This is the second article in a three part series, which aims to tease out emerging issues as a result of the increased scale, frequency and intensity of interaction on social networking sites. Whereas the first article entitled, ‘who is monitoring who in a world of online social networking?’ addressed some possible implications at the extreme arising from the emergence of individuals having explicit data on activity in their social network, this article addresses one particular avenue for linking micro (individual), meso (group or class) and macro (society) consequences. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theorising on cultural and social capital, and specifically his theory of ‘symbolic violence’, provides the framework for this article.
Following on from the first article presenting figures which demonstrate the speed and increasing pervasiveness of social networking sites on the lives of many, one interesting line of enquiry concerns how ‘desirable’ cultural and social norms propagate as a result of sites such as facebook. Pierre Bourdieu developed his theory of 'symbolic violence' alongside his theory and concepts of cultural and social capital to capture what he saw as the process by which dominant values (or those in position of power within a societal hierarchy) are impressed upon others as desirable and normative, often unbeknownst to the individuals in question. Whereas cultural capital refers to the acquisition and inheritance of specific symbolic language, knowledge, practices and even possessions, social capital refers to the acquisition and inheritance of social connections. According to Bourdieu ‘symbolic violence’ arises through a process of 'miseducation'. Miseducated individuals are left with attaining/attained thought, perception, values and subsequent actions which are seen as desirable and right to hold in society. A simple but pervasive example would be members of society trying to emulate and copy the lifestyles of wealthy and famous members of society.
The crux of the problem with 'symbolic violence' lies in the imposition and reproduction of power differentials within society which ultimately favours the already dominant and powerful. 'Miseducation' serves to legitimate the powerful and dominant groups through 'miseducating' that they 'rightly' hold the desirable and normative social and cultural values and practices. His theory leads us to the question of whether social networking sites like facebook facilitate, enhance or perhaps curb 'symbolic violence’. Does facebook merely represent what is happening offline or does it play a role in changing the nature of social relations?
One possible answer is that it may well augment and enhance ‘symbolic violence’. For if individuals possess connections in their social network with 'less desirable' cultural and social standing, the actions of the dominant online may enforce and enhance their position, by continually miseducating the dominated of their desirable and normative lifestyle and social standing. This can be achieved through the posting of educational qualifications and merits, through the choice and complexity of language used in status updates and conversation and through the posting of videos, photos and events of social activity. Thus, the dominant and powerful may enhance and maintain their social and cultural standing relative to those lower in the various hierarchies, by making it a continual and explicit 'miseducation' of the dominated in their social network. This may be a purposeful activity in some cases but likely a largely unconscious activity. What facebook may do is make various social and cultural hierarchies more explicit on a continual basis, leaving 'dominated' individuals more attentive to their social and cultural standing and perhaps promoting specific discontents and subsequent actions.
The potential with interaction is that individuals becomes more attentive to their cultural standing. Laumann's prestige principle states that individuals prefer connections that have higher social standing, because it grants access to potential resources of others, as well as potentially improves ones social standing by association. Thus, there is likely a tendency for individuals on facebook to have a number of connections with "higher" cultural and social capital than themselves. Interesting empirical data worth gathering would be to ascertain which profiles individual members are interested in outside of their close friends and family.
Is there a correlation between such profiles and the cultural and social capital of these alters? If this is correct, as Laumann's prestige principle would imply, then individuals on facebook have access and maybe continually confronted with people they know, whom they "believe" to have higher cultural capital. Laumann's principle suggests that social networking sites may be a rich ground for miseducation.
One of the hallmarks of social networking sites is the individual’s ability to somewhat 'control' or 'select' their identity portrayal, preferably in a positive light. We don’t necessarily conjure an identity, but reveal aspects of ourselves in a certain manner. It is worth invoking Ervin Goffman Dramaturgy here, and his concept of 'front stage'. 'Front-stage' as opposed to 'back-stage' refers to the public presentation of identity according to self-perceived rightness and how one seeks to anchor identity in a certain light. With regard to 'symbolic violence', those with lower cultural capital may wish to be more attentive to this front stage portrayal. According Nan Lin's theory of social capital, those more likely wishing to move up the social hierarchy are those in the lower to upper middle classes. Instrumental actions are more likely to occur here, in order to move up the social hierarchy. Furthermore, those higher in the social hierarchy wish to maintain and increase their power, and miseducation is one fruitful means to achieve this.
Overall, granted that unless we are looking purely through the lens of rational choice theory, symbolic violence can be useful for understanding the consequences of social networking sites not necessarily as a result of conscious human action. Some of the problems with rational choice theory include the fact that human action can be guided by worldviews; morals, ethics, personal beliefs and norms etc.; which influence human action, how individuals present the 'face' and the degree of congruency between 'front stage' and 'back stage'. Writers who implicitly invoke rational choice leanings in this regard should be questioned. For instance, Andy Oram writing for O'Reilly Radar assume such rational choice in writing that, 'every nugget we release is subjected first, consciously or unconsciously, to a key question: will we get some benefit from the social network commensurate with the value of the information we are about to give our contacts?' (O'Reilly, 2009)
Finally, granted that Social Networking Sites may afford the individual the creation and maintenance of an enlarged social network, the third and final article in this series will address the possible implications for individuals as a result.
Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Monday, January 11, 2010
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Who is monitoring who in a world of online social networking?
This article is the first in a three part series raising issues arising from the proliferation and increasing usage of online social media. Recently Nielson research reported a tripling of the time Internet users spend on social networking sites in the space of a year, with social networking now accounting for 17% of time spent online. Similarly, based on the statistics from Alexa.com, the combined daily reach of 3 popular social network websites (facebook.com, myspace.com and twitter.com) is 24% of daily internet consumption with facebook.com accounting for 17%. This magnitude of growth alone, suggests a significant impact of these networks on the lives of individual members.
Recent reports by both Comscore and Nielson appear to show that social networking and social networking sites are now the most popular online activities;
"social networking was the second most popular online activity in the U.K. based on average time spent per user (4.6 hours), trailing only instant messaging (8.6 hours)" (Comscore, 2009).
Recently released research for the US by Nielson (2009) found that americans spend over 4 1/2 hours (on average per month) on facebook, more than any other site (of the top 10 brands) on the Internet. Thus, both the Nielson and Comscore reports say that Social networking, in particular facebook, is the most popular online activity in both the UK and the States. There is some difference though with Nielson and Comscore regarding time spent on these with Nielson quoting 6 hours for Facebook and Comscore quoting 4.6 hours for social networking sites in aggregate. But if you look at the nielson figures, its shows only facebook manages 6 hours with myspace, bebo hovering around 2 hours. Thus, in reality, the figures for both studies would seem to correlate. And, it seems to indicate that UK users of facebook spend more time on facebook than those in the US.
These figures demonstrate the need for substantive social research on the emerging role of social networking and social media on individuals and society. The next article entitled 'symbolic violence on facebook', will look at facebook through the lens of social capital and cultural capital theories. To begin with though, this article will briefly raise some possible issues and concerns regarding the phenomenon of individuals having increased available 'evidence' of their social network and it's activity.
Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Recent reports by both Comscore and Nielson appear to show that social networking and social networking sites are now the most popular online activities;
"social networking was the second most popular online activity in the U.K. based on average time spent per user (4.6 hours), trailing only instant messaging (8.6 hours)" (Comscore, 2009).
Recently released research for the US by Nielson (2009) found that americans spend over 4 1/2 hours (on average per month) on facebook, more than any other site (of the top 10 brands) on the Internet. Thus, both the Nielson and Comscore reports say that Social networking, in particular facebook, is the most popular online activity in both the UK and the States. There is some difference though with Nielson and Comscore regarding time spent on these with Nielson quoting 6 hours for Facebook and Comscore quoting 4.6 hours for social networking sites in aggregate. But if you look at the nielson figures, its shows only facebook manages 6 hours with myspace, bebo hovering around 2 hours. Thus, in reality, the figures for both studies would seem to correlate. And, it seems to indicate that UK users of facebook spend more time on facebook than those in the US.
These figures demonstrate the need for substantive social research on the emerging role of social networking and social media on individuals and society. The next article entitled 'symbolic violence on facebook', will look at facebook through the lens of social capital and cultural capital theories. To begin with though, this article will briefly raise some possible issues and concerns regarding the phenomenon of individuals having increased available 'evidence' of their social network and it's activity.
There are a host of new capabilities emerging with the social web. What technology may now be facilitating is a nation of procumers (granted the figure still ranges between 1 and 5%). For the majority however, what we are now mostly seeing is a nation of monitors. This may even go beyond monitoring the 'background noise' of ones social network, seen as vital in sustaining virtual communities and enhancing offline social relations (Komito, Bates, 2009). What I wish to highlight at the extreme or 'ideal type', are a group of users in surveillance and gathering explicit analytical data; on those interested in their online identity or 'ego', often unbeknownst to the users interested (granted this is not the case for the vast majority of users). It has historically been the case that companies with an online presence should monitor and analyse traffic to their sites for pragmatic instrumental goals of optimising service, targeting users for products. However, now even beyond bloggers catching on to the practice of analysing site traffic, personal users with an online presence are now analysing traffic emerging from within their; 'personal networks' (see Wellman, 2001, 2002, 2003) or 'networks of sociability' (see Castells, 2004). This inevitably opens up questions as to how technologies (imbued with social and cultural values etc.) are in tandem with users; changing the nature of social relations?, changing privacy? and changing the nature of mind, consciousness and identity?. There is indeed a significant and growing body of academic research and literature addressing such questions as the 'impact' of technology on society from a macro to micro level. What I specifically wish to tackle in this article concerns the ability for individuals to explicitly, quantitatively and continuously survey and analyse their social position, social relations and those of others within personal networks. This may go beyond the traditional social monitoring, reflecting and theorising which individuals have (to various degrees) practiced on ones social network. Individuals for the first time in history, now have recorded evidence of their social networks activity, right there in front of them.
For instance, social network sites, now mean individuals can monitor online the relations that one's alters (ties such as friends, acquaintances etc) have with each other. McGuinness (2009) suggests that perhaps this provides an alternative to gathering information on ones ties, through hearsay and gossip. Could this in-turn reduce tainted or biased information that would come from alters? This would indicate increased information certainty. On the other hand, having exposure to tie communications that one isn't a part of, may increase uncertainty about ones importance and stature in one's social network? The issue here is that online social networks may have consequences for social relations on a level previously unseen in society and could make redundant sociological understandings about the dynamics of social relations. But this can go even further:
For instance, social network sites, now mean individuals can monitor online the relations that one's alters (ties such as friends, acquaintances etc) have with each other. McGuinness (2009) suggests that perhaps this provides an alternative to gathering information on ones ties, through hearsay and gossip. Could this in-turn reduce tainted or biased information that would come from alters? This would indicate increased information certainty. On the other hand, having exposure to tie communications that one isn't a part of, may increase uncertainty about ones importance and stature in one's social network? The issue here is that online social networks may have consequences for social relations on a level previously unseen in society and could make redundant sociological understandings about the dynamics of social relations. But this can go even further:
To take the case of twitter. Users now have several means of monitoring traffic to one's profile and the impact of their tweets. For instance, one can set up an account with one of the tinyurl companies and track traffic to ones posted links. Secondly, individuals can track whether status updates affects the number of people following them. Individuals can watch the diffusion of popular tweets through 'Retweets'. Users can monitor and use analytic tools to analyse their follower count and the demographic data etc. on those followers. This kind of activity by some users on twitter, is likely strongly correlated with their particular use of twitter. For instance, those who take the time to analyse and monitor activity to their profile, likely do so, because there is some value to them beyond mere curiosity. Nontheless, we can see trends emerging, such as programs on facebook that can sidestep privacy rules, by using apps to analyse available data for; 'popularity', 'friends interest in your profile' etc. Such statistics are based on who has posted on each others walls and commented on photos etc.
A larger and larger proportion of Internet users are becoming techno-savy and adept at using available Internet services. The increased interconnectedness of individuals disparate data on the web, and a crop of advancements in online technologies facilitating this, means that individuals can have easy access to information on individuals not in their everyday lives (pipl.com etc.). It is not uncommon for individuals to google a first date, or to monitor those they no-longer see. The past may importantly ground the present, but there may be times when its more helpful to leave past physical relationships in the past. Individuals may diminish consciousness of their present situations, their immediate experience. Here, the consciousness of place gives way to the 'space of flows' (see; Castells, 1998). Individual's attention can be more easily stretched across time and space.
Beyond recorded evidence of ones social relations and alters, we are now seeing software such as twitanalyser emerging that allows individuals analyse online identities. There is the potential for psychological traits, truth, consistency etc. to be gaged based on available information on the web. For the moment, the phenomenon of analysing online identities has been mainly confined to micro-blogging sites 'status updates', but there is no reason why it will stop there. Such information might be of interest to recruiters, workplace managers, schoolground bullies and prospective friends and colleagues. Previously, this kind of analytic data was available on website traffic of interest to those managing websites, whereby e-commerce sites and others found value in having data on traffic locations, referrals etc. Now, everyone can 'know' this kind of information 'if' one wishes.
Questions of the possible consequences of monitoring and quantitatively analysing our ego-centric networks arise:
-Curtails our own intuition and imagination?
-Makes us more instrumental in our social relations?
-Makes us more instrumental to ensuring social presence online?
-Addiction to checking our social network's 'background noise'?
-Reduces the expressive and affective nature of communication?
-Adds complexity to managing our social lives?
-Adds the potentiality of paranoia and uncertainty with ones close ties?
-Means we become grounded in the reality of our social position, reputation and social capital rather than our perceived or imagined position and reputation?
These are just a few of the myriad of possible questions which arise and which can be seen as perhaps positive or negative. We are principally dealing with the potentiality of users having more explicit hard information on others, and ones relations with others. Furthermore, we can now observe how ones action affects those relations in new and altered ways. This seems to point to the notion of a more individualised atomised person, with perhaps greater attentiveness and 'sense' of control(ing) of their relation with 'their' world, inline with trends theorised by Wellman and with observations by Putnam.
Bibliography:
references to follow shortly...
Friday, March 13, 2009
Twitter and it's data free for all....
The rise of Twitter
Twitter is expanding and expanding fast. A flurry of news coverage and hype about the product, particularly in the last 3 months, has seen users flock to the service. Twitter is seen to offer enormous potential, information can be filtered by content, location, keyword etc., opening up the realms of how data is used online in real time. This is in tandem with the numerous benefits of openness discussed below. However, Twitter still has some way to go. It has yet to come to terms with its own potential and how those possibilities should be steered and constrained. The service recently made some small developments to its site, with a 'trend' and 'search' facility added. However, the sophistication of its privacy and account settings is still limited. Thus, it has yet to put more control back in users hand, with regard to how their data is used and by whom. At present, it is an all or nothing affair, you're "open" or you're "private"!!. This begs the following questions, should account holders have more control over their data? If so, why should this be the case? Is openness itself constraining what people will say? Finally, If users have more control, will this stifle the success of the service?
Why openness?
The Twitter model is built largely around individuals posting short 140 character status updates, replies or retweets on any range of topic imaginable. Individuals can find and follow any other user on the service, ranging from friends to common interests, to celebrities etc. The great thing about twitter is its 'openness'. Most individuals choose to keep their profile public to ensure that they can be found by like-minded individuals, or that ongoing conversations can be picked up by interested parties etc. It means individuals have that feeling that someone out there is listening, even if it is just the possibility of feeling part of something. It is a forum for expression of the mind, even if expression is mundane. It is also a means to 'contribute' one's time, knowledge and experience and is thus an avenue of 'meaning' for individuals.
Openness ensures that those with something to offer others can more easily be heard. It engenders the possibility for more connection, collaboration, relationship and even community formation 'without' boundaries. By focusing on the content of messages and less on the full personality, it provides a different kind of social formation. The loud, influential and dominant personality may not make for interesting dialogue. Too many annoying tweets from a user and one can easily unfollow with the click of the mouse. This levels the playing field for users in many respects, as well as increasing the possibility of connection based on interest and not by persuasion. However, not everyone wishes for this openness. There is the option to set your profile 'private' in order to close your information to only those with whom you've allowed follow you.
Interpreting your past online
Full openness has its price though, Twitter first launched in March 2006, and since then, an archive of user data has slowly being amounting for all to access. Hundreds of your messages may (or may not) be carefully vetted by you, but one thoughtless twitter update may be enough to get you in to trouble at any point in the future. This may be nothing more than friends misinterpreting and taking offence to an update. But it could be something more: Recently a US cop had his status updates on Facebook and Myspace used as evidence against him in a gun trial on grounds of the accused acquittal. What was interesting about this case is how status updates became utilised and crucially 'interpreted' by the Jury. This highlights how information may be interpreted and placed into multiple contexts by whoever reads the information. Employers, even potential collaborators, may selectively choose just one suspect twitter update among hundreds as 'proof' of character, or misintrepret one's online ego as holistically representative of the individual. Twitter means your online past and identity will always be there online, waiting to be interpreted and analysed.
Analyse this!
You may think that with hundreds of recorded messages, it would be uncumbersome for anyone to want to thrall through your past data. But with twitter, software by third parties is springing up to offer just that: Twitter analyzer is just one of the free online applications available that allows you to analyse the data of "any" twitter user with an open account (hence the majority of twitter user). The bounds of what can be achieved with Twitter analyzer is limited. But it opens numerous possibilities. For beyond harmless apps like Twitscoop, which scrape status updates in order to form twitter 'trending topics' and 'buzz words', your data can be analysed in isolation or in tandem with others, in any number of ways, for any number of purposes, and by ANYONE. Twitter apps may emerge (if they don't already exist) to 'profile' individuals; to elucidate personality, truth and inconsistency, track record, literacy, interests etc. etc. etc. This is alongside the likely emergence of targeted advertising etc, and data mining of information, in order to make twitter a viable business model.
Openness on whose terms?
At present twitter has a very lax attitude to its data. If you have your profile public, your data is a free for all. If it's private, its between you, your vetted followers and twitter. This means that Twitter's so called openness may not be so open. People are constantly vetting and reflecting on what information they post on twitter. They may do it out of shyness, cautiousness, personal branding, or foresight etc. Twitter is open for many, but not too open. It's very openness curtails what dialogue does occur online. As users become aware of the ways in which their data can be used, this may further curtail individual expression. Thus, should Twitter not increase the range of choices with regard 'openness' and 'privacy'. What I would like to see is the possibility of users having the choice to make private their archive of data. For instance, what if only your recent updates were set as public? What if twitter made it difficult for those updates to be scraped by third party offerings? What if you could make replies only visible to who you follow? What if you could automatically make messages with certain 'keywords' private? What if you could make certain messages time sensitive and private after a certain period? What if you could make some status updates private to yourself? Thus, the bounds of privacy can be opened up. Will it constrain the services success however? I do not believe so, if too much openness is stifling expression and conversation on twitter, than increasing the scope of openness versus privacy, and doing it in an uncumbersome way; would perhaps increase use of the service. This choice may be the business model Twitter hopes for...
Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Twitter is expanding and expanding fast. A flurry of news coverage and hype about the product, particularly in the last 3 months, has seen users flock to the service. Twitter is seen to offer enormous potential, information can be filtered by content, location, keyword etc., opening up the realms of how data is used online in real time. This is in tandem with the numerous benefits of openness discussed below. However, Twitter still has some way to go. It has yet to come to terms with its own potential and how those possibilities should be steered and constrained. The service recently made some small developments to its site, with a 'trend' and 'search' facility added. However, the sophistication of its privacy and account settings is still limited. Thus, it has yet to put more control back in users hand, with regard to how their data is used and by whom. At present, it is an all or nothing affair, you're "open" or you're "private"!!. This begs the following questions, should account holders have more control over their data? If so, why should this be the case? Is openness itself constraining what people will say? Finally, If users have more control, will this stifle the success of the service?
Why openness?
The Twitter model is built largely around individuals posting short 140 character status updates, replies or retweets on any range of topic imaginable. Individuals can find and follow any other user on the service, ranging from friends to common interests, to celebrities etc. The great thing about twitter is its 'openness'. Most individuals choose to keep their profile public to ensure that they can be found by like-minded individuals, or that ongoing conversations can be picked up by interested parties etc. It means individuals have that feeling that someone out there is listening, even if it is just the possibility of feeling part of something. It is a forum for expression of the mind, even if expression is mundane. It is also a means to 'contribute' one's time, knowledge and experience and is thus an avenue of 'meaning' for individuals.
Openness ensures that those with something to offer others can more easily be heard. It engenders the possibility for more connection, collaboration, relationship and even community formation 'without' boundaries. By focusing on the content of messages and less on the full personality, it provides a different kind of social formation. The loud, influential and dominant personality may not make for interesting dialogue. Too many annoying tweets from a user and one can easily unfollow with the click of the mouse. This levels the playing field for users in many respects, as well as increasing the possibility of connection based on interest and not by persuasion. However, not everyone wishes for this openness. There is the option to set your profile 'private' in order to close your information to only those with whom you've allowed follow you.
Interpreting your past online
Full openness has its price though, Twitter first launched in March 2006, and since then, an archive of user data has slowly being amounting for all to access. Hundreds of your messages may (or may not) be carefully vetted by you, but one thoughtless twitter update may be enough to get you in to trouble at any point in the future. This may be nothing more than friends misinterpreting and taking offence to an update. But it could be something more: Recently a US cop had his status updates on Facebook and Myspace used as evidence against him in a gun trial on grounds of the accused acquittal. What was interesting about this case is how status updates became utilised and crucially 'interpreted' by the Jury. This highlights how information may be interpreted and placed into multiple contexts by whoever reads the information. Employers, even potential collaborators, may selectively choose just one suspect twitter update among hundreds as 'proof' of character, or misintrepret one's online ego as holistically representative of the individual. Twitter means your online past and identity will always be there online, waiting to be interpreted and analysed.
Analyse this!
You may think that with hundreds of recorded messages, it would be uncumbersome for anyone to want to thrall through your past data. But with twitter, software by third parties is springing up to offer just that: Twitter analyzer is just one of the free online applications available that allows you to analyse the data of "any" twitter user with an open account (hence the majority of twitter user). The bounds of what can be achieved with Twitter analyzer is limited. But it opens numerous possibilities. For beyond harmless apps like Twitscoop, which scrape status updates in order to form twitter 'trending topics' and 'buzz words', your data can be analysed in isolation or in tandem with others, in any number of ways, for any number of purposes, and by ANYONE. Twitter apps may emerge (if they don't already exist) to 'profile' individuals; to elucidate personality, truth and inconsistency, track record, literacy, interests etc. etc. etc. This is alongside the likely emergence of targeted advertising etc, and data mining of information, in order to make twitter a viable business model.
Openness on whose terms?
At present twitter has a very lax attitude to its data. If you have your profile public, your data is a free for all. If it's private, its between you, your vetted followers and twitter. This means that Twitter's so called openness may not be so open. People are constantly vetting and reflecting on what information they post on twitter. They may do it out of shyness, cautiousness, personal branding, or foresight etc. Twitter is open for many, but not too open. It's very openness curtails what dialogue does occur online. As users become aware of the ways in which their data can be used, this may further curtail individual expression. Thus, should Twitter not increase the range of choices with regard 'openness' and 'privacy'. What I would like to see is the possibility of users having the choice to make private their archive of data. For instance, what if only your recent updates were set as public? What if twitter made it difficult for those updates to be scraped by third party offerings? What if you could make replies only visible to who you follow? What if you could automatically make messages with certain 'keywords' private? What if you could make certain messages time sensitive and private after a certain period? What if you could make some status updates private to yourself? Thus, the bounds of privacy can be opened up. Will it constrain the services success however? I do not believe so, if too much openness is stifling expression and conversation on twitter, than increasing the scope of openness versus privacy, and doing it in an uncumbersome way; would perhaps increase use of the service. This choice may be the business model Twitter hopes for...
Copyright © 2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
"The knowing look" maneuver
Abstract
In social settings; 'the knowing look' is a particular phenomena which can be considered as part of a range of practiced social skills. It can be a subtle and at times complex phenomena forming part of the 'dance' of social interaction. It may be a more positive or times negative activity, more knowingly or unknowingly practiced by a few or multiple individuals, who may have converging or diverging motivations. It is argued that there may be conceptualised a number of motivations and effects arising with this phenomena and any number of these may combine together as 'motivations' and result in 'effects'. It is argued that providing an indepth understanding of this particular phenomena can be of benefit to professionals and individuals in becoming aware, reflective and vigilant to social situations where this and other social cues are practiced.
Introduction
The 'knowing look', commonly seen as a fleeting shared eye contact and associated facial gesture amongst two or more people, often plays a crucial role in friendship building as well as reflecting a continuing bond amongst close ties. It has been a social cue practiced by humans for generations. Manifesting as a brief gesture in the social 'dance', it is an art in itself, known by many but perhaps practiced by fewer. It's negotiation and timing are crucial in carrying it off as naturally and effortlessly as possible. It can be practiced as part of a conversation between two, or may be practiced in social settings amongst numerous individuals. It can seem an almost spontaneous occurrence arising out of a situation, or it may be more resolutely 'instigated' as an opportunity persists. It is an interesting yet under-analysed phenomena and this brings me to seek to provide a conceptual framework which can throw further light on its raison d'être, as well as to suggest some applied or normative uses from gaining a more indepth understanding. Bearing in mind 'the knowing look' arises as a specifically social phenomena, questions which have helped focus the enquiry include: What is the 'knowing look' activity? Why do people instigate the 'knowing look' activity? How did it arrise? Does it have a purpose? If so, what purpose does it serve? What are the motivations behind its 'instigation' and the effects of its practice?
Proposed conceptual framework
There appears several 'motivations' which may arise with 'the knowing look' and 'effects' which result from its practice. These can be broken down into:
1.Power and Leveraging power
2.Building friendships
3.Consolidating friendships
4.Subtle forms of bullying (ridiculing, isolating etc.)
5.Communicating an understanding, perspective or reality
6.Acknowledging shared understandings, perspective or realities
7.Solidifying understandings, perspectives or realities
8.Expressing concern
It may be the case that a combination of these concepts culminate as a complex cognitive-affective expression manifesting physically as a 'knowing look' which is then realised (either intended or unintended) as a singulation or combination of the above concepts. Importantly, it may be instigated as a more cognitive (thinking) or affective (feeling) expression, and this may be motivated at a more conscious or unconscious level. Also, it may be perscieved and reflected upon by the participants at varying degrees of consciousness. It's practice may be more learned and behavioural, or may be more consciously and contingently instigated.
Leveraging power relates to the idea that there are flows of power amongst social groupings or even perceived flows of power, where individuals consciously or otherwise seek to solidify or extend their power and related stature and influence; through participating in activities which can realise their goals. They may also seek to positively leverage the flow of power amongst a social grouping where they percieve an inbalance, or they may have whats considered negative or malicious underlying motivations. These activities can relate to physical mannerisms, as well as communicative utterances, which serve an instrumental purpose. Of course it must be recognised that there are also learned behaviours and traits as well as non-instrumental mannerisms, expressions and communication which takes place. The important point is that by participating in 'the knowing look' activity, individuals may be consciously or unconsciously seeking to leverage power within the social setting. For example, they may be looking to take (social) power away from the unknowing participant, or in tandem or otherwise, they may be seeking to relatively increase their stature and influence relative to the 'unknowing' participant. Furthermore, they may seek not necessarily to leverage power, but may seek to manifest power as a result of the social cue. The concept of power can be related closely to bullying but also to friendship formation and consolidation.
Building Friendships relates to how individuals use the particular social cue of the 'knowing look' to create or build friendships with the person participating in this activity. This can often closely relate to acknowledging shared realities, which can act as commonality on which to build friendship.
Consolidating Friendships relates to maintaining and strengthening relationships through participating in such social activities. For example, using 'the knowing look' may be an opportunity to solidify or strengthen friendship where there is a perceived weakness in the 'tie' that one wishes to address. Often the 'knowing look' activity may not be 'purposeful' or 'instrumental' as such, some times it may be more accurately envisaged as a reflection of a continuing friendship.
Bullying 'The knowing look' practiced to the exclusion of others within the particular social setting may be a form of psychological bullying. In this instance, the 'activity' or 'practice' may be purposefully or unintentionally a form of bullying. In the case of purposeful bullying; the persons participating in the 'knowing look' (particularly the instigator) may be seeking to (1)ridicule, (2)exclude, (3)isolate or (4)a combination of the first three with a malicious intent in mind. To add to this, if the 'knowing look' was meant to be witnessed by the 'victim', it may be construed as a more explicit form of bullying whereby ridicule or embarrassment etc is sought to be inflicted, or a communication of power is sought to be delivered etc. Furthermore, if the 'unknowing' participant unintentionally witnesses the act, they may be the victim of unintentional bullying. It is useful at this time to reflect on the concepts of positive exclusion (harmless) and negative exclusion (malicious). There are of course many instances of 'the knowing look' which are forms of positive exclusion. The concept of bullying is closely tied to that of Power and leveraging power, and represents leveraging power and diminishing power in a purer form (moving towards an 'ideal type') and with more negative motivations and/or effects.
Communicating understandings, perspectives and realities
The knowing look may be instigated for the specific purpose of communicating with the recipient through subtle sensorimotor behaviour. In this instance the instigator wishes to communicate an understanding, perspective or reality. This can often be used in the act of courting whereby the activity is exclusive to 2 individuals and is not concerned with a third party, but may also be used in acts of consolidating friendships, expressing concern, leveraging power or even bullying etc.
Acknowledging shared perspectives or realities
'The knowing look' is often a social cue practiced in order to acknowledge a shared reality or perspective. It may to a lesser degree entail acknowledging an 'understanding'. For example individuals may capitalise on a shared perspective or understanding for use as a commonality from which to build or consolidate a friendship or relationship. It may be instigated by one individual seeking acknowledgement for an understanding, perspective or reality to which they believe they have, or have bore witness to, or it may be a spontaneous occurrence amongst two or more individuals.
Solidifying realities or perspectives
Similar to acknowledging shared realities or perspectives, the knowing look may be about solidifying or substantiating an understanding, reality or perspective. Individuals may look for confirmation that their understanding, perspective or reality is somehow 'more real' or not merely envisioned by themselves.
Expressing concern
Finally, the Knowing look may be concerned with expressing or communicating a concern for the unknowing individual in question. This may arise as individuals bear witness to communications and behaviourisms from an individual which they 'think' they understand, or which they 'think' they don't understand. This concept is closely tied and is a common motive and effect; in communicating, acknowledging and solidifying understandings, perspectives and realities. It may range from issuing a mere bemusement with the unknowing individual to an expression of deep concern.
Conclusion and discussion
'The knowing look' activity forms as part of a range of social skills which individuals develop and participate in, known cumulatively as social competence. It arises naturally as individuals develop socially through a range of social interaction. Often degrees of social interaction need to be 'maintained' in order for individuals to 'maintain' their ability to successfully initiate and participate in social cues and etiquette's. It is proposed that there may be motivations and effects related to the practice of 'the knowing look'. These may be broken down into 8 concepts, though it must be recognised that many of these concepts are in many instances closely bound to each other, with 'bullying' and 'expressing concern' often strong and common examples of 'power and leveraging power' and 'expressing communicating undestandings etc.' respectively. Significantly, these concepts often combine as motivations and result in planned and unplanned effects. 'The knowing look', may be instigated as a more cognitive (thinking) or affective (feeling) expression, and this may be motivated at a more conscious or unconscious level. Also, it may be perscieved and reflected upon by the participants at varying degrees of consciousness. It's practice may be more learned and behavioural, or may be more consciously and contingently instigated.
It is often the case that individuals who have suffered some form of repression at some point in their lives become 'cunning' as a result of inward development. This may be seen as a 'coping strategy' and an 'attempt' to overcome the oppression (see for example Nietzsche's conscience in Ridley, 1998, p.8). Following on from this last point, there is the hypothesis that some individuals are more attentive to their social abilities and are more active in utilising certain social cues to realise their goals. For example, a recent study argued that "individuals either fearing [social] rejection or suffering actual [social] rejection show increased attention to social cues" (Bernstein et al, 208, p981). Thus, percieved or substantied types of 'repression', or what Bernstein et al coined 'social rejection'; may result in individuals being more sensitive to social cues, and perhaps practicing 'the knowing look' and other subtle social cues in social situations more than others, as well as interpreting and using these for purposes (and in ways) which differ from others. Although it seems likely that as one gets older, such aptness of social cues are developed by anyone participating in social interaction, it may be useful to pay particular attention to children who have developed these abilities faster and are more attentive to this practice more than others. Why is this the case? Conversely, those who are viewed as lacking the ability to read social cues(kinestic) and participate in them; may lack the sufficent socialisation or may suffer from a learning difficulty or disability.
Having more indepth and resonant knowledge about social cues may help enamour professionals in more easily identifing individuals who require attention or even help. For example, having the necessary indepth knowledge and awareness of social cues may provide; school teachers, councilors and other professionals with the ability to be more reflective, aware and vigilant to the phenomena taking place in social settings. This may lead them to more easily identify bullying and forms of negative exclusion. Also, to identify individuals who more actively practice such social cues and do so in certain ways, as well as identifying those who lack the necessary competences.
In an everyday context, having more in depth knowledge of such social cues may allow individuals to be more vigilant to its negative use in social settings, and may allow individuals to reflect on their own use of social cues and whether they be positive or negative.
Overall, it is considered that empirical work ought to be done to further explore the practice of this particular phenomena in various social settings. For example, under the problem of identifying repressed children, it could be considered whether certain children who use social cues in certain ways have developed this social skill more extensively out of a need to do so? Furthermore, professionals who wish to understand and positively act upon a social environment may benefit from being more receptive and reflective to the subtle and nuanced social practices which take place. Understanding the use of practices such as 'the knowing look', may uncover previously unrecognised problems in a social settting.
Bibliography
Bernstein, M et al, (2008) Adaptive Responses to Social Exclusion: Social Rejection Improves Detection of Real and Fake Smiles Psychological Science 19(10): 981-984
Ridley, A (1998) Nietsche's Conscience USA: Cornell University Press
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
In social settings; 'the knowing look' is a particular phenomena which can be considered as part of a range of practiced social skills. It can be a subtle and at times complex phenomena forming part of the 'dance' of social interaction. It may be a more positive or times negative activity, more knowingly or unknowingly practiced by a few or multiple individuals, who may have converging or diverging motivations. It is argued that there may be conceptualised a number of motivations and effects arising with this phenomena and any number of these may combine together as 'motivations' and result in 'effects'. It is argued that providing an indepth understanding of this particular phenomena can be of benefit to professionals and individuals in becoming aware, reflective and vigilant to social situations where this and other social cues are practiced.
Introduction
The 'knowing look', commonly seen as a fleeting shared eye contact and associated facial gesture amongst two or more people, often plays a crucial role in friendship building as well as reflecting a continuing bond amongst close ties. It has been a social cue practiced by humans for generations. Manifesting as a brief gesture in the social 'dance', it is an art in itself, known by many but perhaps practiced by fewer. It's negotiation and timing are crucial in carrying it off as naturally and effortlessly as possible. It can be practiced as part of a conversation between two, or may be practiced in social settings amongst numerous individuals. It can seem an almost spontaneous occurrence arising out of a situation, or it may be more resolutely 'instigated' as an opportunity persists. It is an interesting yet under-analysed phenomena and this brings me to seek to provide a conceptual framework which can throw further light on its raison d'être, as well as to suggest some applied or normative uses from gaining a more indepth understanding. Bearing in mind 'the knowing look' arises as a specifically social phenomena, questions which have helped focus the enquiry include: What is the 'knowing look' activity? Why do people instigate the 'knowing look' activity? How did it arrise? Does it have a purpose? If so, what purpose does it serve? What are the motivations behind its 'instigation' and the effects of its practice?
Proposed conceptual framework
There appears several 'motivations' which may arise with 'the knowing look' and 'effects' which result from its practice. These can be broken down into:
1.Power and Leveraging power
2.Building friendships
3.Consolidating friendships
4.Subtle forms of bullying (ridiculing, isolating etc.)
5.Communicating an understanding, perspective or reality
6.Acknowledging shared understandings, perspective or realities
7.Solidifying understandings, perspectives or realities
8.Expressing concern
It may be the case that a combination of these concepts culminate as a complex cognitive-affective expression manifesting physically as a 'knowing look' which is then realised (either intended or unintended) as a singulation or combination of the above concepts. Importantly, it may be instigated as a more cognitive (thinking) or affective (feeling) expression, and this may be motivated at a more conscious or unconscious level. Also, it may be perscieved and reflected upon by the participants at varying degrees of consciousness. It's practice may be more learned and behavioural, or may be more consciously and contingently instigated.
Leveraging power relates to the idea that there are flows of power amongst social groupings or even perceived flows of power, where individuals consciously or otherwise seek to solidify or extend their power and related stature and influence; through participating in activities which can realise their goals. They may also seek to positively leverage the flow of power amongst a social grouping where they percieve an inbalance, or they may have whats considered negative or malicious underlying motivations. These activities can relate to physical mannerisms, as well as communicative utterances, which serve an instrumental purpose. Of course it must be recognised that there are also learned behaviours and traits as well as non-instrumental mannerisms, expressions and communication which takes place. The important point is that by participating in 'the knowing look' activity, individuals may be consciously or unconsciously seeking to leverage power within the social setting. For example, they may be looking to take (social) power away from the unknowing participant, or in tandem or otherwise, they may be seeking to relatively increase their stature and influence relative to the 'unknowing' participant. Furthermore, they may seek not necessarily to leverage power, but may seek to manifest power as a result of the social cue. The concept of power can be related closely to bullying but also to friendship formation and consolidation.
Building Friendships relates to how individuals use the particular social cue of the 'knowing look' to create or build friendships with the person participating in this activity. This can often closely relate to acknowledging shared realities, which can act as commonality on which to build friendship.
Consolidating Friendships relates to maintaining and strengthening relationships through participating in such social activities. For example, using 'the knowing look' may be an opportunity to solidify or strengthen friendship where there is a perceived weakness in the 'tie' that one wishes to address. Often the 'knowing look' activity may not be 'purposeful' or 'instrumental' as such, some times it may be more accurately envisaged as a reflection of a continuing friendship.
Bullying 'The knowing look' practiced to the exclusion of others within the particular social setting may be a form of psychological bullying. In this instance, the 'activity' or 'practice' may be purposefully or unintentionally a form of bullying. In the case of purposeful bullying; the persons participating in the 'knowing look' (particularly the instigator) may be seeking to (1)ridicule, (2)exclude, (3)isolate or (4)a combination of the first three with a malicious intent in mind. To add to this, if the 'knowing look' was meant to be witnessed by the 'victim', it may be construed as a more explicit form of bullying whereby ridicule or embarrassment etc is sought to be inflicted, or a communication of power is sought to be delivered etc. Furthermore, if the 'unknowing' participant unintentionally witnesses the act, they may be the victim of unintentional bullying. It is useful at this time to reflect on the concepts of positive exclusion (harmless) and negative exclusion (malicious). There are of course many instances of 'the knowing look' which are forms of positive exclusion. The concept of bullying is closely tied to that of Power and leveraging power, and represents leveraging power and diminishing power in a purer form (moving towards an 'ideal type') and with more negative motivations and/or effects.
Communicating understandings, perspectives and realities
The knowing look may be instigated for the specific purpose of communicating with the recipient through subtle sensorimotor behaviour. In this instance the instigator wishes to communicate an understanding, perspective or reality. This can often be used in the act of courting whereby the activity is exclusive to 2 individuals and is not concerned with a third party, but may also be used in acts of consolidating friendships, expressing concern, leveraging power or even bullying etc.
Acknowledging shared perspectives or realities
'The knowing look' is often a social cue practiced in order to acknowledge a shared reality or perspective. It may to a lesser degree entail acknowledging an 'understanding'. For example individuals may capitalise on a shared perspective or understanding for use as a commonality from which to build or consolidate a friendship or relationship. It may be instigated by one individual seeking acknowledgement for an understanding, perspective or reality to which they believe they have, or have bore witness to, or it may be a spontaneous occurrence amongst two or more individuals.
Solidifying realities or perspectives
Similar to acknowledging shared realities or perspectives, the knowing look may be about solidifying or substantiating an understanding, reality or perspective. Individuals may look for confirmation that their understanding, perspective or reality is somehow 'more real' or not merely envisioned by themselves.
Expressing concern
Finally, the Knowing look may be concerned with expressing or communicating a concern for the unknowing individual in question. This may arise as individuals bear witness to communications and behaviourisms from an individual which they 'think' they understand, or which they 'think' they don't understand. This concept is closely tied and is a common motive and effect; in communicating, acknowledging and solidifying understandings, perspectives and realities. It may range from issuing a mere bemusement with the unknowing individual to an expression of deep concern.
Conclusion and discussion
'The knowing look' activity forms as part of a range of social skills which individuals develop and participate in, known cumulatively as social competence. It arises naturally as individuals develop socially through a range of social interaction. Often degrees of social interaction need to be 'maintained' in order for individuals to 'maintain' their ability to successfully initiate and participate in social cues and etiquette's. It is proposed that there may be motivations and effects related to the practice of 'the knowing look'. These may be broken down into 8 concepts, though it must be recognised that many of these concepts are in many instances closely bound to each other, with 'bullying' and 'expressing concern' often strong and common examples of 'power and leveraging power' and 'expressing communicating undestandings etc.' respectively. Significantly, these concepts often combine as motivations and result in planned and unplanned effects. 'The knowing look', may be instigated as a more cognitive (thinking) or affective (feeling) expression, and this may be motivated at a more conscious or unconscious level. Also, it may be perscieved and reflected upon by the participants at varying degrees of consciousness. It's practice may be more learned and behavioural, or may be more consciously and contingently instigated.
It is often the case that individuals who have suffered some form of repression at some point in their lives become 'cunning' as a result of inward development. This may be seen as a 'coping strategy' and an 'attempt' to overcome the oppression (see for example Nietzsche's conscience in Ridley, 1998, p.8). Following on from this last point, there is the hypothesis that some individuals are more attentive to their social abilities and are more active in utilising certain social cues to realise their goals. For example, a recent study argued that "individuals either fearing [social] rejection or suffering actual [social] rejection show increased attention to social cues" (Bernstein et al, 208, p981). Thus, percieved or substantied types of 'repression', or what Bernstein et al coined 'social rejection'; may result in individuals being more sensitive to social cues, and perhaps practicing 'the knowing look' and other subtle social cues in social situations more than others, as well as interpreting and using these for purposes (and in ways) which differ from others. Although it seems likely that as one gets older, such aptness of social cues are developed by anyone participating in social interaction, it may be useful to pay particular attention to children who have developed these abilities faster and are more attentive to this practice more than others. Why is this the case? Conversely, those who are viewed as lacking the ability to read social cues(kinestic) and participate in them; may lack the sufficent socialisation or may suffer from a learning difficulty or disability.
Having more indepth and resonant knowledge about social cues may help enamour professionals in more easily identifing individuals who require attention or even help. For example, having the necessary indepth knowledge and awareness of social cues may provide; school teachers, councilors and other professionals with the ability to be more reflective, aware and vigilant to the phenomena taking place in social settings. This may lead them to more easily identify bullying and forms of negative exclusion. Also, to identify individuals who more actively practice such social cues and do so in certain ways, as well as identifying those who lack the necessary competences.
In an everyday context, having more in depth knowledge of such social cues may allow individuals to be more vigilant to its negative use in social settings, and may allow individuals to reflect on their own use of social cues and whether they be positive or negative.
Overall, it is considered that empirical work ought to be done to further explore the practice of this particular phenomena in various social settings. For example, under the problem of identifying repressed children, it could be considered whether certain children who use social cues in certain ways have developed this social skill more extensively out of a need to do so? Furthermore, professionals who wish to understand and positively act upon a social environment may benefit from being more receptive and reflective to the subtle and nuanced social practices which take place. Understanding the use of practices such as 'the knowing look', may uncover previously unrecognised problems in a social settting.
Bibliography
Bernstein, M et al, (2008) Adaptive Responses to Social Exclusion: Social Rejection Improves Detection of Real and Fake Smiles Psychological Science 19(10): 981-984
Ridley, A (1998) Nietsche's Conscience USA: Cornell University Press
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Bye Bye Paper ??
Now that e-readers and e-paper are finally beginning to trickle into the market-place, what are the key issues surrounding these developments and where could this all lead?
It's now been 2 years since the second generation of E-Reader devices hit the market. The past year has seen several additions to the line-up including; Amazon's Kindle and an updated Sony E-Reader. These devices may herald the transformation of the publishing industry, as e-books can be downloaded and updated with these devices, consumer's and scholar's can effectively have their book collection or more significantly the world's libraries on the palm of their hand's.
What's so 'special' and significant about these devices is the incorporation of 'E-Ink' displays. E-Ink, unlike LCD or LED displays, are not back-lit. A kind of 'electronic ink' gets rearranged to form words and pictures as the user switches pages. The technology allows improved readability and reduced eye-strain, in addition to much improved battery life as compared to LCD. The technology promises to marry many of the benefits of a traditional book with the advantages of computers and the Web.
Now that the technology has gone to industrial scale production and sales are 'slowly' creeping up, the market is forming to allow further innovation, proliferation and price reduction. In essence, the cogs in the E-ink machine are slowly beginning to turn. Just recently, a German factory in Dresden (Plastic Logic), went into operation turning out a 'newspaper' version of the technology alongside the 'EBook Reader' devices already in 'circulation'. These devices’s, (the technology still in its infancy), will eventually supplement, and may one-day even replace traditional newspapers. Developing technology and industry growth in this sector means we may inhabit a predominantly 'paperless' world in the not too distant future. A world in some ways reminiscent of that portrayed in Spielberg's film, 'Minority Report'. The devices 'currently' are only available in black and white, other short-comings currently exist such as memory, processing power, battery life and connectivity. However, down the road, it is envisaged that such devices will form part of the 'ubiquitous' web, with multi-coloured screens, multi-media capability and live updating of content. Furthermore, the amount of content and functionality of these E-Reader devices will drastically improve. The latest generation already allow for underlining and note taking of text, in the not too distant future, continual updating of e-books, user's contributing through discussion of passages, as well as enhanced functionality such as automatic summarisation and correlation of note-taking etc, will undoubtedly be forthcoming.
There are a few significant issues which ought to be explored in light of this. Firstly, how environmentally sustainable will such an industry be, as opposed to the paper industry? What will the total environmental footprint be in manufacturing and disposing of these devices? We have already seen from existing computer and electronic manufacturing, that this footprint can be significant. Hundreds of parts, manufactured using harmful chemicals, flown in from around the world to an assembly site before being shipped back around the world; represents industry norms at present. This is before we factor in direct and indirect energy, water and waste by-products. We must also question the short life-cycle of these devices (in a capitalist society) as well as their disposal and replacement. In sum, there is the need to scrutinise and improve the environmental credentials of the electronics industry from cradle to grave. The European WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) directive goes some way to steering the industry in a positive direction.
Certainly the traditional paper industry has environmental shortfalls with much room for improvement. Even with the growth of E-Paper replacing paper, it must be recognised that packaging presently consumes half of all paper produced. Up to 40 of total municipal waste in the US is paper based. Paper production has been cited as accounting from anything between 20% to 40% of global logging and is one of the most water intensive industries requiring c.20 thousand gallons of water per ton of paper. Concern also exists about the degree of wood logging from non-'farmed' forests, particularly in developing countries. This is in light of global paper consumption increasing at over 3% annually into the foreseeable future. On a positive note, recycled paper accounts for about c.40% of total paper used globally, though in some western countries; recycling rates have hit 60%. Thus, there is enormous scope for overall improvements in paper recycling, and in reduction of packaging. With the advent of e-paper, significant environmental benefits may be added by reducing paper use, if an environmentally sustainable electronics industry emerges to supplement it. One that in aggregate outweighs the benefits of recycled paper. In any event, the push and pull factors of e-paper and e-readers looks set to increase!!
There are also other issues that must be considered alongside environmental concerns. Advertising currently subsidises the newspaper industry, can a model be developed that ensures the devices themselves are subsidised so that the gap in information inequality is not increased? Technology has the potential to increase equality by improving access to more information by all sectors in society, but without foresight, technology can also act as a barrier in terms of cost, awareness, understanding and 'computer literacy'.
We must also ask whether more information is better information or even needed information. Are we becoming a society of superficial information junkies? Research has shown we increasingly 'flicker' through content rapidly on the internet, prepared to trawl through a number of articles in order to grab snippets of interesting or relevant information without spending the time trying to get a more in-depth understanding of particular topics. The emergence of E-paper devices may continue and expand this trend for better or worse. With such an abundance of easily retrieval information available, it may seem increasingly difficult for individuals to 'filter' and 'process' the abundance of information. Thus, how will all this impact us psychologically in terms of attention span, memory and behavioural traits? There is belief that it will lead to increased selectivity and 'differentiation', meaning readers can increasingly become selective about what content they wish to know about, perhaps at the expense of democracy and the 'public good'. It is a well known phenomenon that individuals have a tendency to selectivity, choosing information that's agreeable with their prior knowledge, sometimes adopting theories about things which favour preconceived biases or conclusions. Existing Paper formats cover a wide range of content from politics, social issues to economic and lifestyle issues. Individuals 'paying' for a newspaper may be more inclined to read from a wider range of stories and view-points, in-turn having a more rounded knowledge of current-affairs and everyday reality as a result. With E-Paper, users will eventually be able to choose what content (and by whom) they wish to receive by page or even by column. Thus, research which ascertains the information behaviour of e-paper users seems timely.
Ending on a positive note, the maturation of e-reader devices may have enormous benefits for scholars and consumers alike. It certainly means increased access and availability of high quality content. With access through a library portal, students will no-longer need to visit the library for text books; there will be no such thing as limited availability. There will be enormous easing of 'friction' in terms of time and space, as books become almost instantaneously retrievable, illiminating the time and journey involved in accessing content. Furthermore, unlike books on a shelf, e-books don't degrade and can't be defaced. Students and consumers may have automatic updates; newer editions may be factored into the 'purchase' or 'rental' price of content. With online accounts, e-readers that get lost or stolen will not mean the need for repurchasing of content. From this we can gage that the role of the traditional library may change in light of this new model. The issue of 'trust' may become more crucial as 'library portals' and 'publishers' (being gatekeepers of information) may be viewed increasingly like brands, some 'brands' trusted more in terms of providing filtered reliable high quality content.
Finally, where does this leave the traditional book, newspaper and magazines? Notwithstanding the likely negatives in terms of cost and environmental credentials of the paper industry, it seems likely that paper will continue to play a role in our lives long into the future. The vast proportion of information may become solely electronic but; key texts, magazines and fictional works will likely remain in print as well as electronic format. Changes in the academic journal sector in the past 20 years indicate such a possible scenario. Individuals will likely still place emotional value on physical copy. Filled book-shelves may be an expression of personality, an indication of status, or provide a feeling of tangible ownership. The feel and smell of the book, the linear arrangement of text, the ability to personalise, flick through pages; all these unique features are known to aid memory. Books can also provide spatial reference and association of information, provide emotional comfort and value, as well as convey a sense of permanence. Thus, the future it seems may be principally electronic, but reports of the traditional newspaper or book’s death, are greatly exaggerated!!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
It's now been 2 years since the second generation of E-Reader devices hit the market. The past year has seen several additions to the line-up including; Amazon's Kindle and an updated Sony E-Reader. These devices may herald the transformation of the publishing industry, as e-books can be downloaded and updated with these devices, consumer's and scholar's can effectively have their book collection or more significantly the world's libraries on the palm of their hand's.
What's so 'special' and significant about these devices is the incorporation of 'E-Ink' displays. E-Ink, unlike LCD or LED displays, are not back-lit. A kind of 'electronic ink' gets rearranged to form words and pictures as the user switches pages. The technology allows improved readability and reduced eye-strain, in addition to much improved battery life as compared to LCD. The technology promises to marry many of the benefits of a traditional book with the advantages of computers and the Web.
Now that the technology has gone to industrial scale production and sales are 'slowly' creeping up, the market is forming to allow further innovation, proliferation and price reduction. In essence, the cogs in the E-ink machine are slowly beginning to turn. Just recently, a German factory in Dresden (Plastic Logic), went into operation turning out a 'newspaper' version of the technology alongside the 'EBook Reader' devices already in 'circulation'. These devices’s, (the technology still in its infancy), will eventually supplement, and may one-day even replace traditional newspapers. Developing technology and industry growth in this sector means we may inhabit a predominantly 'paperless' world in the not too distant future. A world in some ways reminiscent of that portrayed in Spielberg's film, 'Minority Report'. The devices 'currently' are only available in black and white, other short-comings currently exist such as memory, processing power, battery life and connectivity. However, down the road, it is envisaged that such devices will form part of the 'ubiquitous' web, with multi-coloured screens, multi-media capability and live updating of content. Furthermore, the amount of content and functionality of these E-Reader devices will drastically improve. The latest generation already allow for underlining and note taking of text, in the not too distant future, continual updating of e-books, user's contributing through discussion of passages, as well as enhanced functionality such as automatic summarisation and correlation of note-taking etc, will undoubtedly be forthcoming.
There are a few significant issues which ought to be explored in light of this. Firstly, how environmentally sustainable will such an industry be, as opposed to the paper industry? What will the total environmental footprint be in manufacturing and disposing of these devices? We have already seen from existing computer and electronic manufacturing, that this footprint can be significant. Hundreds of parts, manufactured using harmful chemicals, flown in from around the world to an assembly site before being shipped back around the world; represents industry norms at present. This is before we factor in direct and indirect energy, water and waste by-products. We must also question the short life-cycle of these devices (in a capitalist society) as well as their disposal and replacement. In sum, there is the need to scrutinise and improve the environmental credentials of the electronics industry from cradle to grave. The European WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) directive goes some way to steering the industry in a positive direction.
Certainly the traditional paper industry has environmental shortfalls with much room for improvement. Even with the growth of E-Paper replacing paper, it must be recognised that packaging presently consumes half of all paper produced. Up to 40 of total municipal waste in the US is paper based. Paper production has been cited as accounting from anything between 20% to 40% of global logging and is one of the most water intensive industries requiring c.20 thousand gallons of water per ton of paper. Concern also exists about the degree of wood logging from non-'farmed' forests, particularly in developing countries. This is in light of global paper consumption increasing at over 3% annually into the foreseeable future. On a positive note, recycled paper accounts for about c.40% of total paper used globally, though in some western countries; recycling rates have hit 60%. Thus, there is enormous scope for overall improvements in paper recycling, and in reduction of packaging. With the advent of e-paper, significant environmental benefits may be added by reducing paper use, if an environmentally sustainable electronics industry emerges to supplement it. One that in aggregate outweighs the benefits of recycled paper. In any event, the push and pull factors of e-paper and e-readers looks set to increase!!
There are also other issues that must be considered alongside environmental concerns. Advertising currently subsidises the newspaper industry, can a model be developed that ensures the devices themselves are subsidised so that the gap in information inequality is not increased? Technology has the potential to increase equality by improving access to more information by all sectors in society, but without foresight, technology can also act as a barrier in terms of cost, awareness, understanding and 'computer literacy'.
We must also ask whether more information is better information or even needed information. Are we becoming a society of superficial information junkies? Research has shown we increasingly 'flicker' through content rapidly on the internet, prepared to trawl through a number of articles in order to grab snippets of interesting or relevant information without spending the time trying to get a more in-depth understanding of particular topics. The emergence of E-paper devices may continue and expand this trend for better or worse. With such an abundance of easily retrieval information available, it may seem increasingly difficult for individuals to 'filter' and 'process' the abundance of information. Thus, how will all this impact us psychologically in terms of attention span, memory and behavioural traits? There is belief that it will lead to increased selectivity and 'differentiation', meaning readers can increasingly become selective about what content they wish to know about, perhaps at the expense of democracy and the 'public good'. It is a well known phenomenon that individuals have a tendency to selectivity, choosing information that's agreeable with their prior knowledge, sometimes adopting theories about things which favour preconceived biases or conclusions. Existing Paper formats cover a wide range of content from politics, social issues to economic and lifestyle issues. Individuals 'paying' for a newspaper may be more inclined to read from a wider range of stories and view-points, in-turn having a more rounded knowledge of current-affairs and everyday reality as a result. With E-Paper, users will eventually be able to choose what content (and by whom) they wish to receive by page or even by column. Thus, research which ascertains the information behaviour of e-paper users seems timely.
Ending on a positive note, the maturation of e-reader devices may have enormous benefits for scholars and consumers alike. It certainly means increased access and availability of high quality content. With access through a library portal, students will no-longer need to visit the library for text books; there will be no such thing as limited availability. There will be enormous easing of 'friction' in terms of time and space, as books become almost instantaneously retrievable, illiminating the time and journey involved in accessing content. Furthermore, unlike books on a shelf, e-books don't degrade and can't be defaced. Students and consumers may have automatic updates; newer editions may be factored into the 'purchase' or 'rental' price of content. With online accounts, e-readers that get lost or stolen will not mean the need for repurchasing of content. From this we can gage that the role of the traditional library may change in light of this new model. The issue of 'trust' may become more crucial as 'library portals' and 'publishers' (being gatekeepers of information) may be viewed increasingly like brands, some 'brands' trusted more in terms of providing filtered reliable high quality content.
Finally, where does this leave the traditional book, newspaper and magazines? Notwithstanding the likely negatives in terms of cost and environmental credentials of the paper industry, it seems likely that paper will continue to play a role in our lives long into the future. The vast proportion of information may become solely electronic but; key texts, magazines and fictional works will likely remain in print as well as electronic format. Changes in the academic journal sector in the past 20 years indicate such a possible scenario. Individuals will likely still place emotional value on physical copy. Filled book-shelves may be an expression of personality, an indication of status, or provide a feeling of tangible ownership. The feel and smell of the book, the linear arrangement of text, the ability to personalise, flick through pages; all these unique features are known to aid memory. Books can also provide spatial reference and association of information, provide emotional comfort and value, as well as convey a sense of permanence. Thus, the future it seems may be principally electronic, but reports of the traditional newspaper or book’s death, are greatly exaggerated!!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Chinese Games: Overall opinion and analysis
You've got to give it to the Chinese, they know how to put on a show!! A spectacular opening ceremony and equally dazzling and epic closing ceremony wowed China and the World. Overseen by renowned director 'Zhang Yimou'; an 'artful','grand' and 'unparalleled' display captivated its audience, China's spectacle clearly signified the ambitions of a nation.
The ceremonies and the buildings showcased the heights of human capacity as well as the level of sophistication with which technology has reached in the 21st century. But in all of this dazzle, we must ask the question; can we separate art and the aesthetic from the moral? Many commentators on the 21st Century have noted how we live in an increasingly schizophrenic world, is this such an example? Can we appreciate the 'esthetic' knowing the circumstances from which it arrose? or should be shun this spectacle, and cynically denigrate this episode of human history? Thus, how should we think about the games?
The Chinese Olympics passed flawlessly thanks to; human rights abuses, the brute willpower and (what seemed like) unlimited financial means of an authoritarian state. Protests around the world ensued prior to and during the games commencement; the argument being that the Olympic Games and its audience had served to legitimise for China the means through which these games came to fruition, as well as the climate from which these games took place. This being a sad case of the end justifying the means. How could we celebrate these games and its grand ceremonies, when to do so; we vindicate, commend and at best only admonish the Chinese State; in turn fueling the internal propaganda accompanying the spectacle and strengthening it's 'Raison d'être'? Was there a better alternative? Perhaps to Shun the games in protest?
Here are some points for consideration:
In the past I've worked with a number of Chinese people and was always struck by the enthusiasm and conviction they displayed for their country, all seemingly assured that China would gain planetary hegemony in the years to come. Though we might argue in the west that such minds have fallen prey to repetitive propaganda and restrained freedoms relative to the west; we cannot ignore that a significant proportion of Chinese felt proud of their country and it's hosting of the games. As millions of Chinese lay glued to their TV, thousands upon thousands contributed to the organisation, performances and hosting in varying capacities. Though a top down approach, success resulted from the hard work of the Chinese people. Overall, it seems we have to acknowledge their allegiance and more significantly; we must acknowledge and commend the fruits of their labour (however misguided we feel they are).
We must also recognise there have been positive as well as the negative consequences for china. For example, Road, air transport and other infrastructures improved greatly for many parts of Beijing and beyond. World class sporting venues were erected of benefit to chinese athletics. The west learned more of China as China learned more of the West. Internet restrictions were laxed during the games in view of visiting journalists, though we must question whether this will last? The world drew focus on despicable human rights abuses in China, as well as ethnic divides among Han, Tibetan and Uyghur factions, will political good come of this? Up to 1.5 million Beijing citizens were evicted from their homes to facilitate construction, authorities initiated hidden and untold human rights abuses in Beijing to ensure the games were a success. Thousands of performers heavily drilled daily for up to 2 years in advance of the games, the mammoth cost of preparation being something they shall not easily forget. It is in times like these that the character of an authoritarian state is revealed to its citizens and to the rest of the world, we may feel saddened and helpless when it occurs but we can only but hope that change can result as a consequence. What seems clear is that we simply cannot predict or direct the unintended positive and negative outcomes which result from the Beijing games, whether the positive will outweigh the negative or vice-versa is a matter of time. To take an extreme and narrow view on this episode of history at this stage would be foolish and unwise.
Overall, what the West can do is to 'lead by example'. 'Acceptance' is key here. Let us acknowledge and commend the Beijing Games. That does 'not' mean we shouldn't cast a critical eye over precedings or that we should be affraid to issue deep concern and advice to the Chinese people; we simply need to work with the system as well as to challenge it. To do otherwise would fuel bitterness and anamosity towards the West from those who 'know no better'. We need to build bridges to affect change not direct distain and blanket criticism.
In all of this, an argument can be made that the games were a real triumph for sport itself. The world celebrating sport and prepared to dedicate so much time, energy and resources serves to emphasis that humanity can trump sport above economic considerations. China's economy wound down for the Olympic games as other values gained prominence. Though we must recognise the increasing economic ties and economic justification with hosting such games, the games and its athletes won the hearts and minds of countless million spectators. They provided 'in themselves' great joy for Chinese people and the world.
Given that I've explicated points for consideration in how we ought to think about the China games, lets return to and reiterate the central guiding question here; how can we appreciate art and the asthetic dimensions of life given the moral and cognitive dimensions to which they are bound? Paradoxically it seems, to dismiss the aesthetic dimension in such a case, 'is' to act schizophrenically. That is to say; to deny or paint our very senses, our innate appreciation for beauty; is to truly become internally turmoiled. It is in recognising our paradoxes that we reconcile our paradoxes. Our appreciation of art does not take away from our moral fibre or our reasoning. Let us feel one thing but to think and speak another, that is what it can be to be human afterall...
See article: 'China's Totalitarian Games' ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/24/chinas_totalitarian_games/
See article; 'The price of the Chinese Olympic Games'; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-olympics26-2008aug26,0,4466878.story
See article; 'Beijing Olympics London 2012 handover blow to British pride.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/2614357/Beijing-Olympics-London-2012-handover-blow-to-British-pride.htmlCopyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
The ceremonies and the buildings showcased the heights of human capacity as well as the level of sophistication with which technology has reached in the 21st century. But in all of this dazzle, we must ask the question; can we separate art and the aesthetic from the moral? Many commentators on the 21st Century have noted how we live in an increasingly schizophrenic world, is this such an example? Can we appreciate the 'esthetic' knowing the circumstances from which it arrose? or should be shun this spectacle, and cynically denigrate this episode of human history? Thus, how should we think about the games?
The Chinese Olympics passed flawlessly thanks to; human rights abuses, the brute willpower and (what seemed like) unlimited financial means of an authoritarian state. Protests around the world ensued prior to and during the games commencement; the argument being that the Olympic Games and its audience had served to legitimise for China the means through which these games came to fruition, as well as the climate from which these games took place. This being a sad case of the end justifying the means. How could we celebrate these games and its grand ceremonies, when to do so; we vindicate, commend and at best only admonish the Chinese State; in turn fueling the internal propaganda accompanying the spectacle and strengthening it's 'Raison d'être'? Was there a better alternative? Perhaps to Shun the games in protest?
Here are some points for consideration:
In the past I've worked with a number of Chinese people and was always struck by the enthusiasm and conviction they displayed for their country, all seemingly assured that China would gain planetary hegemony in the years to come. Though we might argue in the west that such minds have fallen prey to repetitive propaganda and restrained freedoms relative to the west; we cannot ignore that a significant proportion of Chinese felt proud of their country and it's hosting of the games. As millions of Chinese lay glued to their TV, thousands upon thousands contributed to the organisation, performances and hosting in varying capacities. Though a top down approach, success resulted from the hard work of the Chinese people. Overall, it seems we have to acknowledge their allegiance and more significantly; we must acknowledge and commend the fruits of their labour (however misguided we feel they are).
We must also recognise there have been positive as well as the negative consequences for china. For example, Road, air transport and other infrastructures improved greatly for many parts of Beijing and beyond. World class sporting venues were erected of benefit to chinese athletics. The west learned more of China as China learned more of the West. Internet restrictions were laxed during the games in view of visiting journalists, though we must question whether this will last? The world drew focus on despicable human rights abuses in China, as well as ethnic divides among Han, Tibetan and Uyghur factions, will political good come of this? Up to 1.5 million Beijing citizens were evicted from their homes to facilitate construction, authorities initiated hidden and untold human rights abuses in Beijing to ensure the games were a success. Thousands of performers heavily drilled daily for up to 2 years in advance of the games, the mammoth cost of preparation being something they shall not easily forget. It is in times like these that the character of an authoritarian state is revealed to its citizens and to the rest of the world, we may feel saddened and helpless when it occurs but we can only but hope that change can result as a consequence. What seems clear is that we simply cannot predict or direct the unintended positive and negative outcomes which result from the Beijing games, whether the positive will outweigh the negative or vice-versa is a matter of time. To take an extreme and narrow view on this episode of history at this stage would be foolish and unwise.
Overall, what the West can do is to 'lead by example'. 'Acceptance' is key here. Let us acknowledge and commend the Beijing Games. That does 'not' mean we shouldn't cast a critical eye over precedings or that we should be affraid to issue deep concern and advice to the Chinese people; we simply need to work with the system as well as to challenge it. To do otherwise would fuel bitterness and anamosity towards the West from those who 'know no better'. We need to build bridges to affect change not direct distain and blanket criticism.
In all of this, an argument can be made that the games were a real triumph for sport itself. The world celebrating sport and prepared to dedicate so much time, energy and resources serves to emphasis that humanity can trump sport above economic considerations. China's economy wound down for the Olympic games as other values gained prominence. Though we must recognise the increasing economic ties and economic justification with hosting such games, the games and its athletes won the hearts and minds of countless million spectators. They provided 'in themselves' great joy for Chinese people and the world.
Given that I've explicated points for consideration in how we ought to think about the China games, lets return to and reiterate the central guiding question here; how can we appreciate art and the asthetic dimensions of life given the moral and cognitive dimensions to which they are bound? Paradoxically it seems, to dismiss the aesthetic dimension in such a case, 'is' to act schizophrenically. That is to say; to deny or paint our very senses, our innate appreciation for beauty; is to truly become internally turmoiled. It is in recognising our paradoxes that we reconcile our paradoxes. Our appreciation of art does not take away from our moral fibre or our reasoning. Let us feel one thing but to think and speak another, that is what it can be to be human afterall...
See article: 'China's Totalitarian Games' ; http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/24/chinas_totalitarian_games/
See article; 'The price of the Chinese Olympic Games'; http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-olympics26-2008aug26,0,4466878.story
See article; 'Beijing Olympics London 2012 handover blow to British pride.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/london2012/2614357/Beijing-Olympics-London-2012-handover-blow-to-British-pride.htmlCopyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Smoking increases Stroke risk in women, analysis of news coverage!
Today, a flurry of news articles pick up on new research released which purports to 'show' smoking doubles stroke risk in young women, with heavy smokers nine times more at risk of stroke. This is just the latest in what seems like a bombardment of news reports on new research findings claiming to 'find this' or 'that'!
Certainly, as research studies on certain phenomena accumulate with peer 'overviews' undertaken; a better indication and understanding of 'causations' can come about. What's objectionable however, is the rush by news agencies to inadequately report on single research findings without providing accompanying limitations and critical analysis of such findings. Rarely do I see an adequate summary of the method used. The vast majority of readers are not trained in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Is it a case of news agencies (locked in an audience battle) wishing to overlook such realities in order to grab audience figures? Or it it just a case of scrappy and absent minded reporting? Take this latest research on smoking and stroke risk, out of several news articles published today (Reuters, efluxmedia, irishhealth etc), little to no proper analysis of the findings accompanied such research. Thus, here is my take on it:
It does seem compelling that smoking increases 'risk', we can point to the physiological changes such as those noted by Dr. David A. Meyerson from Johns Hopkins University Bayview Medical Center; "Smoking disrupts the cells lining the blood vessels. It increases blood fibrogen levels, which makes blood more likely to clot. It increases the stickiness of platelets, the cells that form blood clots, and it also decreases the body's natural clot-dissolving mechanism." (Meyerson, 2008)
But it is important to note, the research does not indicate whether smoking participants have similar diet and fitness levels to those who do not smoke. Thus, is the overall profile of smokers different to non-smokers? I suspect it could be! The research focuses on age and ethnicity but no other genetic/psycho/socio/environmental factors are mentioned in the reports which would play a role in risk assessment. Overall, the research may certainly indicate smoking increases 'risk', but figures such as 'double' or 'nine' times an increased risk of stroke; are ostensible at best.
For a research paper critically evaluating scientific claims, see http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Certainly, as research studies on certain phenomena accumulate with peer 'overviews' undertaken; a better indication and understanding of 'causations' can come about. What's objectionable however, is the rush by news agencies to inadequately report on single research findings without providing accompanying limitations and critical analysis of such findings. Rarely do I see an adequate summary of the method used. The vast majority of readers are not trained in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Is it a case of news agencies (locked in an audience battle) wishing to overlook such realities in order to grab audience figures? Or it it just a case of scrappy and absent minded reporting? Take this latest research on smoking and stroke risk, out of several news articles published today (Reuters, efluxmedia, irishhealth etc), little to no proper analysis of the findings accompanied such research. Thus, here is my take on it:
It does seem compelling that smoking increases 'risk', we can point to the physiological changes such as those noted by Dr. David A. Meyerson from Johns Hopkins University Bayview Medical Center; "Smoking disrupts the cells lining the blood vessels. It increases blood fibrogen levels, which makes blood more likely to clot. It increases the stickiness of platelets, the cells that form blood clots, and it also decreases the body's natural clot-dissolving mechanism." (Meyerson, 2008)
But it is important to note, the research does not indicate whether smoking participants have similar diet and fitness levels to those who do not smoke. Thus, is the overall profile of smokers different to non-smokers? I suspect it could be! The research focuses on age and ethnicity but no other genetic/psycho/socio/environmental factors are mentioned in the reports which would play a role in risk assessment. Overall, the research may certainly indicate smoking increases 'risk', but figures such as 'double' or 'nine' times an increased risk of stroke; are ostensible at best.
For a research paper critically evaluating scientific claims, see http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Analysis of discussion on reintroducing third level fees!
Are we unduly focusing on Government funded education without positioning it amongst wider budgetary constraints?
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. But has the debate gone wide enough? Are we unduly focusing in on third level education funding without orientating the debate amongst wider budgetary issues?
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. Over the weekend, Noel Whelan of the Irish Times writes;
'It was also argued then and can be argued even more justifiably now that free third-level education is socially regressive because it requires all taxpayers to subsidise a level of educational attainment which by its very nature will always be enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthier classes'
Colm argued that third level education is disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier classes but we must acknowledge too they disproportionately fund education. Similarly Mark Coleman from the Independent laments that the present system unfairly favours the middle and wealthier classes.
'But the main indictment of abolishing fees was that it never achieved what it was supposed to -- getting young people from low- income backgrounds into college. Ten years after abolition, the profile of third-level students remains strongly middle class.' (Coleman, 2008)
Essentially, back in 1993, restructuring of third level funding away from individual college goers and their families towards the general taxation system took place. Thus now, education is funded through the myriad of taxation mechanisms aimed at individuals and businesses. The 1993 move by the labour party was welcomed as 'visionary' by some, both in terms of lessening the financial burden and additionally in terms of removing the associated psychological barriers which particularly affect lower income categories. It has been deemed a success abeit arguably at the cost of underfunded universities and colleges. Though underfunding can arguably prompt lean, more efficient operations (particularly in terms of bureaucracy), it has been argued that research departments and the standards of undergraduate education have suffered in Irish colleges. There remains, it seems, much room for streamlining and efficiency of Irish educational institutions.
Given recent focus on third level fees, the overriding question remains; how do we ensure optimal equality and access to high quality third level education at the least possible cost? At present, college/university funding largely entails a mixture of 'registration fees', 'local authority grants', government funding on fees, 'inflated' foreign student fees, as well as university fund-raising and philanthropy. From a pragmatic stance we must ask; whether the present system is the most efficent and equitable means of funding third level education? or should we seriously consider a move to individualisation (individualisation being a somewhat hidden political agenda of the FF/PD partnership over the past 10 years, 'indirect taxes' or 'stealth taxes' etc.)? It has been suggested that such a move could draw more money from those on the upper-middle to high income bracket, thus improving university funding and the funding of those from lower income categories. Such a move may entail directly seeking fees from families at a certain income threshold, or implementing a student loan system. Two examples of which include the UK and the Australian systems.
Reflecting on the situation in the UK, it seems to me that there is the real danger (given a move to individualisation) of manifesting new invisible inequalities on certain members classed as middle income households. For example, those classed as upper-middle income, but who possess little discretionary income, may become unfairly burdened by the move. We must also reflect on how the 'idea' or 'notion' of 'free third level education' affects teenagers envisioning further education? In otherwards, there is the suspicion that abolition of fees has eased associated psychological barriers, primarily entailing the pressure to commit to a career path and the financial burden attached. Thus, there is for some, a psychological barrier to entering third-level education attached to the individualisation of university funding. Little to no research exists which attempts to quantify and understand how abolition of fees affects entry levels, such insights should be welcomed prior to a move to fees.
We must also question the real benefit and added costs involved in implementing 'reform'. Colm Harmon, UCD professor of economics and director of the UCD Geary Research Institute, calculates at best raising 100 million from high earners paying fees. A real danger too is that, being a political move; the annual 2bn euro education budget may seriously diminish as a result, with perhaps no transparency in its reallocation. The government currently pays third level fees to the tune of 250 million. Thus, what guarantees do we have with regard to how savings made from the abolition of government funded fees are reallocated? Should we expect increased funding for primary/secondary level? In otherwards, emphasising the long term, will this money remain ring-fensed in education? The reality is that government coffers are being heavily squeezed with ongoing pressure for cuts and savings in all government departments as a result of the well acknowledged economic downturn. O'Keefe (who in some ways instigated a rather brilliant but hard-ball political move) may be rightly focusing national attention on education funding, but we must acknowledge that many government departments currently face funding pressures and shortfalls.
In sum, the debate concerning education needs to be orientated around government finances overall. Thus, if we wish to draw money from wealthier individuals and households in view of financial pressures coming from various government departments (not just education), should we not debate increasing the higher 41% tax band? increasing corporation taxes? Or considering 'individualisation' measures in the form of 'stealth taxes'? Should focus and emphasis not lie instead on stimulating the economy and developing strategies to ensure sound long term fundamentals and a desirable revenue stream? (thus, lowering instead of increasing taxes might be the appropriate policy) Would such measures better benefit education funding and other government funding requirements in the long run? Overall, it seems pertinent to question what are the alternatives to reintroducing fees, which can serve to avoid the political unpleasantaries for all involved?
Importantly, by instigating this debate, discussion on related issues has followed; such that granting better third level access to lower income and disadvantaged groups requires increased emphasis and funding for primary and secondary level education. Scrutiny of the efficency and operations of third level institutions has also resulted from ongoing dialogue.
Finally, the issue is not just one of pragmatics (which some would wish you to believe ) in terms of quantifiable access levels to education and reducing inequality. It is also one of 'percieved' and 'real'; flexibility, choice and freedom in ones education. It is also about theunquantifiable benefits to Irish society as a whole. O'Keefe rightly instigated a debate. Lets just hope such a debate is thourough, insightful and fruitful!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. But has the debate gone wide enough? Are we unduly focusing in on third level education funding without orientating the debate amongst wider budgetary issues?
The discussion on reintroducing third level fees has certainly begun. Over the weekend, Noel Whelan of the Irish Times writes;
'It was also argued then and can be argued even more justifiably now that free third-level education is socially regressive because it requires all taxpayers to subsidise a level of educational attainment which by its very nature will always be enjoyed disproportionately by the wealthier classes'
Colm argued that third level education is disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier classes but we must acknowledge too they disproportionately fund education. Similarly Mark Coleman from the Independent laments that the present system unfairly favours the middle and wealthier classes.
'But the main indictment of abolishing fees was that it never achieved what it was supposed to -- getting young people from low- income backgrounds into college. Ten years after abolition, the profile of third-level students remains strongly middle class.' (Coleman, 2008)
Essentially, back in 1993, restructuring of third level funding away from individual college goers and their families towards the general taxation system took place. Thus now, education is funded through the myriad of taxation mechanisms aimed at individuals and businesses. The 1993 move by the labour party was welcomed as 'visionary' by some, both in terms of lessening the financial burden and additionally in terms of removing the associated psychological barriers which particularly affect lower income categories. It has been deemed a success abeit arguably at the cost of underfunded universities and colleges. Though underfunding can arguably prompt lean, more efficient operations (particularly in terms of bureaucracy), it has been argued that research departments and the standards of undergraduate education have suffered in Irish colleges. There remains, it seems, much room for streamlining and efficiency of Irish educational institutions.
Given recent focus on third level fees, the overriding question remains; how do we ensure optimal equality and access to high quality third level education at the least possible cost? At present, college/university funding largely entails a mixture of 'registration fees', 'local authority grants', government funding on fees, 'inflated' foreign student fees, as well as university fund-raising and philanthropy. From a pragmatic stance we must ask; whether the present system is the most efficent and equitable means of funding third level education? or should we seriously consider a move to individualisation (individualisation being a somewhat hidden political agenda of the FF/PD partnership over the past 10 years, 'indirect taxes' or 'stealth taxes' etc.)? It has been suggested that such a move could draw more money from those on the upper-middle to high income bracket, thus improving university funding and the funding of those from lower income categories. Such a move may entail directly seeking fees from families at a certain income threshold, or implementing a student loan system. Two examples of which include the UK and the Australian systems.
Reflecting on the situation in the UK, it seems to me that there is the real danger (given a move to individualisation) of manifesting new invisible inequalities on certain members classed as middle income households. For example, those classed as upper-middle income, but who possess little discretionary income, may become unfairly burdened by the move. We must also reflect on how the 'idea' or 'notion' of 'free third level education' affects teenagers envisioning further education? In otherwards, there is the suspicion that abolition of fees has eased associated psychological barriers, primarily entailing the pressure to commit to a career path and the financial burden attached. Thus, there is for some, a psychological barrier to entering third-level education attached to the individualisation of university funding. Little to no research exists which attempts to quantify and understand how abolition of fees affects entry levels, such insights should be welcomed prior to a move to fees.
We must also question the real benefit and added costs involved in implementing 'reform'. Colm Harmon, UCD professor of economics and director of the UCD Geary Research Institute, calculates at best raising 100 million from high earners paying fees. A real danger too is that, being a political move; the annual 2bn euro education budget may seriously diminish as a result, with perhaps no transparency in its reallocation. The government currently pays third level fees to the tune of 250 million. Thus, what guarantees do we have with regard to how savings made from the abolition of government funded fees are reallocated? Should we expect increased funding for primary/secondary level? In otherwards, emphasising the long term, will this money remain ring-fensed in education? The reality is that government coffers are being heavily squeezed with ongoing pressure for cuts and savings in all government departments as a result of the well acknowledged economic downturn. O'Keefe (who in some ways instigated a rather brilliant but hard-ball political move) may be rightly focusing national attention on education funding, but we must acknowledge that many government departments currently face funding pressures and shortfalls.
In sum, the debate concerning education needs to be orientated around government finances overall. Thus, if we wish to draw money from wealthier individuals and households in view of financial pressures coming from various government departments (not just education), should we not debate increasing the higher 41% tax band? increasing corporation taxes? Or considering 'individualisation' measures in the form of 'stealth taxes'? Should focus and emphasis not lie instead on stimulating the economy and developing strategies to ensure sound long term fundamentals and a desirable revenue stream? (thus, lowering instead of increasing taxes might be the appropriate policy) Would such measures better benefit education funding and other government funding requirements in the long run? Overall, it seems pertinent to question what are the alternatives to reintroducing fees, which can serve to avoid the political unpleasantaries for all involved?
Importantly, by instigating this debate, discussion on related issues has followed; such that granting better third level access to lower income and disadvantaged groups requires increased emphasis and funding for primary and secondary level education. Scrutiny of the efficency and operations of third level institutions has also resulted from ongoing dialogue.
Finally, the issue is not just one of pragmatics (which some would wish you to believe ) in terms of quantifiable access levels to education and reducing inequality. It is also one of 'percieved' and 'real'; flexibility, choice and freedom in ones education. It is also about theunquantifiable benefits to Irish society as a whole. O'Keefe rightly instigated a debate. Lets just hope such a debate is thourough, insightful and fruitful!
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Heat and humidity can 'clear the mind'?
A recent BBC article entitled; "Bejing heat 'could clear minds'", suggests that research shows higher humidity can result in athletes 'drawing' on mental 'reserves' allowing improved mental performance. In response, a more accurate conclusion may be that 'humidity' forces individuals to adapt by focusing and increasing concentration.
Take for example a recent small study into those who smoke 'weed' before driving. Here, it was found that performance did not diminish but improved primarily because the participating driver remarked that he concentrated and focused more to counteract the effect of the weed. So the weed forced a 'conscious' response as heat or humidity may force such a similar response. Alternatively, it could be argued that heat dampens one's full spectrum of consciousness leaving an individual with a more skewed or focused consciousness, which may be conducive to completing 'single' tasks or 'focused decision making' more successfully.
It must also be noted that if the 'two' hockey players were asked to complete tasks on a treadmill under normal conditions first, it could certainly have skewed results, as players would have been 'primed' to additional decision making when humidity was increased. In anycase, two players seems an extremely small number for testing and there would have to be shown a relatively high 'significant difference' in mental performance to validate results.
Thus, again we find research with knowledge 'claims' which require a degree of skeptisim, research that under testing appears to show two phenomena correlating, but whose explanation for such an 'observed' correlation requires reservation and further testing.
Full article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7547937.stm
Take for example a recent small study into those who smoke 'weed' before driving. Here, it was found that performance did not diminish but improved primarily because the participating driver remarked that he concentrated and focused more to counteract the effect of the weed. So the weed forced a 'conscious' response as heat or humidity may force such a similar response. Alternatively, it could be argued that heat dampens one's full spectrum of consciousness leaving an individual with a more skewed or focused consciousness, which may be conducive to completing 'single' tasks or 'focused decision making' more successfully.
It must also be noted that if the 'two' hockey players were asked to complete tasks on a treadmill under normal conditions first, it could certainly have skewed results, as players would have been 'primed' to additional decision making when humidity was increased. In anycase, two players seems an extremely small number for testing and there would have to be shown a relatively high 'significant difference' in mental performance to validate results.
Thus, again we find research with knowledge 'claims' which require a degree of skeptisim, research that under testing appears to show two phenomena correlating, but whose explanation for such an 'observed' correlation requires reservation and further testing.
Full article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7547937.stm
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
A response to Michael Caseys Article on Wealth and Values in the Irish Times.
Killing the myth that Ireland's wealth has poisoned its values - a response.
Michael Casey, a former chief economist today wrote an article in 'The Irish Times' entitled "Killing the myth that Ireland's wealth has poisoned its values" in which he attempting to dispel the 'myth' that wealth has poisoned Irish peoples values. In response, he is most certainly correct in believing that wealth cannot 'determine' a societies derision of values, but neglects to paint a clearer understanding of how wealth and values converge. In response, it could be argued that wealth opens the door to new 'negative' value thinking as it can close the door to others. Furthermore, as I will show, some of his own comments in the article require further careful consideration.
Firstly, in defence of Casey's belief that wealth and affluence does not deteriorate values, there is the argument of the rise of post-materialist values (the silent revolution) which has been popularised by Inglehart. It professes a transcendence of material values to that of more ethical and asesthetical values when material needs have been met or are not at issue. This would certainly throw positive light on the values of a wealthy, affluent Irish society. If material well-being is not an issue, other positive values can flourish. Unfortunately, one could argue that material values can be difficult to shake off or avoid, particularly for those who have made the 'transition' to wealthier circumstances. They can remain as a point of reference, a familiar habit, which doesn't necessarily diminish quickly. In addition, it can again be argued that material values are not in themselves illegitimate values, the issue again is the threat of their all pervasiveness. In anycase; material values exist regardless of social class to some degree.
Casey's deriding as (largely) nonsense those puritanical ideas, such that wealth creates commodification (leading to us valuing ourselves and others by what we have); requires further analyses. Casey, through the article, seems to rightly object to determinist thinking (and by use of the term 'puritanical', he also objects to 'blanketed' or 'extreme' outlooks). However, to present money as 'neutral' seems to miss the point that 'money' forces 'action' on the individual. Choices are never unlimited, some people can choose inaction as their response, for others, that choice may not have been 'learned' or may not be an 'option'. People are to some degree constrained by their past, in terms of their knowledge, their experiences, their 'worldview' or 'meta-narrative'. Thus, for some, 'wealth' becomes a causal link to a pervasive commodification of life and the tendency has been for class climbers to fall in this myopic trap. In sum, Casey rightly ojects to negative 'puritanical' outlooks on wealth and values but fails to stress that such concerns are legitimate, albeit overestimated to the extreme.
Of particular interest was his view that money 'doesn't change anybody: it allows people to express their individuality more fully.' Again, this requires further careful elaboration as Casey wrongly seems to imply that 'individuality' is a static entity. People have a tendency to adapt to their circumstance, their environment. Money, manifests a new set of circumstances for the individual and their prior 'self' influences (but does not determine) how they respond. In other words, 'money' may change the individual or it may not. Thus, suggesting as Casey does, that it is unlikely that money will change ones preferences and priorities; 'is' determinist thinking' and out of sync with his general argument.
His belief that a 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality, 'living beyond means', 'inconspicuous consumption', 'expenditure on appearance' and on designer goods; is but due to the speed with which one becomes affluent, seems to me to be an ill fit. Many of these trait are endemic at all societal classes and are a general feature of social life as a result of unshakeable stratification in various facets of life coupled with ones 'worldview'.
It seems to me that a more balanced analysis overall is that wealth can open the door to negative values as it closes the door to others. For example, it can open the door to new forms of hypocrisy and self-righteousness; for example those who can afford to live cleaner and greener lives make veritable but (overall) superficial changes to their lifestyle; such as buying organic and fair-trade though continuing to splurge on every other aspect of their life such as energy in heating and lighting of homes etc. At the same time, they may frown on those without the knowledge or capital to have the same choices. Indifference to the situation of individuals from poorer backgrounds is another poignant example. The standpoint epistemology (or outlook) of individuals from wealthy backgrounds ,means they may not possibly grasp, empathaise or understand the life path and situation of those from unprivileged backgrounds. The same is true at the opposite end of the spectrum.
In addition, Wealth may open the possibility for a pathological emphasis on vanity, status, material wealth. This is not to say that fashion, food and retail are not legitimate forms in the lifeworld, the issue is the all-pervasiveness with which they can take hold of the individual because of the increased availability, ease of consumption and greater pervasiveness of the market into the individuals life, particularly in the absence of little else. In otherwards, wealth can bring the market closer into the individuals life.
Overall, what Casey fails to explore in his article are the issues surrounding capitalism and of in-equality; the pervasiveness of capitalism into modern life (for example advertising, short life cycle of products, shopping as a pasttime) and the rising gap between rich and poor. In a meta-physical vacuum, individuals find meaning in the market and the values of the economic sphere, in science and its methodical reasoning away of the world. The economic sphere triumphs the assigning and 'exchanging' of differential value and worth above all else. The sciences triumph reductionist and narrow empirical based scientific results; attempting to find single causal explanations for everything. These spheres hold values other than love, giving, kindness, friendship as values in them selves. In a scientific-capitalist orientated society, wealth facilitates the integration of individuals into such a way of life. Wealth brings new possibilities and compels choices, not all these will be positive.
Related Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0808/1...ia=mr
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Michael Casey, a former chief economist today wrote an article in 'The Irish Times' entitled "Killing the myth that Ireland's wealth has poisoned its values" in which he attempting to dispel the 'myth' that wealth has poisoned Irish peoples values. In response, he is most certainly correct in believing that wealth cannot 'determine' a societies derision of values, but neglects to paint a clearer understanding of how wealth and values converge. In response, it could be argued that wealth opens the door to new 'negative' value thinking as it can close the door to others. Furthermore, as I will show, some of his own comments in the article require further careful consideration.
Firstly, in defence of Casey's belief that wealth and affluence does not deteriorate values, there is the argument of the rise of post-materialist values (the silent revolution) which has been popularised by Inglehart. It professes a transcendence of material values to that of more ethical and asesthetical values when material needs have been met or are not at issue. This would certainly throw positive light on the values of a wealthy, affluent Irish society. If material well-being is not an issue, other positive values can flourish. Unfortunately, one could argue that material values can be difficult to shake off or avoid, particularly for those who have made the 'transition' to wealthier circumstances. They can remain as a point of reference, a familiar habit, which doesn't necessarily diminish quickly. In addition, it can again be argued that material values are not in themselves illegitimate values, the issue again is the threat of their all pervasiveness. In anycase; material values exist regardless of social class to some degree.
Casey's deriding as (largely) nonsense those puritanical ideas, such that wealth creates commodification (leading to us valuing ourselves and others by what we have); requires further analyses. Casey, through the article, seems to rightly object to determinist thinking (and by use of the term 'puritanical', he also objects to 'blanketed' or 'extreme' outlooks). However, to present money as 'neutral' seems to miss the point that 'money' forces 'action' on the individual. Choices are never unlimited, some people can choose inaction as their response, for others, that choice may not have been 'learned' or may not be an 'option'. People are to some degree constrained by their past, in terms of their knowledge, their experiences, their 'worldview' or 'meta-narrative'. Thus, for some, 'wealth' becomes a causal link to a pervasive commodification of life and the tendency has been for class climbers to fall in this myopic trap. In sum, Casey rightly ojects to negative 'puritanical' outlooks on wealth and values but fails to stress that such concerns are legitimate, albeit overestimated to the extreme.
Of particular interest was his view that money 'doesn't change anybody: it allows people to express their individuality more fully.' Again, this requires further careful elaboration as Casey wrongly seems to imply that 'individuality' is a static entity. People have a tendency to adapt to their circumstance, their environment. Money, manifests a new set of circumstances for the individual and their prior 'self' influences (but does not determine) how they respond. In other words, 'money' may change the individual or it may not. Thus, suggesting as Casey does, that it is unlikely that money will change ones preferences and priorities; 'is' determinist thinking' and out of sync with his general argument.
His belief that a 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality, 'living beyond means', 'inconspicuous consumption', 'expenditure on appearance' and on designer goods; is but due to the speed with which one becomes affluent, seems to me to be an ill fit. Many of these trait are endemic at all societal classes and are a general feature of social life as a result of unshakeable stratification in various facets of life coupled with ones 'worldview'.
It seems to me that a more balanced analysis overall is that wealth can open the door to negative values as it closes the door to others. For example, it can open the door to new forms of hypocrisy and self-righteousness; for example those who can afford to live cleaner and greener lives make veritable but (overall) superficial changes to their lifestyle; such as buying organic and fair-trade though continuing to splurge on every other aspect of their life such as energy in heating and lighting of homes etc. At the same time, they may frown on those without the knowledge or capital to have the same choices. Indifference to the situation of individuals from poorer backgrounds is another poignant example. The standpoint epistemology (or outlook) of individuals from wealthy backgrounds ,means they may not possibly grasp, empathaise or understand the life path and situation of those from unprivileged backgrounds. The same is true at the opposite end of the spectrum.
In addition, Wealth may open the possibility for a pathological emphasis on vanity, status, material wealth. This is not to say that fashion, food and retail are not legitimate forms in the lifeworld, the issue is the all-pervasiveness with which they can take hold of the individual because of the increased availability, ease of consumption and greater pervasiveness of the market into the individuals life, particularly in the absence of little else. In otherwards, wealth can bring the market closer into the individuals life.
Overall, what Casey fails to explore in his article are the issues surrounding capitalism and of in-equality; the pervasiveness of capitalism into modern life (for example advertising, short life cycle of products, shopping as a pasttime) and the rising gap between rich and poor. In a meta-physical vacuum, individuals find meaning in the market and the values of the economic sphere, in science and its methodical reasoning away of the world. The economic sphere triumphs the assigning and 'exchanging' of differential value and worth above all else. The sciences triumph reductionist and narrow empirical based scientific results; attempting to find single causal explanations for everything. These spheres hold values other than love, giving, kindness, friendship as values in them selves. In a scientific-capitalist orientated society, wealth facilitates the integration of individuals into such a way of life. Wealth brings new possibilities and compels choices, not all these will be positive.
Related Link: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0808/1...ia=mr
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
New research finds 'Soy' may halve sperm count, what are the possible implications?
New research published finds that even modest regular Soy consumption may half male sperm count. However, empirical evidence has yet to show any link between soy consumption and fertility rates. Thus, there has yet to be shown any negative impact on population as a result of widespread soy consumption. Specifically, research needs to be done into whether Asian men who eat significantly more soy based products are affected with higher infertility rates and whether population levels are affected.
This could become pivotal scientific research: firstly, because with widepread media coverage, it may harm the soy industry; curbing demand for soy and soy based products(though soy only reduces sperm count and does't cause infertility).
Secondly and more significantly, imagine the possibilities and implications of such research: For example, policies impacting developing countries could be influenced by such lines of research. Stabilising world population through favouring the production and distribution of soy products (or food stuffs with similar properties) could be envisioned by such policy makers for underdeveloped or developing countries. Are there other foods which adversely affect sperm count? Could such foods ethically be justified and promoted in developing countries where population growth is a problem? In otherwords, here is a clear example of research with unforeseen and possibly unenvisaged consequences. Can policy makers with an agenda remain uninfluenced when such knowledge comes their way? We are it seems, living in an increasingly complex and contingent 21st century, where the expanding 'production' of knowledge 'claims' requires evermore vigilance and cautiousness.
For a detailed news article, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
This could become pivotal scientific research: firstly, because with widepread media coverage, it may harm the soy industry; curbing demand for soy and soy based products(though soy only reduces sperm count and does't cause infertility).
Secondly and more significantly, imagine the possibilities and implications of such research: For example, policies impacting developing countries could be influenced by such lines of research. Stabilising world population through favouring the production and distribution of soy products (or food stuffs with similar properties) could be envisioned by such policy makers for underdeveloped or developing countries. Are there other foods which adversely affect sperm count? Could such foods ethically be justified and promoted in developing countries where population growth is a problem? In otherwords, here is a clear example of research with unforeseen and possibly unenvisaged consequences. Can policy makers with an agenda remain uninfluenced when such knowledge comes their way? We are it seems, living in an increasingly complex and contingent 21st century, where the expanding 'production' of knowledge 'claims' requires evermore vigilance and cautiousness.
For a detailed news article, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7519459.stm
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Lidl calls Tesco product's 'Trash' in Ryanair style advertising blitz!
Over the weekend, Lidl 'Ireland' ramped up the ongoing 'battle of the supermarkets' with an explosive 'Ryanairesque' style advertising campaign entitled; "Don't spend your cash on trash", in direct response to Tesco's recent 'cash savers' campaign and promotions; which attempted to position Tesco products on a similar price footing to that of Lidl and Aldi. The campaign accuses Tesco of selling 'trash' food products, by likening the percentage of key ingredients of some Tesco products with that of Lidl. Lidl argument is that key ingredients such as pork content in sausage meat and fruit in Jams and conserves are noticably higher in Lidl products. Tesco had been attempted to compare 'like for like' its own product line in terms of price, with that of Lidl.
The question which needs to be asked is whether Lidl has severely overstepped the mark in terms of 'attention grabbing advertising' (pioneered in Ireland and elsewhere by 'Ryanair'), have standards in advertising been eroded? Furthermore, what are the implications and repercussions of calling food, 'Trash' being sold by Tesco and other supermarkets?
Certainly, Tesco can counter that regardless of the meat content in such products, they remain 'food' and not 'trash'. Furthermore, in many areas where Lidl and Aldi are not available, shoppers who can only afford to purchase Tesco 'cash saver' items, shouldn't be made to feel that they are buying 'trash' because they cannot afford sausage rolls that are 15% percent higher in meat content than that of similar products. (It is worth noting that even the 27% pork content in Lidl sausage rolls seems extremely low in anycase!) In addition, there is a noticable difference between meat which has (for example) been labeled 80% meat content with that being labeled 80% 'lean' meat content. In otherwords, from my experience; 'meat' can be anything from cartilage, grissle and tissue to animal fat. Thus, there is a separate yet related issue of the 'purity' of the ingredients used. Finally, by focusing on just one ingredient of a product and listing it as superior because of a higher percentage; Lidl is ignoring all other ingredients of a product such as the percentage and kinds of preservatives and flavour enhancers used etc.
Thus, the argument I am making is that Lidl's advertising campaign is crude, possibly disingenous and downright offensive to Tesco, its producers and the people who have no choice but to purchase them! What I would like to see is a supermarket war which focuses on the quality and 'goodness' of the products in their totality rather than on one key ingredient. Even then, I object to food being labeled 'trash' on the grounds of semantics, even though I recognise that some 'value' products are limited in terms of 'purity' and 'nutritional content'. Ultimately, do supermarkets really need to stoop to this level? Will this open the floodgates to supermarkets and companies accusing rivals of selling trash? Who knows, but the next 6 months may be an interesting time in the grocery retail sector if Lidl's campaign is anything to go by!
The question which needs to be asked is whether Lidl has severely overstepped the mark in terms of 'attention grabbing advertising' (pioneered in Ireland and elsewhere by 'Ryanair'), have standards in advertising been eroded? Furthermore, what are the implications and repercussions of calling food, 'Trash' being sold by Tesco and other supermarkets?
Certainly, Tesco can counter that regardless of the meat content in such products, they remain 'food' and not 'trash'. Furthermore, in many areas where Lidl and Aldi are not available, shoppers who can only afford to purchase Tesco 'cash saver' items, shouldn't be made to feel that they are buying 'trash' because they cannot afford sausage rolls that are 15% percent higher in meat content than that of similar products. (It is worth noting that even the 27% pork content in Lidl sausage rolls seems extremely low in anycase!) In addition, there is a noticable difference between meat which has (for example) been labeled 80% meat content with that being labeled 80% 'lean' meat content. In otherwords, from my experience; 'meat' can be anything from cartilage, grissle and tissue to animal fat. Thus, there is a separate yet related issue of the 'purity' of the ingredients used. Finally, by focusing on just one ingredient of a product and listing it as superior because of a higher percentage; Lidl is ignoring all other ingredients of a product such as the percentage and kinds of preservatives and flavour enhancers used etc.
Thus, the argument I am making is that Lidl's advertising campaign is crude, possibly disingenous and downright offensive to Tesco, its producers and the people who have no choice but to purchase them! What I would like to see is a supermarket war which focuses on the quality and 'goodness' of the products in their totality rather than on one key ingredient. Even then, I object to food being labeled 'trash' on the grounds of semantics, even though I recognise that some 'value' products are limited in terms of 'purity' and 'nutritional content'. Ultimately, do supermarkets really need to stoop to this level? Will this open the floodgates to supermarkets and companies accusing rivals of selling trash? Who knows, but the next 6 months may be an interesting time in the grocery retail sector if Lidl's campaign is anything to go by!
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Online community 'concocts' neighbourhood eatery
See the Washington Times article for details:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601978.html?hpid=topnews
I'm particularily interested in this venture because of the grassroots nature of organisation and the role of ICT's (through the online community etc.) in bringing this venture to fruition. The Washington Times operationalises the concept of 'crowdsourcing' in describing the phenomenon of ideas and plans being brought to fruition via outsourcing to interested members with specialised expertise (in many cases assisted through information communication technologies), drawing comparison with the principles of the open-source movement. It will in many ways be a novel approach to planning an establishment . Whether the establishment becomes a success (thus living up to the hopes and aspirations of its community of organisers) will be crucial to similar future projects.
Finally, a few observations on the venture:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601978.html?hpid=topnews
I'm particularily interested in this venture because of the grassroots nature of organisation and the role of ICT's (through the online community etc.) in bringing this venture to fruition. The Washington Times operationalises the concept of 'crowdsourcing' in describing the phenomenon of ideas and plans being brought to fruition via outsourcing to interested members with specialised expertise (in many cases assisted through information communication technologies), drawing comparison with the principles of the open-source movement. It will in many ways be a novel approach to planning an establishment . Whether the establishment becomes a success (thus living up to the hopes and aspirations of its community of organisers) will be crucial to similar future projects.
Finally, a few observations on the venture:
- Large community input into the project inevidably means that it will become a rather complex venture; in the sense that a raft of ideas and expection of their implementation will be forthcoming. Whether the project can facilitate and appease the input of its members and go on to efficently manage this complexity has yet to be shown.
-As it's become a community venture, the design of the cafe/eatery will most likely have to accomodate its community by adhering to principles of an effective 'Third Place'. Whether this conflicts with this establishment as a business venture and its desired profitability will certainly be of utmost importance.
-Once the establishment launches, It will be interesting to see how ICT's (such as the existing online community aspect) facilitate's its perpetuation as a crowd-sourced project. For example could a service like LastFM be utilised in providing music which represents the members of the venture etc. How will ICT's faciliate communication and co-ordination with local producers such as the 'Artisans' and 'Organic Farmers'. Can online web 2.0 technologies be effectively utilised in the organising and time-tabling of events etc.
Copyright © 2006-2009 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Beware of of the Steyn's of this world....
I seldom read editorials, opinion pieces or commentary on people and events these days and my argument and indeed suggestion is for you to do the same! I realised some time ago that to passively do so is to allow others to implicitly and explicitly influence how I think. Go ahead and ask yourselves these questions; Do I want to be another consumer, a vessel, a mouthpiece for other peoples ideas? Do I want to choose what I read to legitimise and reinforce what I think? Do I lazily want others to crystalise for me what I can already know and thus stunt my own capacity for thought? Do I wish to display information about everything but possess knowledge and wisdom of nothing; as I read the thoughts of others with little knowledge of the contexts from which they've arisen or the assumptions and values laden in their words? It seems that for many in the masses; current affairs and politics has become a competitive sport, a pastime for some and for others an expression of their character; it may be ingrained in their identity from early on or it may be a manifestation of their wants (to be more than they are etc.), their insecurities (the need for peer acceptance), and their pathologies ('intellectual narcissim' etc.) Granted that 'yes', as democratic citizens and as individuals who wish their reality to align with the masses; keeping in touch with the issues that affect your life is vital, for a healthy democracy and for an individuals capacity for action. Analysis and opinion are vital for many to gain 'perspectives' and diversity of viewpoints, so as to make decisions for themselves. What I am arguing here is to become acutely aware of those who go beyond giving you the 'facts', who go beyond giving a perspective, that is to say, be very beware of the Steyn's of this world. Be very aware of those who effectively offer-up how and what you should think, be aware of the messages, the preferences, the assumptions or even the agenda's underlying many societal commentators. To demonstrate what I am getting at, below I've provided a brief analysis of just one of Mark Steyn's 'opinion' pieces:
Post 'Post-Racial Candidate'
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the
campaign trail.
By Mark Steyn
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Post 'Post-Racial Candidate'
Things get out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts on the
campaign trail.
By Mark Steyn
'I'm sure," said Barack Obama in that
sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac,
fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, "many of you have
heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you
strongly disagreed."
Well, yes. But not many of us
have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are
stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. (interestingly
all religion is a leap of faith which atheists as well as
alternative religions would cast as nuts!) Unlike Bill
Clinton, whose legions of "spiritual advisers" at the
height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps,
Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult
life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the
president presumptive. (Here he is over
exaggerating Clinton's use of 'spiritual advisor's' and
under-estimating Obamas for dramatic effect.) The
Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of
the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that
went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for
the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The
government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright
knows the truth. "The government lied," he told his flock,
"about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against
people of color. The government lied."
Does he really
believe this? If
so, he's crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish,
certainly not for 20 years. (Here Mark
(in few words) appears to use a rhetorical question (where the
answer is now common knowledge) for the purpose of brushing off the
Reverend as overall
'Crazy' over one
of his beliefs as well as
casting off the thousands of his followers as insane and inferring
that Obama sat through 20 years of what Mark has brushed off as a
crazy person . The reality is that Obama claims never to have been
aware of the HIV conspiracy and upon hearing it has described it as
"off the wall". None the less, many people have 'crazy
ideas' but to brush a person off based on one could be considered
morally, socially and politically dangerous. Obama doesn't have to
agree with every persons ideas in order to be in their company or
listen to what they have to say. Does buying into one conspiracy
leave a man out of touch with reality in all other respects? (The
same could be said for buying into a particular religion)
Furthermore, should sane people avoid contact with 'insane' people?
Could it not be argued that by listening to diversity of opinion and
such 'insane ideas, one can cement or perhaps crystallise one's own
sane opinions and crucially maintain ones open-mindedness. Should
Mark not instead be trying to assess fairly the Reverend Wright
(avoiding casting outright labels
of 'crazy person' etc.) and perhaps
then begging the question of whether Obama has merit in retaining
his pastor of 20 years given that he holds a conspiracy theory which
Obama describes as downright 'off the wall'. The debate could then
move to asking whether Obama has legitimate reasoning in retaining
the pastor and if not 'Why?')
Or is
he just saying it? In which case, he's profoundly wicked.
(Again, the question is used as a
prop and a sensationalist one at that)
If you understand that AIDs is spread by sexual promiscuity
and drug use, you'll know that it's within your power to protect
yourself from the disease. If you're told
that it's just whitey's latest cunning plot to stick it to you,
well, hey, it's out of your hands, nothing to do with you or your
behavior. (Off the cauf remarks
like this even for commentary seem extremely unwise. Again he's
opened up a whole line of detailed argumentation without addressing
any of it in any meaningful way)
Before the
speech, Slate's Mickey Kaus advised Senator Obama (???)
to give us a Sister Souljah moment: "There are plenty of
potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock
births," he wrote. "But most of all the victim mentality
that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright's most
infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are
the evil actions of others, of other races."
(no reference given to specific
article.) Indeed. It makes no difference to white folks
when a black pastor inflicts kook genocide theories on his
congregation: The victims (the use
of the word victim seems ill suited. Does the 'mistake' of believing
something considered by most as "ludicrous" make you a
victim? Is the Reverend committing some kind of crime? In holding
and preaching his ideas?) are those in his audience who
make the mistake of believing him. The Reverend Wright has a hugely
popular church with over 8,000 members, and Senator Obama assures us
that his pastor does good work by "reaching out to those
suffering from HIV/AIDs." But maybe he wouldn't
have to quite so much (grammatical
error) "reaching out" to do and maybe there
wouldn't be quite so many black Americans "suffering from
HIV/AIDs" if the likes of Wright weren't peddling lunatic
conspiracy theories to his own community. (suggesting
that the Reverend could be inadvertently contributing to a higher
percentage of AID's sufferers in his community without referring to
any kind of research or evidence that shows a direct link in this
case or any other, seems extremely unwise. It could be argued from
his line of thinking that those with less critical minds become
victims to his style of writing where numerous explicit and implicit
opinions and assumptions are conveyed throughout his
articles.)
Nonetheless, last week, Barack
Obama told America: "I can no more disown him than I can disown
the black community."
What is the plain meaning of
that sentence? (It is unwise to try and
separate a sentence from the specific context and passages from
which it is given. Senator Obama was trying to convey his value
preference for a more holistic way of viewing people (that been
accepting and encompassing), perceived flaws and all. Thus, should
Mark be asking such a question? He goes on to use the question to
propel the second question:) That
the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the
established cultural discourse in African-American life and thus
must command our respect? (verges on a
rhetorical question) Let us take the senator at
his word (The sentence carries the
connotation that there may be times when he shouldn't be taken at
his word) when he says he chanced (???)
not to be present on AIDs Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America
Sunday, or U.S. of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11
America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would
have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black
liberation theology going on at his church. (It's
also a case that Senator Obama would not have had the choice of
distancing himself from it) But Obama did something far
more audacious (the use of the word
which is defined from daring to reckless is presumptuous and is a
detailed line of inquiry in itself): Instead of
distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap
between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that
the guy is not just his crazy uncle
(has the effect of drawing close
connection between Obama and Wright) but America's,
too.
To do this, he promoted a false equivalence. (He
doesn't appear to have proven a false equivalence) "I
can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother," he
continued. "A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed
again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves
anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of
black men who passed by her on the street." Well, according to
the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on
her bus, and he wasn't merely "passing by." When the
British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest
cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the
Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: "Greater love hath no
man than to lay down his friends for his life." In
Philadelphia, Senator Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man
than to lay down his gran'ma for his life. (good
point and well delivered) In the days that followed,
Obama's interviewers seemed grateful for the introduction of a less
complicated villain: Unlike the Reverend Wright, she doesn't want
God to damn America for being no better than al-Qaeda, but on the
other hand she did once express her apprehension about a black man
on the bus. It's surely only a matter of days before Keith Olbermann
on MSNBC names her his "Worst Person In The World." Asked
about the sin of racism beating within Gran'ma's breast, Obama said
on TV (what exactly was asked? A
quotation would be helpful here!!) that "she's a
typical white person."
Which doesn't sound like the sort
of thing the supposed "post-racial" candidate ought to be
saying, (good point) but
let that pass. How "typically white" is Obama's
grandmother? She is the woman who raised him — that's to say,
she brought up a black grandchild and loved him unconditionally.
Burning deep down inside, she may nurse a secret desire to be Simon
Legree or Bull Connor, but it doesn't seem very likely. She does
then, in her own flawed way, represent a post-racial America.
(more accurately, she may represent
the transition period to a post-racial America) But what
of her equivalent (as Obama's speech had it)? Is Jeremiah Wright a
"typical black person"? One would hope not. A century
and a half after the Civil War, two generations after the Civil
Rights Act, the Reverend Wright promotes victimization
theses more insane than anything promulgated at the height of
slavery (again, this
opens up a whole line of detailed enquiry to ascertain a conclusion)
or the Jim Crow era. You can understand why Obama is so anxious
to meet with President Ahmadinejad, a man who denies the last
Holocaust even as he plans the next one. Such a summit would be easy
listening after the more robust sermons of Jeremiah Wright.
But
America is not Ahmadinejad's Iran. Free societies live in truth
(infers that there is absolute and not
relative truth and assumes there is such thing as a 'free society'),
not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a
fraud, a crock, a mountebank — for, if this truly
were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black
people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth?
(Again he pitches his propaganda that
Jeremiah Wright's preaching increases the contraction of HIV in his
community. He does this in a rather cruel way and at this stage in
the article has effectively gone beyond the bounds of public
character defamation). It is Barack Obama's choice to
entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their
entire lives, but in Philadelphia the
senator attempted to
universalize his peculiar (personal
judment that the judgement is peculiar)
judgment — to
claim that, given America's history, it would be unreasonable to
expect black men of Jeremiah Wright's generation not to peddle
hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn't that — what's the word? —
racist? So much for the post-racial candidate. (It
could be counter-propositioned that Obama was placing men like
Jeremiah Wright in historical context by highlighting how the
cultural and political climate in which they grew up had a pervasive
influence on the ideas which such men hold (however flawed they
appear to us today). His pitch is that it would be divisive to
disown such men at a time when we need unity. This appears a
pragmatic judgement but it could also be an idealist assertion about
human values etc., etc.
© 2008 Mark Steyn
Copyright © 2006-2008 Shane McLoughlin. This article may not be resold or redistributed without prior written permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
