Dr. Jim Taylor’s blog

A fascinating new book, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, by the economist W. Brian Arthur, was just published that challenges much of the conventional wisdom that we hold about the relationship between science and technology.? Most notably, the notion that science is the horse to technology’s cart; in other words, scientific advancement results in technological innovation.

Dr. Arthur turns this notion on its ear by arguing that, in fact, the evolution of science could not occur without relevant technological discoveries.? Though science would still exist in some form with its foundation in human curiosity, exploration, and deduction, it would be primitive compared to where it is today were it not for the emergence of new technologies that enable breakthroughs that allow us to access information beyond our narrow sensory, cognitive, and physical capabilities. Think electron microscope, computer, hydrogen-fueled rocket, and particle accelerator. Inventions such these free our intellect and creativity from their all-too-human shackles by expanding the universe of what is possible. Because it’s impossible to imagine the impossible, technology makes what was inconceivable and puts it within our sight and our grasp. Without the necessary technology, the questions that would advance science could not be pondered.

To read the rest of my post, please visit my Techshrink blog at computerworld.com.

I recently read an article by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in which he described the renewed battle between so-called freshwater economists (so named because they are largely based at the University of Chicago and other Midwestern universities) and saltwater economists (based primarily at Princeton, MIT, Berkeley and other coastal universities). The freshwater economists are disciples of Adam Smith and espouse the free-market and rational actor models. The saltwater economists align with John Maynard Keynes and his belief in the need for regulation in financial markets and that people aren?t rational actors.

The past 50 years have been dominated by freshwater economists who had a reverential faith in the power of free markets (Smith?s ?invisible hand?) and the rationality of people in their financial decisions. Given what has happened to our economy in the last decade, noted for its multiple bubbles (e.g., Internet, housing, mortgage), it?s hard to believe that any of these ?efficient market? adherents still have jobs, much less credibility in how the economy actually works.

I would love to put these economists on the couch and explore what is going on in their heads that enables them to observe the objective reality of the recent economic devastation, yet still hold as sacred their most basic, yet obviously flawed, beliefs about a free-market-driven financial system.

As I have read more about the Smith followers, what seemed like pretty obvious questions kept popping out of my head:

• What universe do these people live in?
• Do these economists live in complete isolation without interaction with actual human beings?
• Have they never been in love, been gambling, or had sex?
• Have they never seen people get angry, frustrated, depressed, excited, or joyful and then observed their subsequent behavior?

If we ever had answers to these questions, we would understand the how of their devotion to an economic mindset that is clearly not supported by economic reality. These questions then led me to ponder the why of their delusional dedication:

• Are these economists such number-crunching automatons that they never even consider actual human behavior in the real world of finance?
• Are they so doctrinaire as to miss the obvious?
• Are they so enamored of the sheer elegance of their mathematical theorems that they reject outright and without consideration what is obvious even to laypeople?

What I find ironic is that, by rejecting the irrationality of human behavior, they are in fact affirming its irrationality. To see ourselves as rational beings is the epitome of irrationality.

Of course we aren?t rational, and you don?t need a Ph.D. to realize that (though an advanced degree from the University of Chicago seems to have the opposite effect). Human beings, for all their cerebral development, still act most of the time the way animals and humans have for millions of years, namely, as irrational, unpredictable, and not particularly intelligent creatures.

What I find so remarkable is that there is any debate at all. As a former psychology professor of mine once noted, ?All psychology does is label things that we already know to be true.? In the Bizarro world of freshwater economics, that adage would be modified to, ?All economics does is reject things that we already know to be true.?

Thankfully, the emerging field of behavioral economics, which is the melding of psychological and economic thinking, has generated a growing body of research demonstrating that we are, in fact, incredibly irrational beings who act in ways that are not only poorly conceived, but that are often counterproductive and sometimes even self-destructive. Examples of such irrational behavior can be found in a variety of well-researched cognitive biases (courtesy of Wikipedia.com):

• Bandwagon effect: we believe or do things because others believe or do them.
• Confirmation bias: seeking out information that supports our beliefs.
• Illusion of control: our belief that we have more control over outcomes than we actually do.
• D?formation professionnelle: looking at things through the lens of one?s profession while ignoring broader perspectives.

The last cognitive bias seems particularly fitting for freshwater economists who seem to have been so busy developing their fancy theories in their laboratories that they forgot to look outside and see what was actually happening in the real world. The list of cognitive biases that we succumb to goes on and on with most having direct implications for understanding our financial behavior.

Finally, it is instructive ? and scary ? to consider the degree of hubris or denial on the part of the freshwater economists, whom I would assume are very intelligent men and women. They continue to cling to now-discredited theories, even when confronted with overwhelming experimental and real-world evidence that demonstrates what just about everyone else in the world can see with their own two eyes: humans, including economists, are not rational!

Does anyone feel the least bit unsettled by the emergence of cloud computing as the Next Big Thing in computer innovation? Yes, it looks like a great idea on paper (or monitor): less computer hardware, common applications on line, cost savings, easy networking, a pooling of computer resources. Sounds like win-win, doesn?t it?

Not quite. Others with far greater technology minds than my own have expressed concerns about cloud computing related to privacy, security, disconnection from the Internet, vendor compliance and health, and data loss. And we saw evidence of the weakness of cloud computing with the recent loss of data by owners of T-Mobile?s Sidekick smartphone due to a system failure.

But my discomfort, not surprising given the focus of my writings, is far deeper and more visceral than concerns about, say, identity theft or invasions of privacy. My unease lies in what cloud computing may mean to us as psychological and emotional beings. Data, whether emails, documents, spreadsheets, finances, media, or other types of information, may just be collections of binary code, but they mean something much more important to us. All of those zeros and ones represent much of who we are: how we live and work, the people with whom we interact, and our values and interests.

To read the rest of my post, please visit my blog here.

I recently participated in a PBS Panel Discussion called 5Across (so named for the five panelists who participated). The guests included Twitter co-creator and author Dom Sagolla, io9 editor Annalee Newitz, Soul Tech workshop co-creator Leif Hansen, tech consultant Deborah Schultz, and me.

Key quote: “There are profound psychological and social ramifications of technology. What’s unfortunate is that our technology is developing so quickly… that we haven’t been able to step back and say, ‘What are the implications of this technology on our lives?’…Technology is neither good nor evil, healthy or unhealthy, it depends on how we react to it.” — Dr. Jim Taylor

To view, visit here.

Of all the areas of life that computer and communications technology seems to be impacting the most is its influence on relationships. Mobile phones, texting, facebook, and Twitter are just a few of the ways in which relationships are being redefined, established, and maintained by technology. We have entered a new era of Relationships 2.0.

Many of these changes in the nature of relationships have been positive and productive. Online communities based around shared ideas and passions are a vital wellspring of information and action. Causes have been fomented and movements launched by online communities. New technology has allowed people formerly disconnected to establish relationships that have increased creativity, innovation, productivity, and efficiency. A personal example: I was the lead editor of an academic textbook and my co-editor and I met over the Internet. Through the entire preparation and publication process, we communicated through email and have never met in person and only spoke on the telephone once (to congratulate each other on its completion).

Relationships 2.0 has also been a boon to maintaining already-established relationships. If you have family or friends who live at a great distance or if you travel a great deal (as I do), you no longer have to rely on the telephone to stay connected. You can be in constant contact through relatively primitive technology, such as email, or more advanced technology such as texting, facebook, flickr, Skype, and Twitter. And tech-savvy grandparents love this aspect of Relationships 2.0!

So, in exploring Relationships 2.0, I do not mean to devalue all manner of relationships that are now possible due to the recent revolution in computer and communication technology. We should embrace all of the benefits that this new technology has to offer. But, as with all value-neutral innovations, there are both benefits and costs, positive uses and unhealthy misuses, intended outcomes and unintended consequences.

My concern focuses on the more personal and social aspects of Relationships 2.0. For example, I hear many people talking about all of the ?friendships? around the world they have made on the Web, whether through social networking, gaming, or dating sites, or sites that reflect their beliefs (e.g., political or religious) or their interests (e.g., technology, sports). There?s no doubt that the Web has enabled people everywhere to connect and communicate like never before, but I would argue that connection alone doth not a relationship make.

Just like the use of the old term, virtual reality, many people in Relationships 2.0 have what I believe are virtual relationships, yet consider them to be real relationships. Virtual relationships have all the appearances of real relationships, but they are missing essential elements that make real relationships, well, real, namely, three dimensionality, facial expressions, voice inflection, clear emotional messages, gestures, body language, physical contact, and pheromones.

Virtual relationships are based on limited information and, as a result, are incomplete; you can know people, but only so far. When connecting with others through technology, you get bits and pieces of people ? words on a screen, two-dimensional images, or a digitized voice ? almost like having some, but not all, of the pieces of a puzzle. You get a picture of them, but you lack the pieces you need to get a complete picture of that person.

But virtual relationships can seem so real. I blog for a group of mobile-technology web sites and the email banter among the almost-exclusively-male staff is no different than if a bunch of guys were sitting around drinking beer and watching football. Despite very clear geographical and political differences, the camaraderie and support is amazing. Yet, would this group get along if they met in person? I don?t think so. Perhaps that is both the beauty and the shame of online relationships.

These limitations don?t mean that we shouldn?t have virtual relationships; they can serve a valuable purpose in both our personal and professional lives. But my worry is that people are substituting real relationships for virtual ones. Rather than being just a small subset of their relationships, virtual relationships come to dominate their relationship universe. I often see groups of teenagers sitting together, but not talking, only texting. I wonder if they are texting each other!

So what is the attraction of virtual relationships? We live in a society in which families are no longer nuclear, communities are fragmented, and people can feel isolated and disenfranchised. Economic uncertainty, global unrest, and political polarization can create feelings of alienation and anxiety. Fears of inadequacy, rejection, and failure also add to the maelstrom of personal angst. Isn?t it just safer to stay in your room and connect with people through your computer? Isn?t it better to have the appearance of intimate relationships, but without all the risks, than to put yourself out there and take the chance of being hurt?

People can fulfill many of their needs for connection and affiliation through virtual relationships. They can present their best faces to their online community. They can get support from a vast number of people. Virtual relationships are also easy and safe. Easy because you don?t have to leave your room. Safe because of their anonymity and your ability to just hit End or Delete when you want out. But they certainly lack the richness and satisfaction of real relationships.

Technology limits what we can truly know about someone. It prevents us from using the most deeply ingrained qualities that have allowed us to make connections for ages. Though there is a place for online relationships, they are no substitute for the depth and breadth of real, flesh-and-blood relationships where you can see, hear, smell, touch, and sense the other person. Yes, real relationships can get messy, with hurt feelings, anger, frustration, and disappointment. But they?re like two sides of the same coin; you can?t have the beauty of relationships ? love, joy, excitement, and contentment ? without also being willing to accept its occasional blood, sweat, and tears. And I challenge anyone who can show me that virtual relationships can provide that.