drjim

Jim Taylor, Ph.D., Psychology is an author, speaker, and consultant who explores issues in the world of technology, business, sports, and parenting.

Psychology of Technology: N.E.I. is the New T.M.I.

April 28, 2010 | By drjim

One of America’s most cherished rights is citizens’ right to privacy, as former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun noted, “the right to be let alone.” Passions are stirred by debates about the right to privacy and it has become a political hot potato in recent years due in part to the domestic wiretapping controversy, identity theft, and data mining on the Internet. Yet these days, a growing swath of America, mostly the young and tech savvy, are not only unconcerned about their privacy, but actively eschew that right. They seem to believe in N.E.I. (Never Enough Information) rather than the more familiar T.M.I. (Too Much Information, for those who were just rescued from a deserted island).

This desire on the part of young people to be an “open book” began in the ancient days of the 20th century (and probably long before) when the dominant form of media was television. Reality-based shows, such as MTV’s Real World and Big Brother, in which the lives of young people were broadcast for all the world to see, were the forbearers of today’s movement to make lives embarrassingly public. The growing wave of social media that caters to N.E.I. has included MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, and is now pushing the I-don’t-care-about-privacy envelope with Google Latitude, Foursquare, Blippy, and DailyBooth.

Why the shift from privacy to publicity? What is motivating people to want to share information about themselves that is, at best, of little interest or value to others and, at worst, could be used against them (think drunken Facebook rants and embarrassing photos)? I could argue that it is simply the natural extension of one’s own community (family and friends share everything, right?) afforded us by the long tentacles of the Web and social media. But I’m too cynical of people’s motives and new technology to accept such a positive rationale for this behavior. I see several possible explanations focusing on both the changing world in which we live and how we are feel about said world.

Despite appearances to the contrary, the decline of the nuclear family and the neighborhood, the mass migration caused by job mobility, and loss of national unity due to political polarization has caused many of us to feel more substantially disconnected than ever before. Social media and the ability to share ourselves so completely makes us feel connected with others, however superficial that connection may be.

We live in a time of tremendous ambiguity and flux. The uncertain economy, global instability, and political unrest can cause use to feel powerless. When we share information about ourselves — and believe that others find it worthwhile — we feel valued, important, influential.

It’s pretty easy to feel insignificant in this everyone-else-seems-to-be-rich-and-famous world. When we share information, whether a comment to a blog post, our location, our opinion on amazon, or what we purchase on Blippy, it proves that we exist, that we matter, that we are, literally and metaphorically, a recognizable dot on the map.

This N.E.I. phenomenon could be explained by the rise in narcissism among young people these days fostered by a popular culture of “it’s all about me,” where self-importance, self-promotion, and exhibitionism are the road to being “somebody.” Need I say anything more than Jersey Shore?

We also live in a world that has grown more impersonal as the size of the Web has expanded exponentially. When we share so much about ourselves, we feel a sense of intimacy (however false it may be) despite revealing nothing of real consequence about ourselves.

How about our culture’s obsession with the insignificant and the irrelevant? Perhaps triviata is the new opiate of the masses, preventing us from having to confront the existential vacuum that exists in our souls and the scary world that exists beyond our grasp.

Whatever the explanation for the rise of this N.E.I. movement, there’s always going to be someone out there who really believes in T.M.I. and reminds us that sharing information doesn’t really have anything to do with who we are or our place in the world. Pleaserobme.com (motto: Raising awareness about over-sharing), for example, posted Foursquare location information showing when people are away from their homes. As the site’s name implies, would-be burglars can simply log on and not only have an easy time relieving these N.E.I. believers of their worldly possessions, but also remind them in a very real-world way that they really do exist and they really do mean something to someone.

Dr. Jim Taylor is internationally recognized for his work in the psychology of performance in business, parenting, and sport. He is the author of ten books, including Positive Pushing: How to Raise a Successful and Happy Child, Your Children are Under Attack: How Popular Culture is Destroying Your Kids’ Values, and How You Can Protect Them, The Triathlete’s Guide to Mental Training, and Applied Sport Psychology: Four Perspectives, the Prime Sport book series, Psychology of Dance, Psychological Approaches for Sports Injury Rehabilitation, and Comprehensive Sports Injury Management.

He has has appeared on NBC’s Today Show, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, UPN’s Life & Style, ABC’s World News This Weekend, and the major television network affiliates around the U.S..

Steve Jobs’s Diabolical Plan for Global Domination

April 7, 2010 | By drjim

Doesn’t anyone else see what is so obvious to me? Or has Steve Jobs’s diabolical plan for global domination already reached a point that humans don’t even see what is happening to them?

The whole iPhone (and iPod and iPad) thing is starting to sound like a 1950′s science fiction movie. If you’ve ever watched one of these now-totally-camp movies, the story line goes like this: A mad scientist bent on world domination invents a fanciful machine that turns humans into unthinking zombies over whom he has complete control. Now let’s update that storyline. A mad scientist by the name of Steve Jobs invents a fanciful machine called the iPhone that, according to a recent Stanford University survey, turns users into “junkies” allowing him and his evil empire to take over the world (at least the media world, so far). Now do you see it?

How powerful is this fanciful machine? The research indicated that 44 percent of those surveyed rated themselves as a four or five on a five-point addicted-to-my-iPhone scale. Another 32 percent reported that they were worried that they would eventually become addicted. Here’s a scary stat: 75 percent of respondents said they slept with their phones in their beds. Even more scary is that users felt their iPhones were an extension of themselves and have actually begun to anthropomorphize their phones. Sounds like induced psychotic and delusional behavior to me. That is one powerful device Mr. Jobs and his team of mad scientists have invented!

His plan is as fiendish as it is brilliant, having been years in the making. His release of increasingly more addictive devices, starting with the iPod, then the iPhone, and taking it to a new level with the iPad shows a clear vision and the patience to realize that vision. And Mr. Jobs is an evil genius of great sophistication and nuance, seeing the addictive power of seemingly innocuous little things called apps. The App Store may seem innocent enough selling what appear to be fun and often-times useless applications, but each $.99 purchase and installation of a new app is another nail in the metaphorical coffin of humanity and free will.

This mad scientist has even developed a cadre of Apple uber-zombies, who proudly call themselves Apple Fanboys, who are specially trained to protect the empire whenever it is threatened. This brigade of storm troopers (only a satirical reference to Nazism; no offense intended) has been given special access to this wicked machine through jailbreaking and “unauthorized” apps (wink, wink), giving them super-Apple powers that threaten those as-yet-unaffected survivors daily. These demented guardians of the empire are ever vigilant to attacks from the few remaining humans who have been able to resist drinking the Apple-flavored Kool-Aid. A critical news report, an unsupportive blog post, anything that might question or criticize Jobs or Apple, any sign of resistance or defiance against this new world order is met with swift and ruthless Apple justice.

Going according to Jobs’s wicked blueprint for global supremacy, the population is slowly, but inexorably, falling under his spell. I see it around me every day. First, it was work colleagues and clients. Then, it was acquaintances and a few friends. And now some in my family have gone to the dark side including my mother-in-law who, the horrors, takes care of my children once a week.

What can those of us who haven’t gotten zombified do? Probably nothing given Mr. Jobs’s maniacal mission of world dominion and the Sirens-like allure of Apple products. What hope is there for humanity? Only one perhaps. That the other mad scientist of the technological-industrial complex, Bill Gates, has finally come up with another fanciful technology, Windows Phone 7, that will enable the Microsoft empire (admittedly equally evil) to compete for world domination. How will that help us humans? Well, it seems certain that we’re all headed toward zombieland. At least we can exercise our last vestige of free will by choosing which poison we want to drink before life on Earth as we know it comes to an end.

As for me, to paraphrase a classic Charlton Heston line, I’ll give you my Windows Mobile phone when you take it from my cold, dead hands!

He has has appeared on NBC’s Today Show, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, UPN’s Life & Style, ABC’s World News This Weekend, and the major television network affiliates around the U.S..

Psychology of Technology: How Social Media Can Ruin Lives

March 17, 2010 | By drjim

We all know the power of the Internet for good. It offers a wealth of information, connects people who are miles and cultures apart, and allows news to be disseminated instantly. But I recently learned of a young man whose reputation, and perhaps his life, has been devastated because of information, later proved to be erroneous, that was circulated through email and social media. His story illustrates the dark side of information in the 21st century and confirms our need to ensure that, in our real-time, instant-access world, the information that is spread through cyberspace is both timely and accurate.

Here’s what happened. This young man, I’ll call him Steve, was stopped by police in a small Midwestern town in which he grew up following reports of suspicious behavior (he was taking photos of houses and businesses as part of research for documenting his family tree). A search of the man’s car revealed rope, duct tape, a ski mask, a pair of black gloves, and a hammer in the trunk (the supposed tools of the trade of kidnappers and child molesters). But, as there was no evidence of a crime, Steve was allowed to continue on his way. Nothing that unusual or untoward so far.

Here’s where things start to get out of hand. After the stop, the local police contacted the police department of Steve’s current town of residence and that town’s police mistakenly told them that he was a suspect in a 2002 local child abduction/molestation case. Despite the fact that this information was wrong and Steve had no criminal record beyond a few traffic violations, one of the police officers passed this information, that included his name and photo, on to administrators at the local schools via an email. In response, school officials copied parts of the officer’s email into a notice that was sent to parents. From there, the high-performance engine of social media took over. Out of genuine concern I’m sure, someone posted the notice that included Steve’s identity and the unfounded allegations on Facebook and the misinformation went viral.

There are several unsettling aspects of this unfortunate use of social media. First, as I have noted in a previous blog post, the speed and ease of spreading information online can preclude people from taking the time to think deliberately about issues and decisions before acting on them. The result? A lot of poor judgments and bad decisions with the associated collateral damage.

Second, as we know from media events from the recent past, once information makes it into cyberspace, regardless of its veracity, it will remain there and can haunt people in perpetuity.

Third, research has shown that information that makes it to the Web continues to be believed even when later information is posted that demonstrates it to be false. So, no matter how hard people who are sullied by misinformation or downright lies try to clear their name, there is no way to remove that harmful cyber footprint.

Would much of this sad tale have happened without social media? Of course. Bad things happening to good people and people making poor decisions didn’t start with the public launch of the Web in 1994. But, to paraphrase the Oscar-winning film, The Hurt Locker, the blast area wasn’t nearly as large nor the damage as extensive.

There have been more egregious examples of how social media can be used as weapons, for example, the growing problem of cyberbullying through mean-spirited web sites and texting as tragically exemplified by the suicide of Megan Meier in 2006. But Steve’s story demonstrates how the reputation and perhaps life of an innocent person can be summarily ruined as a result of an equally innocent, yet misconstrued, occurrence, poor due diligence and decision making on the part of people who should know better, and, ultimately, the power of social media.

Note: Some of the information included in this post was obtained from a local newspaper article reporting on the story. Ordinarily, I would include a link to the article, but to protect Steve from further attention, I am not doing so.

Dr. Jim Taylor is internationally recognized for his work in the psychology of performance in business, parenting, and sport. He is the author of ten books, including Positive Pushing: How to Raise a Successful and Happy Child, Your Children are Under Attack: How Popular Culture is Destroying Your Kids’ Values, and How You Can Protect Them, The Triathlete’s Guide to Mental Training, and Applied Sport Psychology: Four Perspectives, the Prime Sport book series, Psychology of Dance, Psychological Approaches for Sports Injury Rehabilitation, and Comprehensive Sports Injury Management.

He has has appeared on NBC’s Today Show, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, UPN’s Life & Style, ABC’s World News This Weekend, and the major television network affiliates around the U.S..

Is Technology Making Us Idiots?

February 12, 2010 | By drjim

In his insightful 2008 article in the Atlantic, Nicolas Carr asks, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" He goes on to explore how new technology has altered our reading habits and, more unsettlingly, how we process information and think. It is a cerebral piece that meets the high intellectual standards we expect of that august magazine.

I, however, would like to bring his lofty discussion of the impact of new technology on our lives down to the muckier level of human dysfunction. I would suggest that not only is the latest technology making us stupider, but it is also making us just plain idiots!

Of course, we have been prone to idiocy throughout history, long before the latest technological advancements. Whether a mild act of embarrassing idiocy, such as putting one’s foot in one’s mouth with an untoward comment, or an act of career-ending idiocy, such as bad mouthing the boss around the water cooler, idiots abounded, but the "blast area" was limited by the still unsophisticated means of communicating the idiocy to the world.

There also used to be time to avoid acts of idiocy. For example, while writing that angry and insult-laden letter to the girl who just rejected you, putting it into an envelope, addressing it, placing it in the mailbox, and waiting for the mail carrier to arrive, you had ample time to reconsider the suitability of that particular course of action. Due to the slowness of communication in those primitive days, we had the opportunity to, for example, calm down, reflect on our situation, consider the consequences, change our minds, prevent impulsive behavior, and avoid embarrassment, disgrace, or criminal charges.

Technology has made it easier to be idiots because it discourages thinking and deliberation, and promotes acting on our most base impulses, emotions, and needs, for example, anger, sadness, lust, or need for approval. We can be idiots more quickly, be caught in our idiotic acts more easily, and be more publicly humiliated before a far broader audience than ever before. Returning to my rejection example, that entire process of rejection (by a text message perhaps) and reaction can now occur in a matter of seconds and with fewer than 140 characters. Being an idiot has never been more efficient.

My first awareness of when technology could help us be idiots was the Seinfeld episode (season 3, episode 4) in which George (as archetypical an idiot as has ever existed) left an angry rant on his girlfriend’s answering machine while she was away on a trip and the show was devoted to the idiotic lengths to which he went to prevent her from hearing the message. George being George, his first act of idiocy led to a veritable cascade of further idiocy and self-immolation.

There have been plenty of old-technology acts of idiocy such as former President Bush’s, "He’s a Major League a@#hole" remark. The actor Alec Baldwin definitely lost out on father-of-the-year honors when a verbally abusive voicemail left for his daughter was made public.

But these example was from the primitive days before Life 2.0. With the emergence of the Web, email, mobile phones with cameras, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, gossip web sites, and online sleuths, we have newer, faster, and more creative ways to be idiots, plus we now leave digital fingerprints all over our acts of idiocy. And there is an entire army of technophiles ready, willing, and able to immortalize our idiocy for all the world to see.

Let’s consider some well-known acts of high-tech idiocy in recent years. There was the supermodel Kate Moss caught on camera snorting cocaine and, in a similar vein, the Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps photographed taking a bong hit with a camera phone. How about the South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford leaving a stream of emails poignantly memorializing his love affair with his Argentine "soul mate." And there’s former Senator George Allen’s "macaca" and Congressman Joe Wilson’s "You lie!" moments immortalized on YouTube. Of course, no list of acts of idiocy would be complete without Tiger Woods’s digital trail of serial infidelity. What do each of these examples of idiotic acts in this high-tech era have in common? Opportunity, ease, speed, reach, and irreversibility. Welcome to the new age of idiocy.

I know I’ve left many worthy candidates off my list, so feel free to add your own.

Dr. Jim Taylor is internationally recognized for his work in the psychology of performance in business, parenting, and sport. He is the author of ten books, including Positive Pushing: How to Raise a Successful and Happy Child, Your Children are Under Attack: How Popular Culture is Destroying Your Kids’ Values, and How You Can Protect Them, The Triathlete’s Guide to Mental Training, and Applied Sport Psychology: Four Perspectives, the Prime Sport book series, Psychology of Dance, Psychological Approaches for Sports Injury Rehabilitation, and Comprehensive Sports Injury Management.

He has has appeared on NBC’s Today Show, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, UPN’s Life & Style, ABC’s World News This Weekend, and the major television network affiliates around the U.S..

Technology: The Law of Unintended Consequences

February 2, 2010 | By drjim

I’ve been called a skeptic, an alarmist, and a doomsayer because the focus of most of my technology blogging is on the risks of and what’s wrong with technology. I realize that I may sound like a Luddite despite the fact that I’m actually an early adapter and readily admit that I couldn’t function in my work without the plethora of technology that is currently at our fingertips. I guess the reason I come across as such a downer at times is that I assume that we all know about the incredible benefits that technology has to offer us; it’s not worth repeating what we all know to be true. At the same time, I recognize that, with the rapid advancements in computer and communication technology in the last decade, we haven’t had to time consider how these developments will shape our individual and collective lives.

I don’t have a problem with technology. To the contrary, it can be a wonderful tool for progress and change. Technology is already changing our lives cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally; psychologically, physically, and socially; politically, culturally, and environmentally. My goal is not to suggest that we should reject technology, but rather to ensure that we have control over it rather it controlling us. The ultimate objective of this dissection of technology is to make certain that we use it with perspective and forethought to enhance our lives instead of indifferently or reactively to damage our lives.

I certainly don’t have all the answers. But before we can find answers, we must first ask the right questions. That is what I want to do, to ask the questions that need to be asked in the hope that minds greater than my own will help provide the answers.

With that preface, let me introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences and why I am so concerned about the breakneck pace of technological development. According to Wikipedia.com, this law states “that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.” Furthermore, it is “a warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them.” Finally, “possible causes of unintended consequences include the world’s inherent complexity…perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception or other cognitive or emotional biases.”

The Law of Unintended Consequences can be seen everywhere in our lives, for example, in the wars in Irag and Afghanistan and the Great Recession. And it is absolutely pervasive in the new world of computer and communication technology. Consider the Internet, the Web, mobile phones, texting, facebook, and twitter. Here’s a satirical and fictitious quote attributed to twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey about his invention on theonion.com: “Twitter was intended to be a way for vacant, self-absorbed egotists to share their most banal and idiotic thoughts with anyone pathetic enough to read them. When I heard how Iranians were using my beloved creation for their own means—such as organizing a political movement and informing the outside world of the actions of a repressive regime—I couldn’t believe they’d ruined something so beautiful, simple, and absolutely pointless.” Though clearly speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek, who would have predicted that technology would play a key role in the election of a president or the promotion of freedom in countries such as China and Iran. At the same time, who would have thought that mobile phones would be used by terrorists and drug dealers to further their causes or that texting while driving would increase the risk of an car accident 23 times.

Is there a more powerful force in our lives today than technology? I don’t think so. And, given its increasing influence on our individual and social landscapes, shouldn’t we understand the technologies as best we can?

We can increase that understanding and decrease its unintended consequences by exploiting the incredible technology we now have available to us. Why not employ the same strategies that software companies use – mass collaboration — in which they “leak” unfinished software to the amateur developers. In doing so, these “basement hackers” identify and resolve bugs, “tweak” the software, and, generally, polish the product far better than a team of in-house developers could ever do. Imagine if a new technology was similarly leaked to experts in the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, as well as laypeople with a passion for the intersection of technology and humanity, and were encouraged to brainstorm on how it might be used, misused, and what its unintended consequences might be. Using the power of technology to harness the creative power of the many to further the value of technology seems like a no-brainer to me.

Of course, we can never know a priori all of the unintended consequences (just as most of us couldn’t have imagined that terrorists would use hijacked airliners as guided missiles), but reducing their number could make the positive effects of new technology all the more beneficial and its negative effects more manageable and less destructive.

Dr. Jim Taylor is internationally recognized for his work in the psychology of performance in business, parenting, and sport. He has been a consultant to and has provided individual and group training to executives and businesses throughtout the U.S., Canada, Europe, and the Middle East, including the Young Presidents’ Organization

Dr. Taylor is the author of ten books, including Positive Pushing: How to Raise a Successful and Happy Child, Your Children are Under Attack: How Popular Culture is Destroying Your Kids’ Values, and How You Can Protect Them, The Triathlete’s Guide to Mental Training, and Applied Sport Psychology: Four Perspectives, the Prime Sport book series, Psychology of Dance, Psychological Approaches for Sports Injury Rehabilitation, and Comprehensive Sports Injury Management.

He has has appeared on NBC’s Today Show, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, UPN’s Life & Style, ABC’s World News This Weekend, and the major television network affiliates around the U.S.. He has participated in many radio shows. His research and writings have as been the subject of syndicated sports columns that have appeared in dozens of newspapers across the country. Jim has been a columnist for The Denver Post , and has been interviewed for articles that have appeared in The New York Daily News, The Los Angeles Times, The London Times, The Chicago Tribune, U.S. News & World Report, The Christian Science Monitor, The London Telegraph, The Miami Herald, The Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, The Baltimore Sun, The Denver Post, Skiing, Outside, and many other newspapers and magazines.

10 Things I Love About Technology

January 20, 2010 | By drjim

The Web, the Internet, and all of the new media that has sprung from them, have been a boon to the information age, making information available at our fingertips instantaneously. The sheer volume of information now accessible on line is staggering. As of a few weeks ago, there were more than 21 billion pages on the Web. Information continues to become more available to more people in less time; from web sites to email to RSS feeds to Twitter, we have input at an unprecedented rate and volume. Ironically, as the frequency of information grows, the length of messages shrinks (e.g., Twitter’s 140-character limit. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; think of haiku). And, amazingly, the vast majority of this information is free.

For all its benefits, an unfortunate consequence of this torrent of information is that our “mental inbox” becomes overloaded. With our minds spilling over with information, our primary motivation is to empty it as quickly as possible. We typically use two “information survival” strategies when the inbox fills up. We output as quickly as possible without sufficient thought to either the incoming or outgoing messages. The obvious downside to this approach is that your input lacks thorough consideration and evaluation and your output lacks quality. Or, we are so overwhelmed by emails and text messages that we simply delete large swathes of messages without even looking at them. The obvious downside here is that important messages may be missed.

Information overload isn’t the only problem with this deluge of data that comes to those of us who are connected 24/7. Such large and never-ending quantities of input interfere with our ability to “innerput,” a word I created to denote our thought processes in response to input, including insights, synthesis, judgments, and decisions. With so much information coming in and the need to get information out, innerput suffers; there is neither the time nor the energy to adequately process all of the information.

Information is only a tool; it’s value lies in how we use it. And information has limited value, either as input or output, without innerput. Only through innerput does information become meaningful, only then can it morph from simple data to knowledge and wisdom. And that only comes when there is time for innerput; stopping in the middle of this flood of information to think about, wrestle with, challenge, and build on the information that arrives at our technological doorstep.

Dangers of input and output without innerput can be seen daily. Unfounded rumors that aren’t investigated adequately before they are posted spread across the Internet and are accepted and remain as “truth” even when they are definitively debunked later. Information without context limits its value to readers by restricting our understanding and its meaning to us. One-sided stories without the balance of another perspective create the illusion of accuracy and correctness. And all of this input doesn’t just describe phenomena that are happening in the world, it also impacts those very events because we make judgments about and decide on how we will respond based on these limited data.

For individuals, input without innerput has serious consequences. It means staying on the surface of information rather than diving deep into its meaning and implications. The absence of innerput prevents us from taking real ownership of the information and integrating it into our knowledge base. It also keeps us from transforming the input from cold and lifeless data into a power plant of insight, creativity, innovation, and action.

At a societal level, the consequences of too much input and not enough innerput are significant and sometimes dire. Input without innerput is often used as a weapon by extremists of every ilk against the forces of reason, moderation, and civil discourse. We see it in totalitarian regimes, fundamentalist causes, and ideological warfare. Drowning people in biased information is a common strategy used to prevent people from thinking deliberately and critically about the input to which they are exposed. In a torrent of information, the best way to survive is simply to accept it rather than resist it. The deadly combination of a tidal wave of input and the absence of innerput makes people more vulnerable to misinformation and undue influence.

So how can we swim against the tide of information overload and find the time for innerput? The answer to this question is really quite simple, but nonetheless far from easy. The power to control the amount of input we allow in, foster innerput, and ensure the quality of the output we produce is in our individual hands. Too often, I see people becoming slaves to technology rather than being its master; I see people being information junkies who just crave the input regardless of its value.

You control the flow of information in several ways. First, ask yourself what purpose all of this input serves and whether the typical information you receive each day really brings something of value to the table. You’ll likely realize that you’re inputting a great deal of information simply out of habit or perhaps a concern that you will miss out on something really important if you limit your input. Ask yourself: Do you really need to follow people on Twitter or Facebook or check your IMs every two minutes? Hopefully, this exercise will put your input load into perspective and show you that much of your input is unnecessary.
Next, choose the input you deem most important and jettison that which doesn’t clear that self-determined threshold. When you commit to input filtering and limits, you will establish new and healthier input habits.

With your input load reduced and your new understanding of the importance of innerput (you already knew it intuitively; I just needed to bring it into your consciousness), you now have the time to devote innerput to the input that you really value. The result? Less feeling of drowning in information, less stress, more time, more cogent thinking, and better quality output.

Psychology of Technology: On-line Communities: The Kindness of Strangers

December 10, 2009 | By drjim

For those of you who follow my Psychology of Technology blog posts (especially here and here), you know that I’m a bit cynical about how technology is impacting us, particularly when it comes to how we define relationships. My worries aren’t so great that I’m looking to wipe out our communications grid with an electromagnetic pulse or anything like that (Instant Quiz: Can you tell me what long-cancelled television show was based on that premise and who starred in it?), but the ways in which new media have changed our ability to establish relationships have me concerned.

But this post isn’t about all the problems that new media may cause. To the contrary, I want to honor a truly wonderful aspect of this rapidly emerging and evolving technology. I’m talking about the on-line communities that offer knowledge bases, forums, and collaboration in an area of common interest.

Having been a part of several technology-related communities, as both a user and a contributor, I am truly amazed at the generosity of spirit, expertise, and time that members devote to helping one other. I have experienced this munificence first hand many times. One such occasion occurred recently with an Italian fellow, whose real job is as a journalist, who spent hours over several days exchanging emails with me helping to solve a problem and create something new on my mobile phone. Whenever I had a question, he had an answer. He didn’t know me from Adam, yet he was willing gave his time and expertise to me. And for nothing more than a heart-felt thanks.

These corporeally disconnected communities, paradoxically enough, show people the very best that humanity has to offer – generosity, cooperation, patience, time, respect, compassion – to total strangers! I say paradoxically because I often wonder why people devote themselves to these communities. There are few obvious rewards for the experts in these communities who create knowledge bases, offer tutorials, and provide answers to “noobie” (new members of the community) questions. There are few financial incentives (developers can solicit donations for products they create, but I’m pretty sure they don’t cover the mortgage). It’s not likely to foster career advancement for most of those involved; contributors’ work lives are often entirely unrelated to the community’s focus. For example, in one mobile-technology community in which I am involved, some of the experts include an attorney, an auto-parts distributor, a chemist, and several college students). And there is usually some price that is paid for such involvement, mostly time not devoted to work or family (I tell my wife that it’s better I’m into technology than porn!).

Yet the rewards, though less tangible, are obviously there. The experts in these communities can attain something of a god-like status to worshipping noobs and junior members who get thoughtful and detailed answers to their many questions. Now that I have attained a degree of competence (though far from expertise) in several on-line communities, I take great pride in finding answers to some of those questions. And, in return, what these communities have in abundance is the sincerest appreciation and gratitude from those who have been helped.

At a deeper level, despite these relatively small rewards, members devote time and energy to the community because of their passion for the topic, their desire to help others, and their wish to connect with those who share that passion. What pervades these communities is a deep feeling of altruism from its members. There’s just too much give and not enough take to see it any other way.

I’ve also been amazed at the kind of relationships that develop in these communities, particularly among the hard-core insiders who administer and contribute regularly to them. I’ve been fortunate be a part of the “staff” of one particular on-line community and the banter among us on the staff emails is little different than if we were a bunch of guys hanging out in one of our backyards. We know little about each other and will likely never meet, but we act like we’ve known each other for years. I think it is that distance and what I might call controlled anonymity (you only have to share what you want with others) that creates the level of comfort and openness that constantly surprises me. On-line communities like ours transcend pretty obvious geographical, cultural, and political differences (it’s often just fodder for mutual ribbing). And, to be honest, if we actually ever met, I’m not sure we would all get along because of those differences. I say that as a compliment, not a criticism, of on-line communities because it shows that if people focus on what they have in common, then it’s possible to rise above those areas in which they differ. The result is mutual respect, appreciation, as close to friendship as can develop on line, and a community in the truest sense of the word.

Relationships 2.0: How Technology is Redefining How We Connect

October 8, 2009 | By drjim

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 to show me that virtual relationships can provide that.

Jim Taylor, Ph.D.

Psychology of Technology: The Blogsphere Jungle

September 8, 2009 | By drjim

I can tell you this: It’s a jungle out there. I don’t mean the real world in which most of us inhabit; that world is pretty tame. I’m talking about the blogosphere. I’ve been blogging for about eight months now and, up until recently, it was a pretty unexciting experience. I would post a…post (I still haven’t figured out how to use post when it is both a noun and verb, but that’s another discussion) and receive responses that were thoughtful and reasoned.

Then a few weeks ago, I published a post both complimentary and critical of Steve Jobs and the iPhone on a prominent computer-technology Web site for which I write a blog as the Tech Shrink. When I first logged on after the posting, I noticed that the number of views was much higher than usual as were the number of comments. I then went to the comments and was totally unprepared for what I read.

Now I understand that blogs are mostly opinion pieces and not everyone is going to agree with me. I also acknowledge the risks of expressing one’s opinions on topics that are both controversial and for which people hold very strong views; my post qualified on both counts. But, as I read through the comments, I felt like I was thrown into the jungle among a pack of ravenous beasts, so ferocious were the invectives that were flung at me.

Yes, the majority – but not all, thankfully – of the comments disagreed with me. I’m fine with that. I’m not the final arbiter of what is right or wrong on any given topic. And some of the comments offered some intelligent perspectives and information that were both enlightening and softened my stance on the topic. But to say that most of the comments were unkind is to say that Yao Ming is pretty tall or Megan Fox is reasonably attractive.

To give you a flavor of the comments, I was called a clown, narcissistic, a nobody, envious, a hater, a fascist, a moron, and ignorant. And that was just the first dozen or so posts. In preparing to write this piece, I just couldn’t bring myself to continue reading the remainder of the posts to catalog the rest of the less-than-complimentary descriptions of me.

Even though I’m pretty thick skinned, I have to admit that I was pretty shaken by the comments, in both volume and tone, because they were, for the most part, personal, inaccurate, and just plain mean. No doubt I touched a nerve on a topic of some debate with people who have a cult-like devotion to the subject. Why people get so worked up about a mobile phone is beyond me (though I’m glad they do because otherwise no one would read my blog!); it’s just a thing, yet it obviously represents much more to many people.

Thankfully, shortly after my posting, I read an appropriately-timed commentary on blogging in the New York Times by the columnist Maureen Dowd, a much-better-known and decidedly more controversial figure than I will ever be. The column began: “If I read all the vile stuff about me on the Internet, I’d never come to work. I’d scamper off and live my dream of being a cocktail waitress in a militia bar in Wyoming.” Though my dream is a bit different from hers, my feelings were the same.

After my painful rite of passage into the blogosphere jungle, I began to think about the psychology involved in this “Wild West” of a technological frontier. As I’m not planning to stop blogging, I thought I would share some observations I’ve made about life in the blogosphere. The blogosphere has opened a seemingly infinite universe for exchanging and debating ideas. Blogging has given voice to many people with important things to say, but who didn’t have the soapbox on which to express themselves. Of course, blogging has also given a platform to narcissistic, attention-getting rants by people who think they have something of value to say, but really don’t (present company possibly included).

Because bloggers and their readers seem to have stronger and more polarized opinions than the general population, these exchanges tend to be little more than volleys of mutual assault aimed at not only proving the other person obviously, entirely, and undoubtedly wrong – and stupid and ugly and fat to boot! – rather than exchanges of mutual respect and interest in hearing other perspectives.

Also, without patting myself on the back too much, I have to say that blogging takes courage. Before the birth of the blogosphere, most people with an opinion on a topic could share with it with a few friends at most and have disagreements of varying intensity. Today bloggers open themselves up to potentially millions (though more typically tens, hundreds, or thousands) of supporters or critics. I have a new-found respect for bloggers who address topics of real sensitivity such as politics, sexuality, or religion.

You also can’t get away with anything in the blogosphere. There are just too many well-informed people out there who are perfectly willing to set the record straight. Of course, there are also an equal or greater number of ignoramuses willing to tell us what they think, the facts be damned. You have to not only have all of your facts straight, but you better also have good spelling and good grammar. Nothing in a blog post is too trivial to be dissected, judged, and ripped to shreds.

The vitriolic commenters, who are clearly not residing solely on my blog, obviously believe fervently in their points of view and find opposing opinions so repugnant that they have to attack the messenger rather than respond to the points of disagreement. What the commenters don’t apparently realize is that, by attacking the blogger, they are weakening their own positions. I’ve always found that when people get personal in an argument, they likely either don’t have a strong position on the issue or they can’t articulate it well. Certainly, vicious and childish rants don’t reflect well on the attacker and don’t present well to others, whether toward a spouse, a business colleague, or the blogosphere.

One unfair aspect of blogging is that, while most bloggers are out in the open and, as a result, easy targets, many Web sites allow commenters to be anonymous and that anonymity gives them cover from responsibility and license to say whatever they want in the harshest possible terms. Yes, many Web sites require registration (and many do not), but identity, besides some attempt at a clever username, is still not evident on the blogs where the attacks occur and, based on my experience, rarely have had repercussions. Hopefully, a recent court case brought and won by a woman against an anonymous blogger for her relentless and malicious personal attacks will force some degree of accountability on anonymous bloggers or commenters. Here’s a rule that I think bloggers and commenters alike should follow: If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face or in front of your grandmother, don’t say it on a blog.

These heated reactions certainly say something interesting about self-esteem, beliefs, and emotions. It has been my professional experience that such stridently emotional reactions occur in the face of an extreme threat to one’s world view and, by extension, one’s self-esteem. In other words, when these commenters read something that challenges their perceptions on an issue in which they are highly invested, for example, the iPhone was not sent by God and Steve Jobs is not the messiah, their primitive survival mechanism is triggered and they do what prehistoric cavemen did when they felt threatened, they attacked. Of course, opinions or facts shouldn’t be as menacing as spears or saber-toothed tigers, yet they seem to provoke the same kind of powerful emotional reaction.

One could argue that the blogosphere is self correcting, that is, supporters will confront the attackers and defend the blogger and the kharmic balance in the blogosphere will be restored. And, thankfully, this happened to a very small degree with my recent post. Unfortunately, it seems that people are more likely to respond to a controversial blog post that challenges rather than buttresses their own views, so my gallant defenders were few and readily overwhelmed by the marauding onslaught.

With this critique of blog comments, you’d think I would want comments moderated or have them disabled all together, but I don’t. My feeling is that, to use an old cliché, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” So, instead of running away from it, to quote Axl Rose of Guns N’ Roses, I say, “Welcome to the Jungle.”