Great article -- I have just a thought: the most basic layer of sorting is language. I communicate with "whole world" online, but, really, I actually communicate with the "English-speaking world" online. I have had some contacts who post in French or Arabic or Spanish (etc.) over the years, and their writing is (sometimes horribly) auto-translated, but they are always English-speakers with many English-speaking contacts because if they weren't, I wouldn't be connected to them. Something similar happens with music: almost all the music I hear comes out of the English-speaking world.
This limitation isn't really a good thing -- Netflix is a very multi-lingual exception to the rule, because so much of their over-abundance of content is available in every language I've ever heard of, it's impressive, it's amazing, it's actually a real benefit. Yet it increased the overload and dependence on algorithms.
Thanks, again, Rohit, for your writing and thinking. Of course the topic you chose is one that is of deep interest and concern to me. Google me if you want to know why.
There is much to consider in this piece, and much incomplete thought and information in it. I could spend much more time on responding than your cartoon couple’s indecisive and uninformed 2 hours searching for something to consume on Netflix, but I’ll just touch on a few points.
The chart you included, for example, only goes to 2017 and doesn’t really back up your claim about streaming royalties to musicians, and even if it did, it means nothing unless you include the royalties from non-streaming pre-Spotify, for example.
My information tells me that LPs sold more than CDs last year. Why? Could it be that music listeners want a deeper experience than the gross consumerism that pirating (be honest, now) offers. Really, if you spent time actually LISTENING to the vast quantities of music on your devices, you’d have no time left for anything.
You’ve said “We have no choice” several times. We do have a choice, but the pressure from Big Info makes it more work. One example is the measurable and indisputable reduction in sound quality to fit all those downloads and streams on your pocket library.
In the realm of musical instruments, a telling statistic is in the phenomenal increase in the number of analog synthesizer manufacturers and owners over the last 5 years. Why are many rejecting push-a-button convenience for do-it-yourself?
Thought provoking as always! Not sure I agree though.
I think it's more effective to rethink our approach to choice.
We can usefully split the landscape into commodities (things that we don't know much about) and non-commodities (things we really care about).
With non-commodities, we need to move to an exploratory model, of "mapping the territory." What's *influential*? What's changing the landscape? What are the levers? Don't worry about what's popular (that's just one indicator of influence).
For non-commodities, we need to stop treating them as meaningful choices. Don't "choose" ketchup in the sense of thoughtfully weighing the pros and cons of each brand or variety. The differences aren't meaningful (if they were, it would be a non-commodity). Just pick and move on.
This scales even to large choices. If you don't know much about cars, you'll actually probably be happy with whatever car you buy, even though you won't easily be able to switch if it has something you dislike. These days, we don't face binary choices between happiness and misery in most cases (your happiness isn't actually dependent on what you buy).
This is not necessarily easy though! I succumbed to "2 hours of deciding what to watch on Netflix" just yesterday.
One thing I like to do is walk into a grocery store and try to imagine I'm a medieval peasant and figure out how I'd make sense of what I was seeing. Here is the Mustard Wall. There is the Smoked Fish Wall. 300 Kinds of Crackers. What is happening???
Am I in heaven? A mockery of heaven that will disappear when I touch it? It is a level of baffling abundance we seem not to be prepared for.
Ah, thank you, i should have clarified! I think the categories are unique to the individual, because humans are diverse. Crypto, French, and the humanities aren't and shouldn't be a priority for everyone in their day-to-day. Also, the threshold for what counts as "enough" should be unique. I recently visited Japan, and I'm quite content with the small amount of Japanese I learned beforehand, which was not nearly fluent or even conversational.
It's like that one episode of Black Mirror where a lady clone herself and trap it in a digital form so it can be her 'personal assistant' that can perform tasks and make recommendations.
Rohit, you say “We need some way of navigating this, because total available information’s not going to go back down. It can’t be one size fits all, like an algo run by a service and nominally personalised. It has to be yours, capturing your idiosyncrasies and interests. It has to be local, it has to know you, and it has to be smart enough to navigate the world that’s thrown at it. There’s only one real answer.”
What’s the one real answer you propose?
It seems to me our own attention—genuine, honest attention to what drives our attention various places—is the one real answer. That’s not a technology.
Great article -- I have just a thought: the most basic layer of sorting is language. I communicate with "whole world" online, but, really, I actually communicate with the "English-speaking world" online. I have had some contacts who post in French or Arabic or Spanish (etc.) over the years, and their writing is (sometimes horribly) auto-translated, but they are always English-speakers with many English-speaking contacts because if they weren't, I wouldn't be connected to them. Something similar happens with music: almost all the music I hear comes out of the English-speaking world.
This limitation isn't really a good thing -- Netflix is a very multi-lingual exception to the rule, because so much of their over-abundance of content is available in every language I've ever heard of, it's impressive, it's amazing, it's actually a real benefit. Yet it increased the overload and dependence on algorithms.
Thanks, again, Rohit, for your writing and thinking. Of course the topic you chose is one that is of deep interest and concern to me. Google me if you want to know why.
There is much to consider in this piece, and much incomplete thought and information in it. I could spend much more time on responding than your cartoon couple’s indecisive and uninformed 2 hours searching for something to consume on Netflix, but I’ll just touch on a few points.
The chart you included, for example, only goes to 2017 and doesn’t really back up your claim about streaming royalties to musicians, and even if it did, it means nothing unless you include the royalties from non-streaming pre-Spotify, for example.
My information tells me that LPs sold more than CDs last year. Why? Could it be that music listeners want a deeper experience than the gross consumerism that pirating (be honest, now) offers. Really, if you spent time actually LISTENING to the vast quantities of music on your devices, you’d have no time left for anything.
You’ve said “We have no choice” several times. We do have a choice, but the pressure from Big Info makes it more work. One example is the measurable and indisputable reduction in sound quality to fit all those downloads and streams on your pocket library.
In the realm of musical instruments, a telling statistic is in the phenomenal increase in the number of analog synthesizer manufacturers and owners over the last 5 years. Why are many rejecting push-a-button convenience for do-it-yourself?
Thanks for giving us lots to think about.
Thought provoking as always! Not sure I agree though.
I think it's more effective to rethink our approach to choice.
We can usefully split the landscape into commodities (things that we don't know much about) and non-commodities (things we really care about).
With non-commodities, we need to move to an exploratory model, of "mapping the territory." What's *influential*? What's changing the landscape? What are the levers? Don't worry about what's popular (that's just one indicator of influence).
For non-commodities, we need to stop treating them as meaningful choices. Don't "choose" ketchup in the sense of thoughtfully weighing the pros and cons of each brand or variety. The differences aren't meaningful (if they were, it would be a non-commodity). Just pick and move on.
This scales even to large choices. If you don't know much about cars, you'll actually probably be happy with whatever car you buy, even though you won't easily be able to switch if it has something you dislike. These days, we don't face binary choices between happiness and misery in most cases (your happiness isn't actually dependent on what you buy).
This is not necessarily easy though! I succumbed to "2 hours of deciding what to watch on Netflix" just yesterday.
One thing I like to do is walk into a grocery store and try to imagine I'm a medieval peasant and figure out how I'd make sense of what I was seeing. Here is the Mustard Wall. There is the Smoked Fish Wall. 300 Kinds of Crackers. What is happening???
Am I in heaven? A mockery of heaven that will disappear when I touch it? It is a level of baffling abundance we seem not to be prepared for.
Ah, thank you, i should have clarified! I think the categories are unique to the individual, because humans are diverse. Crypto, French, and the humanities aren't and shouldn't be a priority for everyone in their day-to-day. Also, the threshold for what counts as "enough" should be unique. I recently visited Japan, and I'm quite content with the small amount of Japanese I learned beforehand, which was not nearly fluent or even conversational.
It's like that one episode of Black Mirror where a lady clone herself and trap it in a digital form so it can be her 'personal assistant' that can perform tasks and make recommendations.
Rohit, you say “We need some way of navigating this, because total available information’s not going to go back down. It can’t be one size fits all, like an algo run by a service and nominally personalised. It has to be yours, capturing your idiosyncrasies and interests. It has to be local, it has to know you, and it has to be smart enough to navigate the world that’s thrown at it. There’s only one real answer.”
What’s the one real answer you propose?
It seems to me our own attention—genuine, honest attention to what drives our attention various places—is the one real answer. That’s not a technology.
Great article! BTW, did you try using social bookmarking apps like are.na?