Cognitive Surplus Reflection

According to Shirky, gin and television have provided people throughout time with distractions from their daily life, despite negative impacts. Shirky references Jib Fowles’ concept of “social surrogacy” to explain this phenomenon; “Fowles expresses the first – we have historically watched so much TV that it displaces all other uses of free time, including time with friends and family. The other is that the people we see on television constitute a set of imaginary friends” (Shirky, p.7).

Skirky’s solution to this is cognitive surplus; “Imagine treating the free time of the world’s educated citizenry as an aggregate, a kind of cognitive surplus” (Shirky, p. 9).  He argues social media and the Internet have taken place of the ‘boob tube’ and allow people to connect, comment and share, adding to the cognitive surplus. 

While I can’t argue against his numerous examples to support this claim, I feel technology affords college students a go-to distraction from their work than an addition to their surplus of knowledge. More over, students fail to see the benefits and opportunities of connecting through social medias.  What happens to the surplus of time when it’s wasted; “Our cognitive surplus is only potential; it doesn’t mean anything or do anything by itself. To understand what we can make of this resources, we have to understand not just the kind of actions it makes possible but the hows and wheres of those actions” (Shirky, p.28).  Perhaps the average student is not taking advantage of the surplus. I decided to test out some of Shirky’s theories amongst my peers.

While I sit in the library writing, I couldn’t help but notice the overwhelming amounts of technology surrounding me. More than half of the students, myself included, have a lab top on their desk and roughly a third of them have their cell phones in their hands.

I asked a table of students studying how they use their technology while studying.  I was not surprised by the overwhelmingly unanimous responses I heard. The majority of students were only using their computers for either music or study breaks with Facebook, video games etc.  I then asked how many times the student was interrupted by a text or call on their cell phone in an hour. I barely got an answer because the student was texting while answering me. Again, the majority of students used their cell phones intermittently while they were studying instead of putting it away.  Finally, I asked why they chose to have technology at their fingertips if they didn’t need it to complete their homework. The group of eight students all answered “for a distraction.” It seemed the students were so attached to their various technological products; it would have been weird for them to put them away to study. Without the constant distraction of a ringing phone or computer video games, the students all agreed they probably would complete their work more efficiently.  It didn’t take a genius to conclude the abundance of technology at these students’ fingertips hindered them from their work.

Now back to Shirky. He argues, “…we must combine our surplus free time if it is to be useful, and we can do that only when we’re given the right opportunities” (Shirky, p. 97). While Shirky enumerates professional opportunities on the global scale due to Linux, open source software, Apache etc, what opportunities do students have to expand on their surplus of classroom lessons?

At Lehigh, Multimedia Reporting was the only class I’ve taken that expanded classroom ideas through social media such as Flickr, YouTube, and Twitter. I felt the use of these medias expanded my interpretation of classroom concepts by connecting with similar interests groups.  Through my semester-long project, I not only gained substantial knowledge of the area’s restaurant industry, but also was also able to share my knowledge and receive feedback. That’s learning full-circle.

This semester, one of my classes connects attempts to expand our surplus through Course Site’s “conversation forum.” After in-class lectures and videos, the students are required to post a personal response and then a respond to another students’ response by the next class. While, this is an attempt at social media to grow the class conversation, it has definite limits. The task of posting responses becomes arduous and annoying, another thing students have to do to make good grades. The conversations are consequently too forced, have no flow, and do not benefit the group as a whole.

So I wonder, are Lehigh students really learning if they are not making use of their surplus of knowledge?  What would happen if students actively used their surplus?

For the remainder of the semester, I will complete a group multimedia project to promote social change. The project will embody Shirky’s idea of cognitive surplus: We are creating a website, Twitter account and blog for student-athlete endorsed community service projects. Our goal is to connect the area universities in hopes they can team up on service projects together. As a student-athlete and member of Lehigh’s student-athlete community service organization, C.O.A.C.H., it is a long-standing goal to do as much service work as possible to better the community.  I know social media would enhance our opportunities to find projects to work on and gather more student-athletes to organize and implement the projects. Perhaps we can use the success of our project as a model to apply to other courses of study at Lehigh to further exercise students’ surplus.

Reflection #7 (optional choice book) – “The Lexus and The Olive Tree” by Thomas Friedman

I chose to read The Lexus and the Olive Tree this week because I’m a
big fan of Friedman’s globalization theories, having read his more recent
book, The World is Flat in high school. For those who are unfamiliar with
Friedman’s dissection of the world and international relationships, The
Lexus and The Olive Tree, explains the transition toward globalization made
possible by technology. His analogous explanations make his argument, the
world is becoming interconnected through technology, resonate with the
reader.
Friedman is a world leader in foreign affairs and columnist for the
New York Times (not to mention three time Pulitzer Prize winner). In The
Lexus and the Olive Tree, he splits foreign affairs into the “Cold War era”
and “globalized, democratized world” that exists today.
According to Friedman, the Cold War set boundaries for foreign
affairs:
“Globalization replaced the Cold War as the defining international
system…neither superpower would encroach on the other’s sphere of influence
in economics, less developed countries would focus on nurturing their own
national industries, developing countries on export-led growth, communist
countries on autarky and Western economies on regulated trade” (Friedman,
7).
The “information arbitrage” makes this transition possible; “…you have
to learn how to arbitrage information from these perspectives [politic,
culture, technology, finance, national security, and ecology] and then
weave it all together to produce a picture of the world that you would
never have if you looked at it from only one perspective” (Friedman, 20).
To best understand Friedman’s argument regarding the transition from
Cold War foreign policy to globalization, it’s crucial to understand his
analogy about the Lexus and the olive tree:
“…Lexus and the olive tree were actually pretty good symbols of this post-
Cold War era: half the world seemed to be emerging from the Cold War intent
on building a better Lexus, dedicated to modernizing, streamlining and
privatizing their economies in order to thrive in the system of
globalization. And half of the world – sometimes half the same country,
sometimes half the same person – was still caught up in the fight over who
owns which olive tree” (Friedman, 31).
Friedman further explains the symbolic meaning of each; “the Lexus is
the drive for sustenance, improvement, prosperity and modernization – as it
is played out in today’s globalization system…represents all the burgeoning
global markets, financial institutions and computer technologies with which
we pursue high living standards today” (Friedman, 33) and “…olive trees are
essential to our very being, an attachment to one’s olive trees, when taken
to excess, can lead us into forging identities, bonds and communities based
on the exclusion of others” (Friedman, 32).
Now that you have a little background on Friedman’s language, I’ll put
his theories into context of our J325 class discussions. The olive tree
represents the strong ties, connections between real people that develop
slowly over time and have great value. He mentions the olive tree is the
root that which connects people, much like strong bonds made through
bonding capital. The Lexus represents the weak ties, connections made
through Twitter, Facebook, blogs; larger forums, often dependant on the
Internet, to connect people of similar interests, similar to bridging
capital.
As I kept reading, I began to notice some wholes in Friedman’s
examples. Then I checked the publication date – 1999. Over ten years have
passed by since Friedman declared we are in a globalized world. I decided
to update his examples to make them relevant today.
Friedman lists various ways the world has become “democratized.” The
first example, the “democratization of technology.” The advent of advanced
communications tools “is what is enabling more and more people, with more
and more home computers, modems, cellular phones, cable systems and
Internet connections, to reach farther and farther, into more and more
countries, faster and faster, deeper and deeper, cheaper and cheaper than
ever before in history” (Friedman, 47). Friedman’s examples include
innovations from the 80s and 90s in telecommunications.
Today, new telecommunications tools like Skype, BBM, and FaceTime enable
people and companies to connect instantly at the global scale. For example,
my roommate is studying abroad in Spain this semester. It was her goal to
secure a summer internship before she left, but unfortunately, she was
unable to do so. She reached out to many companies, told them she was
abroad for the semester, and offered to do Skype interviews to make up for
face-to-face interviews. I thought this was a great concept, effective in
saving time and money to meet face-to-face. Not to mention, saving her from
a job search scramble when she returns home in May.
The second facet of democratization is of finance, enabled by the
democratization of technology. According to Friedman, during the Cold War
era, banking was done primarily through “white-shoe institutions” – large
and trust worthy investment banks and insurance companies (Friedman, 53).
He notes the explosion of junk bonds in the 1980s as the beginning of the
democratization of finance – investors like Michael Milken began to get
more creative bonds and portfolios they sold to consumers. Investors began
to think outside the box and used technology to invest in global markets,
truly diversifying their portfolios. If Friedman were to add an addition
today, perhaps he would attribute the creative investing that began with
junk bonds to the recession and stock market crash in 2008. Technology
allowed the investor to diversify their funds on a global scale, stirring
greed and unethical creative choices. What would Friedman think of the
mortgage-backed securities, the housing market plunge and joblessness in
America today? Would he connect the dots back to the democratization of
finance - did it spread investors too thin by providing too many
opportunities?
The last way Friedman sees democratization is through information. Much
like his explanation for the arbitrage of information, the democratization
of it relies on getting information faster because it is a commodity; “…
information is increasingly being democratized thanks to advances in
compression technology, such as the digital video disk, DVDs and CDs”
(Friedman, 62). These information storage items are all widely used today,
but USB flash-drives, and a slew of products beginning with a lowercase ‘i’
have become a more efficient way to store information. No longer do
consumers have to worry about losing their address book, as a colleague of
Friedman experienced in Israel; Backing up information is as easy as
connecting the external device with a USB cord to the computer. This
proved quite useful to me today. I recently switched over from BlackBerry
to iPhone and was offered a 60-day free trial of MobileMe. Of course, I
took the bait and tried the service. Today, my free trial expired and I
received a notice if I did not delete my account, I would be charged $100
annually to maintain the service. I didn’t want to pay for this fee because
I had never actually used MobileMe. I should have realized before I hit
“delete account” I was also hitting “delete all contacts, calendars, and
alerts.” I panicked when I saw the majority of my contacts had been removed
from my iPhone. After a small freak-out, I realized my computer had all of
my contacts backed up from my iPhone. I under five minutes, all of the
contacts I had lost on the iPhone was quickly restored, thanks to my USB
cord and iTunes.
In that small amount of time, I also realized I far too dependent on
technology. So what if I loose the contacts I made in the last few months?
Is my mini panic attack the product of Friedman’s new globalized world?
Perhaps I just proved Friedman’s argument to be true – ten years ago, the
world began to become one, globalized playing field via technology. And
today, it can’t live without it.

Taking on the System reflection

In 1999, Sean Parker created Napster, the first file sharing music database.  I was nine years old, but fondly remember many nights spent with my older cousin downloading music. Everything was instantaneous. It was so new to me at the time.  I was still asking for Britney’s latest album for my birthday and my cousin, only three years my senior, already had it on her computer on the day it came out - for free and without asking for moms help.  I knew this was super cool, but was not adept enough to download music myself. 

Soon enough, the record labels and musicians caught wind of the mass quantities of illegal downloading.  Artists were producing albums and loosing their demographic to Napster’s easy access and free downloads. And so, the record labels sued for piracy and won.

But did they really win? To quote The Social Network’s portrayal of Sean Parker, “the record labels won in court. But who wants to go buy a CD at Tower Records today?” While Parker’s entrepreneurial spirit got in him in trouble with the law, he’s the perfect example of one who took advantage of the Internet’s limitless bounds.  He changed the music industry by providing the consumer with the same material available in stores – less the drive to the store, the wait in line, and of course, $14.99. 

In Markos Moulitsas Zuniga’s book “Taking on the System,” technology and the expansiveness of the Internet are vital components to take on the system. According to Zuniga, technology is in fact saving today’s society:

“Traditionally, these self-appointed and unaccountable gatekeepers have purported to operate in the public interest, but they are grossly out of touch with the public. Rather than empower the people, they designed rules to keep the rabble out of their inner sanctums, where our ideas wouldn’t infect their decision making-process. Whether it was record label executives, or Hollywood studio moguls, or editors and producers in the media, or the clubby D.C. politicians, consultants, and lobbyists – many built walls to protect the sanctity of their turf” (location 51-61). 

The “gatekeeper” suppresses individual ideas from developing in society by creating norms and mass produced material. Much like Parker’s pioneer music sharing program, Zuniga’s site, “The Daily Kos,” embodies the “new generation of participants taking an active role in our culture and democracy” (location 61-72). 

Zuniga accuses the gatekeeper of “muzzling the new voices rising up from the ground.” Zuniga makes valiant points regarding the Internet’s ability to feed the public’s interests where the “traditional gatekeeper” cannot:

“Fiona Apple made a three-song demo tape and passed it on to a friend. That friend gave the tape and passed it on to another friend, who passed the tape to a producer at Sony Music, and Apple soon had a recording contract.”

Today, an artist seeking attention for their work would simply post their material to YouTube, just as Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black did. YouTube provides a platform for up and coming artists to get their name out there and be seen, just as Apple had done by passing around her demo tape.  However, the gatekeeping record label is avoided. The amount of hits the page receives will reflect on the public’s interest level. Under the video, there’s room for viewer comments, along with endless sharing and embedding possibilities. 

Perhaps this media platform would have been useful for Apple in the 90’s, who felt the pressure to conform to Sony’s interests in the music she produced.  Apple finished her third record with Sony in 2003, but the album’s release date continued to get pushed back.  The record company prohibited Apple’s creative interests. Instead, tracks were leaked onto the Internet, where they received a multitude of praise. Her album entitled “Extraordinary Machine,” received so much support from Apple’s fans that 37,000 of them signed a petition to “free Fiona” from the record label’s restrictions. Through their continued support, Apple’s fans assisted her to a Grammy nomination; “‘the label isn’t putting out her record, so we’re going to do it for her’” (location 786-97).

Nearly ten years later, fan support for artists continues through blogging and file sharing. What began as a gutsy move by Parker has stemmed into a counter-culture of music supporters, all connecting through the Internet. File sharing gives the “underdog” a chance to connect with the public and be inspired to create new music.  Websites like “FratMusic.com” and “8track.com” allow users to upload their own material and mixes.  This is the new music industry at work.

After all Zuniga has said, I am still at a crossroads. It still seems incredibly unethical to underscore the record labels and high profile artists through music piracy. It seems too easy and a little wrong to download the product someone has worked so hard to produce.  Is it better to contribute to the conversation on the Internet through file sharing, music blogs and the like to inspire artists to produce new material?

I’m going to go download another song from Mediafire.com and get back to you on that…