Digital Frontiers

Does the Internet, with its plethora of information about any subject you could possibly want to know about, stifle your creativity?

You can find out anything on the Internet, from how to cut your own hair (I just buzzed my own hair yesterday) to how to write a blog post. Anything you want, you can learn on the Internet. People can showcase their skills, and express their ideas.

However, there are so many people using the Internet today, so many ideas getting posted and shared, that it’s hard to find a fresh, new idea these days. Most of what I personally see on the Internet today is simply iterative efforts, or taking someone’s already made idea and improving on it or changing it in a small way to make it slightly unique.

————————————————–

For example, take the iPhone App Store. When it first opened, there was a gold rush of new apps and new ideas of how to use the iPhone’s capabilities and features. Apps like RedLaser or Bump allowed users to use the iPhone’s camera and bluetooth connections to scan barcodes to find cheaper prices for products, and to easily share contact information.

Today, there are over 150,000 apps in the App Store. Most of the new, creative ideas are already taken. For example, the Twitter clients and tip calculators and flashlight apps are all the same: they do the same basic features, but most of the apps are simply taking the already existing product and making something new. This does slightly stifle creativity, because a lot of people just copy what already exists and hope they can make money, but it also allows for people to improve on existing apps and share their new ideas.

It’s a double edged sword, the Internet. On one end, you have access to so much information, but on the other end, you have so much information and so many ideas that are already out there, that you may feel that there is no “fresh” idea you can come up with. I have this problem when brainstorming for new iPhone app ideas. Most of my ideas are to improve on other people’s apps. I only hope that the App Store doesn’t become completely filled with Twitter clients and tip calculators.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Are you getting fleeced?

The internet is a tremendously powerful tool for collaboration, but some argue that this rise of collaborative thinking does more harm than good for the collective innovation of the world. No one argues that projects such as wikipedia do not hold value, but those that oppose the wiki-zation of our increasingly-online economy say that the biggest advantages still come when the incentive of profit is there. Companies like Apple and Google drive innovation, the thinking goes, while the Web 2.0 crowd doesn’t really create anything of value.

However, I argue that the new paradigm is actually more value-centric than ever before. These days, monetizing an idea is a secondary priority — if a website has value, the thinking goes, then eventually its users can  be turned into profit. So far, Google has had success with this strategy, and Facebook has the user base but not the income (yet). On the whole, though, this path has been fairly successful for companies, because the attention of consumers is a valuable commodity.

But even when the carrot of profit is not dangled, the increased connectivity of the internet can create value and attract attention. The obvious example is wikipedia, but openoffice.org and even 4chan use their users to create value for many without asking for anything in return. People like contributing, like feeling the status of being content providers and experts — they like it enough to give their time and effort for free. But does this democratization of information dilute our minds and stifle our creativity?

In a word, no.

The internet is the biggest boon for creative, critical thinking since the age of enlightenment. The expanse of free information means that the everyman can be better-informed and less-easily ignorant. The new information age is not going away — instead of fighting it or crying about it, we should attempt to use its strengths  to strengthen the thinking skills of the world. The web-savvy generation is the best-informed generation in history, and we are the also the most able to distinguish the quality information from the BS. We’re trending more in that direction — so we should be trying to capitalize upon the best points of the new information age and teach the next generation to avoid the distractions.

What do you think? Is the internet helpful to creative, critical thinking, or not? And, assuming it’s not going anywhere, how can we best work with this new paradigm in education?

Popularity: 2% [?]

On a daily basis, Internet users around the world subconsciously plug in key words into their built-in Google toolbars. This habit has become second nature to almost all of us. Within 0.14 seconds, we’re able to rummage around a wealth of new knowledge and pick and choose tidbits that we interpret as valuable information. It’s obvious that the Internet facilitates communication and the spread of data. Yet, because convenience always seems to take precedence, many questions arise. Does Google make you stupid? Does collectivism pull the plug on innovation?

According to Jaron Lanier, the answer to those two questions is yes. He embodies the Morrissey lyric, “Why don’t you find out for yourself?” He believes that the current model of collaboration is destructive and prohibits any trace of creativity. Without a sense of privacy, he believes teams could only produce average work as individualism is lost completely.

Is user generated content debilitating towards learning? Clearly, open sources that simply anyone can contribute to, such as Uncyclopedia, may just be counterproductive. Laziness has reached unconceivable levels, as people even need help using Google.  Yes, the Internet does promote laziness, but it certainly doesn’t stifle creativity or inhibit learning. With much efficiency, we’re now able to make better choices and develop more in-depth solutions with less time. And as a whole, the Internet and the all-encompassing technologies appear to be globalizing education. As a universal medium, the Internet now allows for a flexible classroom setting that can be accessed in the most remote places. The Internet allows powerful communication as well as collaboration for students and teachers.  In turn, as individuals have access to such a large peer base, the process of brainstorming creates a larger pool for idea generation.

Creativity is not stifled. With greater access to information, creativity proliferates. What would life be like without Google? I can answer that.

Popularity: 1% [?]

If no one will stick up for groupthink, I will.

For the uninitiated, “groupthink” is a term coined the 70′s that the old and crotchety have begun attacking the internet geneartion with. The argument is that as communication networks have grown, teenagers and young people rely on the opinions of others to form their own identity and stifles the creation of truly unique thought.

However, most would do well to remember Steven Johnson’s national bestseller “Everything Bad is Good For You”, which argued for the merits of bad habits everywhere. Videogames, Television, almost nothing was out of bounds. Although there was a lot of criticism against the book, the lesson learned was that for every bad habit that takes away from the old way of doing things, a new skill is learned.

As for groupthink, what from outside seems to be an increase in intellectual internet-based collectvism doesn’t take into account the huge percentage of people who are not participating but watching and learning the difference between genuine ideas and agenda-motivated ideological pushing.

Or put simply,
because we are connected and constantly observed and aggregated, the truly talented and special know how to stand out and be an individual.

So the next time you hear someone bemoan the loss of original creative thought, don’t be afraid to feel a little entitled to feeling part of something new. A generation so aware of its collectivism that we’ve learned to discern out the real gems of humanity. And more cat videos than you could shake a stick at.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Being a member of the online community is like being one individual out of millions across the world.  Being able to even have one moment of fame in a community so vast requires a great amount of creativity or an equal amount of stupidity.

So the question is: does the internet foster creativity or reward stupidity?

The answer to this question depends on what end of the spectrum you are on.  If you spend the majority of your time getting all your intel from websites such as Wikipedia , Facebook, or Twitter the internet is probably hindering your ability to think for yourself.  If, however, you are a top participant on websites such as Digg, YouTube, or have your own blog to use as a platform for your creativity, the internet is in fact fostering your creativity by forcing you to compete with millions of other users to vie for the attention of the online community.

The thing is, the masses are not the individuals out there allowing the internet to morph them into creative geniuses.  The internet has made it even easier for the masses to become bottom feeders which hinders their ability to think for themselves.  That is not to say, however, that the internet should be considered a negative development in society.  The internet simply (when overused) has the ability to make us too reliant on others for intel rather than trying to find out for ourselves.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Has the Internet stifled creativity?  I think the answer is a resounding “No”, and I’d like to comment on the the piece that inspired this question, from the Op-Ed section of the Wall Street Journal.

Jaron Lanier’s article “Worldwide Mush” is an appallingly elitist and hyper-capitalist piece of drivel.  I had to double take after reading it to make sure “Gordon Gekko” wasn’t the author.  His argument that “internet collectivization” has stifled creativity and innovation on the Internet is chock full of so many loaded statements and false analogies that I’m surprised it got run in an esteemed publication.  Oh wait, nevermind that publication was the Wall Street Journal.  He points out that collectivizing Silicon Valley would be a bad thing, and then implies that the same conclusion holds true for certain things on the internet.  But it doesn’t.  He takes shots at Wikipedia; but here’s the irony: if you want to know who Jaron Lanier is you’re better off looking him up on the open Wikipedia rather than the closed Britannica.  So the man who proclaims, “Most people know me as the “father of Virtual Reality technology”, isn’t even known by the most well known private encyclopedia.

Lanier makes the claim “There’s a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn’t proven to be true.”  He then uses Flash and the iPhone as disproof.  Well Mr Lanier you are an electronic musician, so please explain to me how the monome, an open source interface made by a couple in New York, is one of the most sought after and innovative digital controller on the market.  Explain to me why the open source Nexus One phone is just as well rated as the iPhone.

Lanier then claims that “There are only a tiny handful of writers or musicians who actually make a living in the new utopia [of demonetized sharing].”   I once did a study a year or so where I found that there were more albums released by artists that were available in 2008, than in all of the 1960′s.  So much for a handful.  The internet has created an open environment where anyone can release music not just the handful that record execs deem good enough.  Creativity has been encouraged, not stifled.  Perhaps, Jaron is just bitter than his own albums don’t seem to sell so hot.

The author seems aware that his argument will be taken as hyper-capitalist, because he does his best to spin it to seem like he’s for the little guy.  He even throws an anecdote about he dabbled in collectivism (how cute.)  I love his statement “One of the bright spots in the employment picture for the U.S. is in health-care jobs. But the Japanese are developing health-care robots to anticipate the needs of their aging population. When those robots get good and cheap… a lot of health-care jobs in the U.S. will either go away.”  Ya, sure, and the industrial revolution ruined the world economy.

Rather than have the best ideas contributed by anyone in society who feels like speaking up, he prefers those ideas be contributed by teams in privacy.  Rather than have things be on a level playing fields, with no barriers to entry, and perfectly competitive, he wants the opposite.  A world dominated by the elite.  After all it would terrible if people did things for kudos, instead of PROFIT!!!! in Lanier’s world.  The internet should be controlled by for profit teams of elites who of course have all our best interests in heart.  This kind of Internet totalitarianism, this capitalist Stalinism, would be the biggest stifling of creativity.

Now, if I have a great idea, I can post it online for anyone to see, and I can CHOOSE to do it for free.   I can also choose to make others pay.  In fact I can choose to do whatever I want, and if it’s really good, and works, then the idea will spread.  That my friends is creativity, and that is exactly what the Internet encourages.

Popularity: 1% [?]

The Internet has provided many innovative ways for people to communicate, whether that’s through messaging, blogging, Skyping, or e-mailing, ultimately, people are connecting in new ways. These connections allow both businesses and users to collaborate on projects like never before. However, the question become: is this a good thing?

In the Wall Street Journal article, World Wide Mush, and in another article, Is Internet Fueling Collectivism, Jaron Lanier claims that the Internet is leading us into collectivism in which individual creativity is becoming more and more stifled. He asks the question, “What if all of the voices that are piling on end up drowning one another out?” Wikipedia is a prime example of this new collectivism because anyone and everyone can work together to create the content. Lanier and other supporters (including Elton John) argue that such collaboration kills innovation, and leads to a mob mentality.

History can, to a degree, back up Lanier’s argument. Many of the biggest breakthroughs in history have come from individuals going against the the social norm and coming up with brilliant ideas. Many of these ground-breaking ideas were not appreciated until years after their publication. Today, these ideas could be drowned out and lost in the sea of average ideas.

Working together in groups is imperative in many projects and situation to reach the goal. However, it is when too many people start working together that a mob mentality is established, and the results are average. The way to avoid the negative impacts of internet collectivism is to create privacy between teams and individuals working on projects. This way, each team or worker’s individual creativity and innovation is maintained, and the best ideas can be judged from the end product.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Has the Internet stifled creativity? Hell no! The Internet has given life to millions of people worldwide. From the average Joe ordering a pizza online, all the way to the hot-shot basketball player getting suspended for inappropriate Twitter posts. The Internet has not prevented any person from doing anything. If anything, the Internet has opened pathways into vast worlds unknown by most. If the Internet has posed as a negative threat to anybody, then survival of the fittest kicks in. This is not to say that the Internet “stifles creativity”, just to say that the Internet provides a new competitive marketplace. Change, or die.

[More]

Popularity: 1% [?]

In his article “World Wide Mush,” Jarone Lanier makes the argument that the internet and Web 2.0 collectivized thinking drown out any truly creative ideas. People also make the argument that they only serve to further creativity. My argument is that they do exactly neither.

Lanier laments that Web 2.0 will reduce the middle class to only accepting only “kudos” for their truly great ideas. Where his logic falls apart, though, is that the great successes of group-think have very little to do with people giving away knowledge that they could other wise profit from. Wikipedia may put some encyclopedias out of business, but the information is rarely of any use to the individual contributors. If someone thinks an idea is profitable, they rarely submit it for peer evaluation. Take the iPad for example, like all of their new products, Apple chose to wait to unveil it until they had finished manufacturing it. Perhaps if they had created a blog for customers to submit their ideas and opinions, they may have created a better product (or at least had a better name), but they knew that if they did they would risk a competitor stealing their idea and potential profit.

It is this restriction of Web 2.0 to less-than-profitable subjects that also keeps it from furthering creativity to any great extent. Because people don’t share their best ideas, those who might have been able to improve upon it can’t.

Popularity: 1% [?]

It is human nature to strive to find things that make life easier. Since the invention of the wheel, we have been on the path of discovery. Most now have microwaves, ovens, toasters, refrigerators, cell phones, computers, cars, and much more that make our lives much easier. While you sit here reading this blog, take a look around you, I bet you can find 10 different technological inventions. I mean, don’t lie like your iPhone isn’t on your lap as you read this.

But are all of these “amazing” innovations hurting us? Some psychologists seem to think so. According to Kelly Lambert’s article “Depressingly Easy”  written in 2008, today’s technology is depriving our brains of the dopamine that we naturally produce as a reward for our hard work. Our brains are hard-wired to give us a boost of dopamine every time we accomplish something, making us want to go back and do the same thing later. This reward circuit has helped humans survive for hundreds of years by releasing dopamine when we saw positive results in their crops, hunting trips, and relationships. However, now that we no longer have to work as hard for things (for example we can now go out and buy groceries and ready-made clothing) there is speculation that the boom in technology is correlated with the boom in depression.

While all of this sounds extremely negative, it cannot be denied that technology has helped our species. Computers and the internet have allowed us to reach people halfway across the world at a push of a button, not to mention the amazing leaps and bounds that we have taken medically. Scientists can now communicate in an instant rather than months, and the common cold is no longer a cause of death.

So now it is up to you to decide. Will the iPhone be the new leading cause of suicides in America?

Case and Point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

Popularity: 2% [?]