Gibson’s been talking a lot lately about atemporality, this idea that we live in a sort of endless digital now. In “Zero History” we have an echo of “No Future”: everything compressed into the present. This idea is what Zero History is really about. (This is the Order Flow: the future is defined by the present; who pinpoints the present controls the future.)
While not one to contradict Gibson himself, I’m not sure I buy this exactly: indeed, the wikihistoriography project was, in part, a refutation of this view. But it’s undeniable that something is happening, a network effect produced by the sudden visibility of just how unevenly distributed those futures are.
I want to give it a name, and at this point I’m calling it Network Realism.
Network Realism is writing that is of and about the network. It’s realism because it’s so close to our present reality. A realism that posits an increasingly 1:1 relationship between Fiction and the World. A realtime link. And it’s networked because it lives in a place that’s that’s enabled by, and only recently made possible by, our technological connectedness.
Zero History is Network Realism because of the way that it talks about the world, and the way its knowledge of the world is gathered and disseminated. Gibson seems to be navigating the spider graph of current reality as wikiracing does human knowledge.
booktwo.org: Network Realism: William Gibson and new forms of Fiction
(via Justin Pickard)
From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/TZmdSppr3ls/
My groomsmen from my wedding and me. Perhaps not the best example of group intelligence.
When it comes to intelligence, the whole can indeed be greater than the sum of its parts. A new study co-authored by MIT, Carnegie Mellon University, and Union College researchers documents the existence of collective intelligence among groups of people who cooperate well, showing that such intelligence extends beyond the cognitive abilities of the groups’ individual members, and that the tendency to cooperate effectively is linked to the number of women in a group.
PhysOrg: Study finds small groups demonstrate distinctive ‘collective intelligence’ when facing difficult tasks
From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/h34aMcMTotg/
Have you ever bought a new electronic device, or tried a new activity, and then dropped it because you were sure you couldn’t possibly master it? Well, don’t give up so quickly. [...]
Then, after trying, they were asked how quickly they’d become good at it. But this time they were pessimistic and thought it’d take them longer to learn than it actually did.
Scientific American: People Initially Overestimate Then Later Underestimate Their Abilities
(via Kyle)
Photo by Patricia H. / CC
From http://technoccult.net/archives/2010/08/03/underestimating-abilities/
Fascinating article on the history of AA and some research on why, even though it doesn’t usually work, it does occasionally work.
Here’s an interesting social-cybernetic insight:
To begin with, there is evidence that a big part of AA’s effectiveness may have nothing to do with the actual steps. It may derive from something more fundamental: the power of the group. Psychologists have long known that one of the best ways to change human behavior is to gather people with similar problems into groups, rather than treat them individually. The first to note this phenomenon was Joseph Pratt, a Boston physician who started organizing weekly meetings of tubercular patients in 1905. These groups were intended to teach members better health habits, but Pratt quickly realized they were also effective at lifting emotional spirits, by giving patients the chance to share their tales of hardship. (“In a common disease, they have a bond,” he would later observe.) More than 70 years later, after a review of nearly 200 articles on group therapy, a pair of Stanford University researchers pinpointed why the approach works so well: “Members find the group to be a compelling emotional experience; they develop close bonds with the other members and are deeply influenced by their acceptance and feedback.”
Wired: Secret Of AA: After 75 Years, We Don’t Know How It Works
The article covers AA’s effectiveness briefly, and finds that studies of its effectiveness are inconclusive. I’ve posted before about one study that found 12-step programs no more or less effective than other treatment programs.
I have absolutely zero problem with people using religion or whatever else works to improve their lives and get over the devastating effects of addiction, court mandated 12 step programs are clearly a breach of the seperation of church and state. (And There’s evidence to suggest that mandating treatment doesn’t work anyway.)
See also John Shirley’s “The Forgotten Solution.”
Another thought: The EsoZone Protocol is similar to the structure of AA.
Related posts:
- Twitter works on technology to evade censors in China and Iran
- Celebrating 30 years of Laibach
- Study: Brain Exercises Don’t Improve Cognition
From http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Technoccult/~3/VAjCVJdBZoA/
