are not really what is needed to help children in developing nations. What they need is schools, tables, chairs, paper, books, teachers, pencils and the infrastructure to attend a school. Laptops, even cheap ones, are a luxury.

The OLPC has been criticized before read more on Wikipedia.

Believe Nothing

While thinking about the way in which students (and some researchers) tend to trust what they read in books, newspapers and online I came across this wonderful quote from the Buddha

Believe nothing,
no matter where you read it,
or who said it,
no matter if I have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Buddha

Artefacts & Embedded Values

One of the themes that I have been trying to get across to audience in some of my recent lectures has been the philosophical and political implications of technology. The point I am trying to illustrate is that technology is embedded not only with the designer’s ideas about the user’s needs, the way in which the technology will be used and the marketability of the product – but each product also contains a depth of philosophical and political beliefs.

Therefore while in Borås I spoke about a chair that happened to be in the lecture hall. It was a typical Scandinavian conference room chair. The fact that we can recognize a chair as typical Scandinavian is, in itself, telling.

The chair’s “Scandinavianess” was revealed in the result of multiple design choices.

The choices of shape, the weight, the cloth, the pattern on the cloth and the wooden frame make the chair and also reveal its economic, social, moral, political and philosophical background. The most obvious give away was the choice of pinewood. This honey color has come to symbolize Scandinavian design from high culture Aalto to mass production Ikea.

The shape reveals that it is intended for audiences, the shape and the cloth show that it is not for schools. The pattern of the cloth ages the chair and shows it belongs to a bygone era of design (it’s the early 90’s).

While it is relatively easy to illustrate these points it is more complex to show the connection to the way in which the technology controls and regulates our behavior. This control is particularly relevant in technologies that manipulate and alter the way in which we communicate.

A recent development on Facebook illustrates the way in which technology controls and enables what users can do. The Facebook profile has long had an obligatory “is” in the way in which the user can describe what is going on. The result can be something like “Mathias is at work”, “Mathias is sleeping” and “Mathias is feeling good”.

The little “is” limits the way in which the user can communicate. Maybe the user is no longer, maybe the user wants to be “was” or why even a verb of being? By removing the compulsory state of being the user now is free to express much more than a state of being. “Mathias wants…”, “Mathias runs…” or “Mathias eats”.

This change enables the user and dares him/her to make an existential shift from the Heideggerian state (as Christopher puts it). The question, of course, is whether or not the user will dare to going beyond the “is” now that the freedom to do so has been enabled.

Coping with the Crap and thinking the thoughts

After spending the best part of a morning doing admin, in particular going through my inbox only to discover what I have missed, I realize (not for the first time) that I need to be more systematic about my work. In particular I need to divide my day in a more efficient manner.

For me the three main productivity and time thieves are:

Interruptions and short meetings – this is because I try to work before and after but interruptions and short meetings make me lose my chain of thought and send me off on a different tangent. A well placed interruption can create a chain of events that cause a whole day to be lost.

Travel time – Since I spend several hours a week on trains (mainly) I need to reconsider the way in which travel can be seen. This time must be used more efficiently. Computer work is possible but not desirable. Reading may be the optimal use of train travel.

Administration – By this I mean the whole process of ensuring that my research and teaching works. It is everything from maintaining email correspondence to filling out the reports. The actual time spent with administration concerns and annoyances is almost as high as the time spent actually carrying out the administrative tasks.

The plan: A proposal of a new work order for myself.

First of all I need to create a meetings and administration day. On this day the main point of going to work will be not to write or to research. It will be to efficiently resolve my administration tasks. This will also free up my mind from thinking about administration.

Second of all I need to create the opposite of an administration day and this is my Creativity day. The whole point of this day will be to think. Not to write but to think. A whole day to work out solutions to problems, lay plans and develop ideas. This day should not be spent writing. Of course I will make notes but maybe I will do this longhand with a paper and pen. This day should be as unplugged as possible. Little or no computer use.

Third I will create two research and writing days. This will include writing out the ideas from the creativity day, carrying out research, writing articles, chapters and books. Writing research proposals belongs to the administration day and should not be done here. These days should be relatively unplugged – keeping Internet use to a minimum.

Fourth and last will be the teaching day. During this day I will lecture and guide, have student meetings and seminars. Since I have a low teaching burden at present this should be more than enough and the time not spent in teaching should be used in preparing for teaching and teaching administration.

Naturally an idea like this cannot work without making sure that there are exceptions. Every now and then I am sure that the plan will implode but the idea is to strive for improvement.

When will you blog? The exception to the rule

However while the focus of these days is as mentioned I do believe that there is a need to apply oneself to work on a regular basis. Therefore in each day I will include one hour of academic writing (except on the two research and writing days since this is already included). One hour of other writing (mostly emails & this blog).

This is the basic plan and I am sure that it will require some fine tuning but I hope to be quite strict about its application. It’s not a new idea that the freedom embedded in academia requires a great deal of self discipline but what is new for me is the attempt to implement a strict organized regime instead of trying to solve things on a priority basis.

Page 69

Marshal Macluhan, the coiner of misunderstood concepts such as “the medium is the message” and the “global village” apparently had an interesting way of deciding whether or not to buy, borrow, read or ignore a book he recommended people to turn to page 69 of any book and read it. If you like that page, buy the book. Cool idea.

Naturally even this idea has been abused and there is now a blog entitled The Page 69 Test which helps readers try to find books worth reading. Unfortunately my problem is that I have too many books which I want or need to read. But I will be trying the page 69 system.

Arrogant, Daring & Right

Found a new voice of wisdom (to call it vox populi would probably be wrong) today. Alf Rehn writes an excellent rant about the research article in the context of the UK RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) system:

Now, what I find absolutely horrendous and directly unethical is that all this denigrates the scholarly book, the research monograph. The way I was raised into academia, this was what you meant by research, and now a bunch of foreign bureaucrats with language problems are saying that this does not count? Well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Writing a journal article, to me, is mainly an exercise in typing. There are rote formulas to get a journal article done (well known such, looking at the shite that gets published), and it frankly bores me a lot of the time. A book, however, is another matter. A book takes time to craft, and the sheer length thereof forces one to work in an altogether different manner. I was taught by my Doktorvater the following: If you haven’t written a serious monograph, you shouldn’t be made a PhD. If you haven’t written two, you’re not a serious scholar. “—And never let one who hasn’t written three serious books become a professor! It cheapens the title.” And damn good advice it was too.

It’s provocative, it’s daring, maybe it could be a bit reactionary, it’s definitely bold, ballsy and forward. It also happens to be correct. Go Alf!

(via Imaginary Magnitude)