Corporate profits no longer depend on a well-employed middle class--thanks to robots. 

Facial recognition is ready for Google Glass, and doctors will use it for patient histories, but are the benefits worth the costs? 

How will Internet-connected kitchen appliances track your activity? 

Is the brain just an imperfect computer? 

Can technology promote "human flourishing"? 

More questions than answers this week.

“It’s Time to Talk about the Burgeoning Robot Middle Class” at Technology Review 

Robotics is divorcing human employment from corporate profits. Why use a brain trust when you can own a robot? Why pay an employee's yearly salary when you can pay a one-time cost for a robot, and own that robot? 

“The latest Google Glass hack gives doctors the power of face recognition” at VentureBeat

Google Glass will use facial recognition software in medical settings to pull up files and medical charts about patients. Why not? Consider if a person is unconscious and brought into the ER. This way doctors can find out about a person without needing them to tell the doctor anything.

Bonus article here.

“Will giving the Internet eyes and ears mean the end of privacy?” at The Guardian

The Internet is a mediated space/place. Everything in it is data. Everything in it is tracked or trackable. We of fail to grasp  this, or if we do, it’s easy to forget. So what happens when the Internet becomes embedded in every man-made object, from clothing to cars to kitchen appliances? What “the Internet of things” means for tracking human activity.

“Here’s to the Misfits” at Christianity Today

Andy Crouch at CT explores 3 tech start-ups in Silicon Valley that are headed up by Christians who are using technology is pursuit of human flourishing.

“Slaves to the Algorithm” at Aeon Magazine

Using chess as an analog to algorithms, this article reviews how algorithms are being employed (or will need to be) in autonomobiles, criminal parole administration, higher education like MOOCs, comment filtering, news aggregation, psychotherapy apps, and stock trading. It highlights the problems embedded in such algorithms and advocates for "algorithm auditors."

For more on algorithms, go here.

George Eliot on Technological Progress, Pace of Life, Population Growth, and Infrastructure

"You see, Tom," said Mr. Deane at last, throwing himself backward, "the world goes on at a smarter pace now than it did when I was a young fellow. Why, sir, forty years ago, when I was much such a strapping youngster as you, a man expected to pull between the shafts the best part of his life, before he got the whip in his hand. The looms went slowish, and fashions didn't alter quite so fast; I'd a best suit that lasted me six years. Everything was on a lower scale, sir,--in point of expenditure, I mean. It's this steam, you see, that has made the difference; it drives on every wheel double pace, and the wheel of fortune along with 'em, as our Mr. Stephen Guest said at the anniversary dinner (he hits these things off wonderfully, considering he's seen nothing of business). I don't find fault with the change, as some people do. Trade, sir, opens a man's eyes; and if the population is to get thicker upon the ground, as it's doing, the world must use its wits at inventions of one sort or other. I know I've done my share as an ordinary man of business. Somebody has said it's a fine thing to make two ears of corn grow where only one grew before; but, sir, it's a fine thing, too, to further the exchange of commodities, and bring the grains of corn to the mouths that are hungry. And that's our line of business; and I consider it as honorable a position as a man can hold, to be connected with it."

from The Mill on the Floss, 1860 (the story is set in the 1830s)

My, My, My Generation

Last week, Time magazine put Millennials under the microscope in their cover story, “The Me Me Me Generation” (link, behind paywall).  Being 30 myself, I consider myself a veteran Millennial. At the same time, because I’m on the older end, I also consider myself a bit on the periphery. I notice distinct differences between myself and those just 5-7 years younger.

Time’s article exhibits some of the stock bewilderment at the younger generation. However, most interesting was how the story of technology was woven into the story of my generation. The article focused nearly as much attention on the technologies that Millennials use as it did on Millennials themselves. The “generation gap,” it seemed to argue, is a technological gap as much as anything.

For example, the article quoted Scott Hess, a VP for a global youth research firm: "I think in many ways you're blaming millennials for the technology that happens to exist right now."

What are Millennials being blamed for? Selfishness, narcissicism, and lacking empathy. Analyzing these generational characteristics is one the main thrusts of the article: "Scores on tests of empathy similiarly fell sharply, starting in 2000, likely because of both a lack of face-to-face time and higher degrees of narcissism." The article links this decline back to technology: “Millennials are interacting all day but almost entirely through a screen.”

This link between increased technology and decreased empathy is supported by recent research too: “If you don’t regularly exercise your ability to connect face to face, you’ll eventually find yourself lacking some of the basic biological capacity to do so” (link).


So how does technology affect our selfishness, empathy, and narcissism?

The Time article continues, "In the U.S., millennials are the children of baby boomers, who are also known as the Me Generation, who then produced the Me Me Me Generation, whose selfishness technology has only exacerbated." So technology is making these symptoms worse.

The article goes on to support Hess’s assertion that we shouldn’t be blaming Millennials: "None of these traits are new to millennials; they've been around at least since the Reformation, when Martin Luther told Christians they didn't need the church to talk to God, and became more pronounced at the end of the 18th century in the Romantic period, when artists stopped using their work to celebrate God and started using it to express themselves."

It’s a good point. And even these historic precedents had new technologies at work in their day: Gutenberg’s printing press, and the Industrial Revolution had radically changed the cultural environment.

Hess’s belief that we should blame technology deserves a look. "Millennials' self-involvement is more a continuation of a trend than a revolutionary break from previous generations. They're not a new species; they're just mutated to adapt to their environment."



If, as this article suggests, we blame technology, we need to, simultaneously, do two things. Let me explain them with a simple technological example: a mirror.

Today, we have mirrors everywhere. And mirrors have fundamentally changed our environment. Because we live in an environment that includes mirrors, we see ourselves from outside ourselves. And that has changed how we perceive and present ourselves. Because of mirrors, we have a clothing and fashion industry that are thriving.

It’s not that we weren’t self-conscious or self-aware or self-condemning before mirrors exists; we were. That was part of the Fall of man. Rather, mirrors made it easier for us to be self-conscious and all that. And they intensified our self-awareness. They convinced us that they offered a completely objective representation of ourselves. And we changed our habits and our clothing because of what they reflected.



When we look at Millennials and their technology, when Scott Hess tells us to blame technology, when Time magazine says that we’ve always been this way—we need to remember the mirror. Every technology works just like a mirror.

We need to remember once in a while to look at the mirror as a mirror. The mirror invites us to always look at its reflection, but we need to also look at it as an object. We need to not only look through Facebook, but at it. We need to see it apart from its reflection. If we do, we will see that it does reflect something about us, but not everything. Mirrors reflect a reversed image and are not the real thing. We are not our mirror image. That was the mistake the Narcissus made: He believed that he and his image were the same thing. They’re not.

We are not our technology, but our technology is a reflection of us. For this reason, we rightly blame technology for its inherent flaws, just like we blame a mirror for reversing our reflection. We are not our Facebook page, but it does reflect us. This is obvious once we step back from it.

Beyond its reflection, we must also consider ourselves, and see ourselves for the responsibility we do carry. If our technology is making us selfish, cold-hearted narcissists, we do not bear all the blame, but neither are we innocent. We have created our technology, and our technology is now shaping us. We have created our profiles, and now, because of what they reflect back, we are changing what we do and how we do it. When was the last time you chose to enjoy something without posting a photo of it or updating your status?

We do have a responsibility to understand the consequences of our technologies—the works of our hands. We must bear the burden of our creation (like Dr Frankenstein must for his monster), but we must also take technology to task for its consequences as well.

We must understand how our technology shapes our lives. To do that, we must see technology as it is. We must look at the mirror and see it as an object, flawed and biased. Until we do, technology will always holds us enraptured by its dazzling and deceptive reflection.

Do you like my logo? That's what happens when a color-blind editor spend two hours on Pixlr. If you want to make me a really cool one, I'll buy you lunch.

Here's this week's warp and woof.

“Meet The 'Liberator': Test-Firing The World's First Fully 3D-Printed Gun” from Forbes

A 25-year-old guy in Texas, Cody Wilson, designed a printable gun. That shoots. Real bullets. If you haven’t heard, 3D printers are one of the hottest emerging technologies, poised to change manufacturing forever. A 3D printed gun was inevitable—dubbed a “wiki weapon.” The design instructions for the gun are allegedly already available online. Currently, 3D printers cost about $8,000, but Staples will start selling one next month, and that price will eventually drop. What’s more these plastic guns will evade metal detectors at airports and other security checkpoints. Wilson’s motives seem a bit incongruous, but he’s right about one thing: The 3D gun highlights “how technology can render laws and governments all but irrelevant.”

“Q&A: Linda Stone, former tech exec, on conscious computing” from Smart Planet

Here's an interesting interview with a former Microsoft executive. Today she's researching how using computer affects our physiology. She observed that sometimes we hold our breath while using the computer because "The computer becomes animated and we become less animated." 

Stone is also asked why she takes "a much more embodied approach" to self-management, instead of outsourcing it to technology. This phrasing caught my attention because I believe in the value of the body, not just the mind or the spirit. However, she concludes that in the next century robotics will allow us to outsource a lot of menial labor and “tap back into what’s unique about the human spirit.” But I would argue that working with our bodies may be just as central to being truly human. How can we really know what to include and what to exclude as we search for “what’s unique about the human spirit?” Stone says, automation will allow us to "connect with what matters and disconnect from the rest." But having the responsibility to decide “what matters” and what doesn't--by what criteria can we decide? This leaves us unmoored from any sense of meaning outside the self.

“The plough and the now” from The Economist

It’s likely that Mark Driscoll’s ancestors used plows. That’s why he believes the woman’s place is in the home. If his ancestors had used hoes, he may have thought differently. At least, that’s the claim of the research covered in this article. Plows required more strength, so men took over. Elsewhere, hoes allowed women to continue cultivating alongside men. The power balance depended on which tools were used. Today, “Women [who] descended from plough-users are less likely to work outside the home, to be elected to parliament or to run businesses than their counterparts in countries at similar levels of development who happen to be descended from hoe-users.” The research attempts to discount the possibility that prior attitudes toward gender influenced the adoption of these tools; this would then support the argument that the tools shaped the attitudes and not the other way around.

“Technology won’t resurrect dead churches” from The Baptist Standard

The headline exaggerates the article’s focus. It broadly reviews a recent technology conference at Baylor University, “iFaith? The Church in the Digital Age.” More accurately, the article reveals the diverse—and sometimes shallow—views that people within the church have of technology. 

"Used well, it becomes invisible," said one guy. As I mentioned last week, technology tends to go invisible. The problem with that is when it's invisible, its effects are most powerful and least recognized. Far from giving you more options, technology actually works outside your awareness.

Another guy offered this platitude: “If real death can be launched from cyber-savvy drones, surely real life can be launched from cyber-savvy Christ-followers.” Does anyone even used the term “cyber” anymore?

Mostly, the discussion seems to have surrounded managing and reacting to the effects of technology, and not understanding the dynamics underlying technology. 

“Who am I? Data and DNA answer one of life’s big questions” from The Verge

The future of genealogical research is genetics. This in-depth article looks at the technologies developed by Ancestry.com, including new genetic testing available with just a sample of your saliva. “[A] bit further in the future, it’s entirely realistic to believe that those questions of bloodline, like "Who was my great-grandmother?" simply won’t exist.” Soon all the clues to your family heritage will be, well, within spitting distance. Or in today’s parlance, “just a click away.”

* * *

That's the warp and woof of the week. Happy Friday! Tell your mom you love her.

The Warp and Woof

“The Warp and Woof” is a segment I’m adding to this blog to share worthwhile articles from the past week or so. “Warp and woof” is a term that comes from weaving. It refers to the strands of thread running at 90-degree angles as they were woven together into fabric. Today the term refers to the essence or the fabric of athing. What is the warp and woof of technology?

My hope is that the articles shared here will help us explore the fabric of technology so we can see and feel its textures. As the articles below illustrate, technology has a tendency to disappear—to go transparent—and this invisibility makes technology harder to get a handle on.

“The Warp and Woof” is also a nod to the Luddites, those riotous textile artisans and technology critics, who in the 1810s fought to keep their jobs by destroying the mechanical looms that were replacing them. As your clothes today clearly show, they lost.

Alright, here we go!

"Why The Human Body Will Be The Next Computer Interface" from Fast Company

UX design group Fjord imagines how easy it could be to use natural body movements to initiate computer programs and actions. They start with old computers that once read punch cards and end by imagining computers that will read your body language.

"Your Body Does Not Want to Be an Interface" from MIT Technology Review

A response to Fjord’s article above. John Pavlus argues that humans don't want an invisible interface like body language. They want an interface that is clearly separate but readily available—"ready to hand." Martin Heidegger is invoked.  

“How Facebook Designs the 'Perfect Empty Vessel' for Your Mind” from The Atlantic

Speaking of invisible interfaces, Alexis Madrigal explored Facebook’s design philosophy, including their drive for a “chrome”-less interface—that is, sans technostalgia which would remind the user that Facebook is a completely-structured universe with a social façade.

“I’m still here: back online after a year without the internet” from The Verge

Paul Miller, a 27-year-old writer for The Verge, left the Internet last May. Now he’s back. He reflects on how a year without the Internet (including no smartphone) left him without anyone to blame for his social habits but himself.

Technology is notoriously, exasperatingly indifferent that way: We think technology has no agency, so we bear all the guilt. Technology as mirror. But I disgress. My critique is here.

“Why I Don’t Own a Cell Phone” from Pressing Pause

In keeping with being disconnected, here’s another nonconformist—a maverick, if you will. In short, the answer is, “You haven’t convinced me that your lives are substantially better with them.”

“Never Underestimate the Power of a Paint Tube” from the Smithsonian

Finally, this delightful piece explored how tin paint tubes got the artist out of the studio and gave the world Impressionism.

Tools matter, and they change how we do what we do. They also change what we do.

Have a good weekend!

Everybody's Doing It

I really appreciated reading Paul Miller’s account of his year without the Internet, which ended yesterday (link). For one he put the lie to the mantra that so many people believe: “I couldn’t live without my smartphone.” It seems that he did just fine, and even enjoyed it.

But Miller’s experiment also exposed the bogeymen we’ve set up to scare us about the effects of the Internet. The Internet has not created new bad habits for us: Miller describes how he replaced his bad habits online with new bad habits offline. And the pressures of life exist these days whether or not you have the Internet breathing down your neck: He describes how the old pressures of a cluttered email box sublimated into pressures of a cluttered PO Box. And how Facebook isn’t making us lonely: Miller spends a good deal of words describing the isolation he felt from not being connected to others via the Internet. In the end, for a Millennial generation that connects, collaborates, and creates culture online, life without the Internet is a lonely place indeed. No one should be exiled like that. It’s straight-up solitary confinement.

However, the results of Miller’s experiment are not what he claims they are. Why? Because he was the only one doing it. His experience does not show us what life would be like without the Internet. It shows us what life is like when everyone else has the Internet except you.

Find someone who doesn’t have a Facebook account. You’ll find a story similar to Miller’s. They’re lonely and feel isolated. The feel disconnected from what’s happening.

Miller’s yearlong experiment was worthwhile, I think, for many reasons. But it doesn’t give us a clear picture of what life would be if no one had the Internet. Rather, it shows us what it feels like to be marginalized by technology. Miller’s experiment shows just how powerful the Internet is. When everyone has adopted it, the one who suffers most is the one without it. He suffers by not going along with it. This theme is true for anyone who ever held out against a new technology—they got set aside. They were overtaken. They got pushed to the margins.

Miller said it himself, “I fell out of sync with the flow of life.”

Miller is happy to be back on the Internet, where everyone else is. He’s glad to be reconnected with people and culture, community and activity. I’m glad he is too. But let’s not misunderstand what his experience means. Far from illustrating the Internet’s benefits, his experiment is a sort of relief showing how deeply the Internet has etched itself into the cave walls of modern society.

Maximizing Your Medium: Choosing the Best Medium for Your Message

Each day at work I have, at my fingertips, half a dozen ways to communicate with a dozen different people. Some are down the hall. Some are across the country. And each day I use many of them—email, instant message, phone, in-person—but I use them for different things at different times in different ways. In doing so, I’ve communicated using every method for every kind of conversation: giving instructions, summarizing meetings, implementing strategies, asking questions,  brainstorming, casting vision, gathering feedback, solving problems. In the process, I’ve discovered that some methods are better than others; it just depends on what I’m using it for. Finally I decided to write it down.

Below, I’ve listed many of the most common forms of communication most of us will use sometime today. And I’ve included how each one has worked best for me. I’d love to hear if you have similar practices.

Email 1.0: From your computer.

In business, email is great for summarizing a meeting. “Who’s responsible for what?” Follow up the meeting with the email. Meetings get disorderly. Summarizing action items and resolutions from a meeting ensures that everyone heard the same thing. If something wasn’t clear in the meeting, an email will either expose the open issue or clarify it.

It’s also good for following up on an known problem, but not for laying out the problem initially. That takes too much ink. If you’re explaining a problem, it’s probably convoluted—that’s why it’s a problem—and is better left to a phone call or in-person conversation.

Avoid using it for passing details like, “The project deadline just changed to Sept 15” or “What kind of sandwich should I order you for lunch?”

Best suited to: Group communication, formal memos, summaries

Avoid using it for: Explaining a problem or a procedure; project details that come and go

Email 2.0: On your smartphone.

On your phone, email is for reading, not writing. If you’re responding to emails, stick to what needs a short response. Don’t torture yourself trying to long-form it with your thumbs. If you receive an email that requires a longer response and you’re not near a computer, call them. You have a phone! Save your opposable thumbs for the important things, like golfing.

Tip: Add a signature that shows that you’re emailing from a phone. It will help your recipients understand why your response is so short. A good signature that a colleague of mine uses: “Sent from my iPhone and very likely full of typos.” A multitude of sins, covered.

Best suited to: Reading emails; Short responses; Staying up to speed

Avoid using it for: everything else

Instant messaging.

At work, IM can help keep your email box clearer. Isn’t that reason enough? If you have a simple question needing a simple answer, IM him or her. “Do I need to double-space my TPS report?” IM that. “What is the best way to handle this customer complaint?” Grab the phone or walk over.

For a little back and forth, IM is the better option than email. For a lot of back and forth, on the other hand, go for the phone. This avoids that string of emails with the same subject line, and it’s better organized.

IM is also good for impromptu group meetings. To square away some details fast, group IM works well. One caveat: Use IM with peers. Don’t IM the COO.

Be careful: Instant messaging has a more casual flavor to it than email does. So beware of that in professional settings.

Best suited to: Yes/No questions; Short back-and-forth; impromptu, time-sensitive group “meetings”

Avoid using it for: initially explaining a problem; communicating with your boss or your boss’s boss, etc.

Phone calls.

Do you need to explain a lot of background information? Kill the email, and avoid the instant message. Go for the phone call. (Or even better, go vis-à-vis.)

Newer text-based communications get a lot of love these days, but the phone is hard to beat. It seems outdated or outmoded, but phone calls are still one of the best options for one-on-one conversations. It’s almost frictionless in terms navigating complex discussions. The voice, the intonation, and the immediate feedback really make a more personal connection too. That can be hugely meaningful.

In phone calls, people better visualize each other, and this personalizes the experience too. Don’t discount that. Personal communication like this can be really beneficial. Systems creates silos, but phone calls break down barriers.

Phone calls are best when you need to use lots of words. “What” questions are a good indication you should dial their extension. In written communication, we do a quick cost/benefit analysis between “need to know” and “how much time it will take me to type my question.” Phone calls reduce the cost.

Soapbox: Pick up the phone more often at work. It can improve coworker relationships and project efficiency. Try it a few times; it’s an acquired taste.

Best suited to: Explaining a problem; One-on-one conversations with open-ended questions; issues that require lots of backstory

Avoid using it for: Explaining a procedure: “How to . . .”

In-person.

Job training is easiest in-person. Explaining how to do something over the phone can be a challenge: “Ok, so click on the button in the bottom left of your screen. Do you see the . . . ? No? Oh your computer must be different than mine. Okay, what are you looking at right now?” It just doesn’t work. When you’re both looking at the same thing, you can point and explain and gauge understanding.

Best suited to: Explaining a procedure: “how to”; sharing sensitive information, having tough conversations

Avoid using it for: communicating lists of instructions or action items

Twitter.

Twitter put the “intercourse” into “Internet.” It really is the place of exchange for everything on the Web.

Twitter is good for promoting your brand, but not your ideas. If anyone does disagree with your 140-character summary, beware: the exchanges are horrendous. Not necessarily the content, but the organization of it. Trying to track a conversation is abysmal; every tweet response swirls off into untraceable eddies.

Best suited to: self-promotion; breaking news; links to websites, articles, videos, images

Avoid using it for: self-promotion; actual conversations

Skype.

Skype is great for a scheduled meeting between two people across the country. It doesn’t gain a whole lot over a phone call, and for people who don’t know each other well, it can actually be more awkward than beneficial. The phone call is in some ways more intimate (you’re whispering in each other’s ear, after all) while also being less self-conscious.

Best suited to: familiar faces; scheduled, long-distance meetings; long-distance “how to” conversations

Avoid using it for: unfamiliar faces

Texting: Facts with Friends.

In business, the only texts I’ve received from colleagues have to do with them being out sick for the day. I think this is a good use and limit. (No more faking the flu over the phone.)

Texting is the thin ice of the communication pond. Skate at your own risk. There are no lifeguards. Texting strips away all context, and 140-characters are just enough to be misread by anyone who isn’t your BFF. The only successful social texting I’ve experienced has been with close friends who share the same outlook, humor, and life experiences—in short, a lot of already-shared context.

Texting happens primarily among friends. Because it’s so casual, it seems like it would be great socially, but not so. This makes texting an awkward bird. Instead, texting is best for relaying information like addresses, meeting times, flight info, and the like.

Paradox: Texting is super cas . . . (ual), but it’s best for facts with friends.

Best suited to: Communicating the facts to friends (and only sometimes to colleagues); play-by-play updates en-route to meeting someone

Avoid using it for: socializing; weighing the options; any emotion, especially sarcasm

The Killer Combo: Talk and Text.

If you really want to communicate well. This is the one-two punch: an in-person meeting or a phone conversation followed by an email summary of decisions and action steps. These two methods really compliment each other. The conversation isn’t slowed down by its medium (even if the subject matter is complex or difficult), and the written summary organizes it all, helping everyone see the main points of the conversation. (They can also spot anything you accidentally left out.)

Besides being good communication, it also improves the working relationships. Summarizing your meeting tells your colleagues that you were engaged, and they will appreciate having a record for later reference. You can afford to have people like you at work.

Best suited to: Meetings with lots of project details and action items; forwarding that YouTube video you were telling them about

Avoid using it for: Personal conversations . . . you'll look Type A.

Conclusion

So have you considered how you use different communication options? Are you intentional about them?

How do you typically use the different options available to you? Have you found yourself using one kind more than others? Or do you choose based on the situation?

I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts about their communication habits.