multitasking and “the nightmare of infinite connectivity”
We all remember the promises. The slogans. They were all about freedom, liberation. Supposedly we were in handcuffs and wanted out of them. The key that dangled in front of us was a microchip.
“Where do you want to go today?” asked Microsoft in a mid-1990s ad campaign. The suggestion was that there were endless destinations—some geographic, some social, some intellectual—that you could reach in milliseconds by loading the right devices with the right software. It was further insinuated that where you went was purely up to you, not your spouse, your boss, your kids, or your government. Autonomy through automation.
This was the embryonic fallacy that grew up into the monster of multitasking.
Human freedom, as classically defined (to think and act and choose with minimal interference by outside powers), was not a product that firms like Microsoft could offer, but they recast it as something they could provide. A product for which they could raise the demand by refining its features, upping its speed, restyling its appearance, and linking it up with all the other products that promised freedom, too, but had replaced it with three inferior substitutes that they could market in its name:
Efficiency, convenience, and mobility.
For proof that these bundled minor virtues don’t amount to freedom but are, instead, a formula for a period of mounting frenzy climaxing with a lapse into fatigue, consider that “Where do you want to go today?” was really manipulative advice, not an open question. “Go somewhere now,” it strongly recommended, then go somewhere else tomorrow, but always go, go, go—and with our help. But did any rebel reply, “Nowhere. I like it fine right here”? Did anyone boldly ask, “What business is it of yours?” Was anyone brave enough to say, “Frankly, I want to go back to bed”?
lovely, critical, funny article by Walter Kirn in The Atlantic.
I’m doing pretty well right now, considering I’m online. Only have 6 tabs open, two computers in front of me, one of which I’m partitioning and reinstalling an OS, one email half-written, and this entry.
I hope you are doing what you meant to be doing.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I am meant to be eating dinner and the lights in this computer lab just switched off automatically because apparently typing is not enough movement to signify to the sensors that this room is occupied.
I am hungry……….. So I guess in answer to your(Microserfs) question I want to go eat some dinner. Let’s just hope my leash doesn’t ring before I leave.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
mike - are you still part of ilesansfil? you just don’t blog about it anymore, or um, huh?
i can’t believe my graphic is still on the webersite..
January 31st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Hey Pat.
Yeah - still part of ISF, but I took a step back from it (didn’t join the board las AGM). It / We’re still doing well. Waiting to hear about a potential deal with the city of Montreal.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 am
Not sure if I’m posting this in the right place. Re your exchange with Hugh McGuire on the necessity of Reception. It’s not just a matter of repeating the Shannon shibboleth. The person receiving has to be…receptive. Which means among other things,
1. it’s easier to reach people if you start by recognizing their concerns and their lived experience, and making sure your message speaks to that. Start where they are.
2. the assumption of Euro-style education that the way to get a message across, to teach (note the difference from the original meaning of educate) is to beat it into their little heads. This is a factory system. The school as assembly line. Viral advertising. The industry of whatever-you-want. The ‘business community”. It stinks. Factory systems are destroying the world. For an alternate approach see Fred McTaggart, Wolf That I am, on native people’s idea of education: the learner has to want to learn.
3. Receptivity also depends on finding the appropriate level of style. This is not the same as dumbing it down. Google “fog index” to see how this applies to basic writing. I’m currently having a battle with some well-meaning ecolos who consistently use big words and long subordinate clauses. You can cut the fog with a knife. Or wish you could. They don’t get it. They always talk that way….
4. A picture is worth a thousand words. See
http://mecteam.blogspot.com/2008/01/eco-economics-vs-perverse-subsidies_27.html