Question Technology

Is "Continuous Partial Attention" Real?

Multitasking has been in the news quite a bit lately.  Research has shown that multitasking can make us perform worse -- it's usually better to focus on single tasks.  Often, though, I've seen people try to counter this news in the tech media and blogs by referring to Linda Stone's concept of "Continuous Partial Attention."  She posted an article last week at Huffington Post about this, and it begins:

People often say we're multi-tasking ourselves to death.  Is that really what we're doing? I think not.

I call what we're doing today continuous partial attention, or cpa, for short.

Continuous partial attention and multi-tasking are two different attention strategies, motivated by different impulses. When we multi-task, we are motivated by a desire to be more productive and more efficient. Each activity has the same priority - we eat lunch AND file papers. We stir the soup AND talk on the phone. With multi-tasking, one or more activities is somewhat automatic, like eating lunch or stirring soup. That activity can be paired with another activity that's automatic or with an activity that requires more cognition, like writing an email or talking on the phone. At the core of multi-tasking is a desire to be more productive. We multi-task to CREATE more opportunity for ourselves -time to DO more and time to RELAX more.

In the case of continuous partial attention, we're motivated by a desire not to miss anything. There's a kind of vigilance that is not characteristic of multi-tasking. With cpa, we feel most alive when we're connected, plugged in and in the know.  We constantly SCAN for opportunities - activities or people - in any given moment. With every opportunity we ask, "What can I gain here?"

Link: Linda Stone: Fine Dining with Mobile Devices

I think I see her point (and I've read more about CPA at her web site).  It sounds plausible that there are different kinds of multitasking, but as far as I can tell this is all just speculation on her part.  Where is the science?  Has anyone done serious psychology studies on this?  What I've read on multitasking contradicts her ideas.  Unless she can cite some studies (or at least work in progress) to show that CPA is a meaningful psychological construct, I have a hard time taking this seriously.

Stone is a writer, speaker, and consultant, and is well known, apparently, as a "visionary thinker and thought leader."  But it's not surprising that the idea of continuous partial attention gets a welcome reception from laptop-bearing technology pundits at conferences.

(Via the believers at Lifehacker.)

Miscellaneous Stories

I'm starting to catch up on blogging after a lull because of a move and a new job.  Here are some links that have been festering in my feed reader for a while:

• The Wall Street Journal explains the failure of Negroponte's laptop: A little laptop with big ambitions.  For a shorter take on this, and the Negroponte-Intel feud, read Fake Steve Jobs: Give one, get one -- right in the ass.
• Print is Dead by Jeff Gomez, the latest book to rehash the perennial "future of books" debate, is now available.  I've listened to podcasts of a few chapters and was not terribly impressed.  He's a thoughtful writer, and has done a decent amount of research, but his premises and arguments are seriously flawed, in my opinion.
• Mark Hurst critiques a WSJ article on new e-mail software that tries to solve the problem of e-mail overload: Silicon Valley's solution to overload: More technology.
• Second and third graders draw designs for laptop computers: The laptop club.
• "Google controls your e-mail, your videos, your calendar, your searches… What if it controlled your life?" -- Scroogled, fiction by Cory Doctorow in Radar magazine.
• New Greenpeace guide to greener electronics.  Nintendo, Philips, and Microsoft are at the bottom this time.
• Novelist John Degen explains why copyright is important to writers: Copyright = Oxygen.  He includes an excellent rant by Harlan Ellison on the topic (at YouTube).
• Derek Cheshire proposes a slow approach to innovation, taking its cue from the Slow Food movement: Slow Innovation (Change This).  I once considered rebranding this blog as "Slow Technology", for the same reason, but that didn't get far.

More Kindling

An amusing post (and reader comments) at Sean Lindsey's blog, 101 Reasons to Stop Writing:

Pundits have been predicting for years that ebooks and ebook devices will eventually, finally, once and for all free us from the tyranny of having to carry around more than one book when we travel. This neotopian vision of a paperless, rights-managed future took one giant stumble forward last week with the launch of the Amazon Kindle ebook reader.

For those of you who think that books made of wood just aren’t portable enough, and want a book that you can’t loan to a friend, will be utterly ruined if you drop it in the bath, and looks like it was made by the props department from Space: 1999, then perhaps the Kindle is for you.
Whither the name ‘Kindle’, I’m not sure, but I think any word that connotes ‘burning’ probably shouldn’t be part of a book product promotion (unless you’re promoting International Slushpile Bonfire Day).

Link: Where's The Fire?

Mildly creepy Jeff Bezos interview with Charlie Rose, in which he explains the name Kindle and predicts the return of the serial novel in electronic format: Bezos predicts demise of books, return of Charles Dickens (Valleywag).

The Googlization of Everything

Siva Vaidhyanathan has launched a new blog to go with his "book in progress," The Googlization of Everything: How One Company is Disrupting Culture, Commerce, and Community -- and Why We Should Worry.

From his introductory post:

Hi. Welcome to my new book. Well, it’s not a book yet. In fact, it will not be a real book for a long time.

As you can tell from the title of this blog, the book will be about Google and all they ways that Google is shaking up the world. Google is a transformative and revolutionary company. I hesitate to use terms like that. We live in an era of hyperbole. So I try my best to discount claims of historical transformation or communicative revolutions.

But in the case of Google, I am confident it is both.

Now, I am approaching this book as both a fan and a critic. I am in awe of all that Google has done and all it hopes to do. I am also wary of its ambition and power.

As I use this site to compose the manuscript (an archaic word that I love too much to discard) for the book The Googlization of Everything, I hope to do so with your help.

This is the latest in a series of “open book” experiments hosted and guided by The Institute for the Future of the Book.

Link: Hi. Welcome to my book.

(Via Michael Zimmer.)

Singularity coverage (elsewhere)

I apologize to anyone who was paying attention when I wrote earlier that I'd attend and report on the Singularity Summit that took place this past weekend.  I wasn't able to make it.  Here's an article from Friday's SF Chronicle on the event: Public meeting will re-examine future of artificial intelligence, and of course the summit site itself will have links to coverage.

Siva Vaidhyanathan on The Googlization of Everything

That's apparently the title of forthcoming book by Siva Vaidhyanathan, and also of a recent talk.  Here are some notes by Michael at Masters of Media:

Siva’s starting point is that Google is part of our lives, and we talk about in a way that resembles the way we would talk about the Divine. Ultimately, we say, “It is a force for good.” As per the Book of Sergey and Larry, “Don’t be evil”. And in Siva’s words, the path to heaven seems lined by small, personalized advertisements. In the world of Google, moral problems are merely unsolved technological ones. But Google - the search engine - is a black box, and perhaps this is why we mere mortals must become believers.

Google has divine aims, too. Universal access to all of the world’s information? Sergey says, “It would be like the Mind of God”. (Read on and discuss below..)

New Network TheorySiva goes on to discuss the theology of the network via the theology of Google. His interests are broad, from the way the world looks through Google’s eyes, to the political and legal implications of the various precedents Google is (or will be) setting. The issues are multifarious - from the purchase of Double Click to the Viacom-Youtube lawsuit - and the of much speculation throughout the business, legal and politcal spheres.

All the while, Siva says, Google must keep its image - its halo - and so far it has.. Google demands loyalty. In return it offers the illusion of democracy, precision and objectivity.

Link: SIVACRACY.NET: Nieuw Network Theory in Amsterdam,
via Infothought.

Cult of the Muggles

I have successfully avoided an iPhone post, but, alas, I am unable to resist a Harry Potter post.

Over at BoingBoing Cory Doctorow is trumpeting the recent pirating and posting of the new Harry Potter book: Last Harry Potter Leaks Online.  There are two things I find amusing about his post: 

1) Cory links to the book at Amazon using his associates ID (link)!  So what's the message here?  Get the book for free, but if you must buy a hardcopy then kick in a few percent for me?

2) He makes a little spoiler joke: "Who dies? The publishing industry."  Ha.  No-one should feel bad for Bloomsbury/Scholastic (they'll still do just fine), and I know Cory is trying to be funny, but the implication seems to be that publishers are useless and ought to be done away with.  Is this really how he thinks?  Cory and others in the "free culture" crowd seem to have a very simplistic idea of culture -- that it just magically happens without the need for intermediaries like professional publishers, and that somehow people will be able to earn a living doing it for free.  I haven't yet read a convincing argument for how this might actually work (though Chris Anderson claims he will explain it all in his next book, Free.)

This brings me back to Andrew Keen and his book, The Cult of the Amateur.  I've mentioned the book before, but I've actually read it now, so I'll offer some amateur thoughts.  Keen does a great job pointing out the fallacies in a lot of this silly talk about Web 2.0, free culture, the wisdom of crowds, and Time's "You".  The book is a polemic aimed at a popular business audience, so you won't find any deep analysis here -- much of the argument is based on anecdote, newspaper articles and common sense.  (There are undoubtedly many smart graduate students working on more rigorous studies, for which we might have to wait a little longer.)  For what it is, though, Keen's book is great -- well-written, enjoyable, stimulating.  My only quibble is with later chapters, where he loses focus and veers off into rants against internet gambling and pornography.  Those topics are worthy of criticism, but seem like they would fit better in a different book.

See also: New York Times: New Potter Book May Have Made its Way to the Web.

p.s. I haven't read the Harry Potter books so I'm not sure if I'm using the term "muggles" in any sensible way... I just thought it sounded funny.

Web 2.0 Backlash Frenzy

Scott Rosenberg has a good roundup of the players, including Andrew Keen, Nicholas Carr,  Michael Gorman of the ALA, and the Britannica folks.  Rosenberg also repeats a common argument:

Regardless of how you feel about all these issues, it’s hard to miss one meta-elephant in the room: The members of this phalanx of Web 2.0 cynics have all chosen to deliver their critiques via the very form that their rhetoric detests. Keen promotes his book from his blog. Carr weaves his ideas on his blog. Gorman explains what’s wrong with the “Blog People,” where? On a blog hosted by Britannica.

What’s the thinking here: First join them, then beat them?

Link: The blog-dimmed tide is loosed!

It's ironic, to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily detract from their arguments.  (1) Keen and Carr have both published books -- they wouldn't be getting nearly as much attention if they were only blogging.  (2) I don't think most of these critics are absolutely opposed to all amateurism on the web, but rather to the techno-enthusiast view that amateurism is all we need.  We all start as amateurs, but it only gets you so far.  The web's low entry price is a great thing and I doubt that most critics of web 2.0 would deny that. 

Video of Andrew Keen Talk

Cult of the Amateur author Andrew Keen speaking at Google: video at YouTube.  I watched this earlier and was quite impressed.  He makes some good anti-Web 2.0 arguments and comes across as more reasonable than might have been expected from early buzz about the book.

Aubrey de Grey at Google

Video of a talk Aubrey de Grey gave at Google this week: Prospects for extending healthy life -- a lot.

It's about an hour long.  I've only watched a bit of the intro and conclusions.  He concludes with a bizarre (and probably tasteless) analogy.  He compares his work to what the passengers on Flight 93 did by overtaking the hijackers in order to save people on the ground.  His final two slides are a picture of Todd Beamer and a slide that says "Let's Roll."

Previous posts about Aubrey de Grey.

Lessig on Keen

Lawrence Lessig unleashes his sarcasm on Andrew Keen in a rather petulant review: Keen's "The Cult of the Amateur": BRILLIANT!

More Amateur Stuff

Continuing with the previous topic: Clay Shirky has posted a thoughtful critique of Andrew Keen's book: What are we going to say about the "Cult of the Amateur"?

Amateurs and Other Internauts

Scott Rosenberg has a recap of tonight's Berkeley Cybersalon with "Cult of the Amateur" author Andrew Keen:

“Is it always like this?” A business acquaintance who I chatted with briefly at the Berkeley Cybersalon earlier this evening asked me as the panel discussion — titled “New Media Wars: Amateur versus Auteur” — wound down.

“Quite often, actually,” I answered him.

I assumed he was referring to the heated back-and-forth between the attendees and the panelists — and, occasionally, among the panelists themselves (Dan Gillmor, Katie Hafner, Robert Scoble and Andrew Keen). The event’s hook was Keen’s new book, “The Cult of the Amateur.” Keen’s self-described “polemic” is not yet available, and I haven’t read it, so I won’t comment directly on it. But the book’s subtitle tells you where Keen’s coming from: “How today’s Internet is killing our culture.”

[...]

Keen has lobbed his bombs before — and in the same place, yet — but I find it hard to take them seriously. (I should mention that he did a podcast interview with me about my book — and he’s charming when he’s not lobbing grenades and building stockades around the ancien regime.) I don’t think he honestly believes that, as his book’s subtitle has it, “The Internet is killing our culture.” Ironically, of course, Keen himself used his own blog as a launch pad for his ideas. He admitted tonight that he is, himself, an “amateur writer.” He claims to be motivated by a desire to “annoy libertarians of the left and libertarians of the right.”

Something tells me he might win a little less attention but a lot more credibility if he stopped trying so hard to annoy. There must be some valuable criticism lodged among all the bluster.

Link: Amateur Hour.

I must admit I'm a bit tired of Keen's shtick already, just from all the publicity and blogging about it.

Rosenberg mentions another new book that it seems everyone in that incestuous A-list Silicon Valley/Wired blogger world is gushing over: David Weinberger's Everything is Miscellaneous.  Publisher's Weekly says Weinberger "joins the ranks of social thinkers striving to construct new theories around the success of Google and Wikipedia."  In other words it's the latest half-baked "the internet is changing everything!" business claptrap to keep the venture capitalists excited.  I think I'll pass.

Bryan Appleyard on Web 2.0

Bryan Appleyard has a good article on Web 2.0 in the Sunday Times (UK):  The Web is Dead; Long Live the Web. 

On his blog he describes it as "an article that asks for trouble. Everybody thinks they know more about the internet than everybody else so I anticipate a tirade of abuse and de haut en bas dismissals. But, heigh ho, there you go."

The Power of the Intermobs

A couple of minor stories this week illustrate how the Internet enables unthinking hordes to react en masse to hoaxes or erroneous information.

Case 1:  Home stripped bare after fake online ad / Craigslist post told people to come take all they wanted (SF Chronicle).  The ad was only up for two hours before it was tagged as a hoax and removed, but this was too late to prevent people from showing up and removing everything from the house, including the front door.

Case 2: Jamba Juice gets hit with intermob outrage after it's reported on BoingBoing that their non-dairy drinks actually contain milk.  It turns out that Cory Doctorow just can't read/see (probably too distracted multitasking).  He started the whole thing by trying to find out what's in their "Non-dairy 'Dairy'", which is not even an ingredient; it's a heading in their printed ingredient book, referring to their sorbet and soymilk (see photo here).  Unfortunately a confused Jamba Juice employee, when called by one of Cory's minions, thought the question was about their "low-fat dairy" and so gave the ingredients for it, which of course includes milk.  Jamba Juice later tried to clarify that there is no such thing as "non-dairy dairy" but Cory still doesn't get it, leaving countless internerds to accuse Jamba Juice of a cover-up, conspiracy, etc.  This kind of thing happens frequently with BoingBoing and similar blogs.