³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

The Huffington Post has plugged a gap in American political discourse. Whereas news was previously filtered through the television news networks and East/West coast newspapers, almost all of which have a centre-right viewpoint, the Huffington Post has given a platform to left-ish points of view. I have certainly never seen so many articles and posts from an American news source that have endorsed socialism, unions, public utilities and criticised rampant capitalism and globalism - quite an eye-opener for those who assume that US politics thought is mostly rootin' and, indeed, tootin'. It is now possible to read views from both ends of the political spectrum, which is surely a healthier situation than existed before. Debate is the lifeblood of innovation.

However, the Post is still dazzled by showbusiness - too many actors and musicians are given space to promote their political views simply because they have a high public profile. (I should add that some of my favourite people are actors and musicians.) More substance, less soap on the front page, please. It was encouraging to hear Arriana Huffington talk about citizen journalism, and thus raise hopes that the power of the internet can ferret out what readers so desperately crave and what the media, both left and right-wing have signally ignored in recent years: facts. To get all Gradgrindian for a moment, we readers need facts, facts and more facts. Reams of analysis are all very well, for they help readers to collate arguments, but without the bedrock of facts all analysis is so much puffery.

So the HuffPo is now part of the hierarchy - but at least the hierarchy is now more balanced. I'm amazed that Republicans haven't developed an equivalent to the Post; the Drudge Report can't compare. Mind you, they do have Fox News...

The great strength of the web is that it allows users to swerve past information hierarchies and find out for themselves. I look forward to the day when similar online newspapers across the world use the power of the web to respond and adapt, thanks to the proddings and provocation of their querulous readership who can now contact them or vote with their mouses and go elsewhere.

Regarding Western imperialism, I'd like to think that transparency and accountability are universal qualities; they are concomitant with everyone's desire for justice. The web is moving apace in South America and the Middle East - both areas are surely developing their own web culture, and Africa is going to be fascinating. As for immediacy, well, some cultural differences will remain, which is surely a cause for celebration. :)

Dear DigRev,

Please give us an "edit" button. I've just noticed numerous typos that I can't correct. I even got "Arianna" wrong. Oh, the shame of it...

:$

@Dan Biddle

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your reply.

The will to "swerve" (are we inventing a new web term?) depends on whether web users wish to replicate their "old-media" experiences. The same old newspapers, magazines and television channels are there should they be needed; what's different about the web is that it not only encourages curiosity but facilitates it. Emails, downloads and search engines (so long as the savvy can navigate SEOs) enable web users to explore what a daily publication of, say 48 pages, can't. Yes, it's very easy to rely on the same old sites like, dare one say it, the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, (and I certainly do) but there are other news sources and not all of them are conglomerates. Some are the archetypal man on the street.

Newsagents can't stock everything; the net can.

Of course, newspapers don't have edit buttons either. Not much of a revolution, is it, Dan? ;)

Thanks for this update Dan, I see the changes will be rolled out across the different online resources this Winter.

Is going to cause some hilarity/consternation over on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Autumnwatch Message boards where some of the group 'a fancy of packham swooners' will only have one last chance have to amend their msg board id's and maybe loose the 'swoon' tag that's evolved for this series. Or maybe not, as is an avowed aim to get this lovely word Swoon back into circulation ...... See the power of the web is being brought into use yet again and just for gentle fun this time. Anyone's interested in how it came about, for proof that Presenters do read message boards and just why Geeks have a certain appeal:

Cor Wow Packham Yes Please!
/dna/mbsn/F14197738?thread=6973188&post=87779153#p87779153

I haven't commented previously on the segment on the nation state, but here's an observation.

There is a gargantuan orange tarantula on the Web (or "great white elephant in the room" to use a more common analogy). We're questioning the risks to the nation state from the Web from these perspectives:

* privacy
* democratic opinion online
* security
* Big Brother measures
* free or pay before you can play and have a say

Interestingly, the Web's risks to the nation state to-date are actually beyond these issues. As influential as the HuffPost, Facebook, twitter et al presume themselves (or are presented by socmedia commentators) to be as conduits of opinion, none of them actually affect bottom line policies or the real actual loss of societal value.

The Web has changed and directly impacted nation state(s) in a way which has not been commented or analysed yet. It facilitated the movement of global capital and complex financial instruments across connected platforms in a way not previously modelled or accounted for by Adam Smith, JM Keynes or current governments.

Now, the reality is that US$ trillions worth of actual value effects pose real risks to nation states.

What is surprising is that there's not been analysis or recommendations to examine this risk. Governments seem to believe that quantitative easing and bail outs are all that are needed. They apply out-dated monetarism measures from textbook Smith & Keynes whose models don't take the Web into account --- principally because the Web did not exist in their times.

In fact, there's a serious need to examine how the Web is facilitating capital flows and corporate transactions and how that impacts on nation states and their ability to formulate and implement policies, and generate societal value.

Just an observation........

As for HuffPost itself, there was this article on Gawker about HP's citizen journalists back in Jan 2009:

*


Whilst I'm pro-democratic opinion from diverse audiences, the question still remains, "How can we put the content into context? How can we differentiate that the person commenting is of a particular political persuasion and how does their comment translate into actual policy that benefits society? Does voicing an opinion actually lead to an electoral participation or a policy change? Are there ways of tracking this? Are people engaging in policy formulation or simply shooting the breeze about their political perspectives and that's all?"

"Technology has changed radically, but have people changed radically with it?" Dan.

This suggest sadly that they haven't; or perhaps the connected world means we now have to 'toughen up', as we're exposed to more people and their views. e.g.

"Think I may have to give up on Twitter. Too much aggression and unkindness around," Stephen Fry.


Tangentially related. Many people don't have a high rationality quotient, even if they have a high IQ.


Also on this topic:

For Programme 4 and the question of online humanity and global consciousness, we definitely should reference Dr. Larry Brilliant and Dr. Vint Cerf's Google Tech Talk of November 2008. It's available on YouTube under the search terms "Google Tech Talk consciousness" in Parts 3-5. The panel discussion with them confirms that technology hasn't radically changed since the invention of the Web and that more ACTION is needed along with all the awareness.

Connected with this are Peter Thiel's comments at the Singularity Summit, October 2009. He voices concerns about the Singularity not happening fast enough as well as the pace of technological progress not being where it should be:

*

As for IQ, there was an interesting anecdotal article on the Timesonline:

Dame Wendy Hall's comments in that Times article may be the most approp' for those wondering whether the Web has indeed increased our intelligence:

"I don’t equate intelligence with cleverness. I think people who are intelligent have a touch of humanity about them. Their ideas, insight and vision set them apart from others, but they also have an understanding of what makes the world tick and how their ideas can impact for the greater good. Interestingly, as the World Wide Web has evolved so has the concept of collective intelligence, which is best encapsulated in the evolution of Wikipedia. This is a new form of intelligence that could lead to new insights into our understanding of the key challenges that face us as an increasingly global society."

Some commentators (aka "trolls") go onto social media sites and believe that by virtue of expressing their sardonic / cutting opinions or belonging to a group following a well-known "Brain the size of Mars" like Stephen Fry somehow validates their own intelligence.

I believe Dame Hall is right; true intelligence has a touch of humanity. Therefore, anyone online who is inconsiderate to their fellow participants is...not particularly bright.

On the question of how democratising citizen journalism is, it's notable that during times of crisis there is a "flight to quality" whether it's stocks or media updates. The Wall Street Journal, RGEMonitor and the FT were the sites that provided strong coverage. Countless blogs of citizen journalists simply did not have the analytical capability or the access to senior people who could and would share their direct insights on how it happened.

Oh and as helpful as that New Scientist article is it's been fairly self-evident that high IQs don't necessarily equate with rationale or sense-making. The IQ power of politicians, regulators, bankers and management consultants is high; most are Ivy League / Oxbridge / top MBA school / top 1 percentile. Yet the global financial crisis happened because ego and political point-scoring were allowed to over-ride rationale and sense.

There is definitely a truth in Professor Greenfield's comment on intelligence: it's the ability to put information into context with something else.

The information about the economic bubble build ups and imminent blow-up was there. The key decision-makers simply didn't (or were unable to) connect the dots and contextualise it. Unfortunately, they still can't because the tech tools are not sufficiently smart enough yet.

WE will need to radically change our own constructs of intelligence and consciousness before we have any chance of programming the machines to be truly intelligent and conscious enough to solve the world's biggest challenges: climate change, equivalence in education, universal health provision, eradication of cancer, appropriate wealth distribution, and more.

If the Rational Quotient (RQ) test in the New Scientist article is indicative of how we're supposed to test for intelligence moving forward, then I'd point out that RQ is a component of IQ rather than a robust enough stand-alone replacement of it. Those three questions can be found in the numerical reasoning section of standard IQ tests. Anyone who's good at simultaneous equations and binomials would have absolutely no problems getting the answers right.

Intelligence is more than what we are currently testing for: RQ (numeracy), spatial reasoning, LQ (literacy quotient) and EQ (emotional quotient). It's already been commented that there are cultural biases in IQ tests. What hasn't been commented on is that there's also a SENSORY BIAS. IQ tests test our VISUAL capacity to read and interpret questions. With the exception of when IQ testers are dealing with prodigious children and use physical blocks with pictures on them, we don't test for our TOUCH intelligence. We are also not tested for our AURAL or OLFACTORY (taste and smell) intelligence.

Why are these important constituents of intelligence? Well because each adds perspective and context to our ability to MAKE SENSE of ourselves, our relationship with others and our wider world.

Specifically for rationality, instead of posing text-based questions that require numerical reasoning, testers should put their sample populations into fact/reality-based (rather than hypothetical scenarios) like these:

(1.) We are at a junction. We want to get to the sidewalk diagonally opposite us. There are two options available to reach that destination: (a) cross the first road, then the second road; (b) cross diagonally even though there are no traffic lights which control traffic for us to cross (we have to apply our own "stop, look and listen".

Of course, numerical reasoning would say that Pythagoras applies in scenario (b) - time and distance to cross are less - so logically that's the route we should take. However, rationality would advise us to opt for scenario (a) because there we have more control over the traffic lights and, by extension, cars stopping to let us cross. Hence a higher probability of surviving the road crossing without injury.

(2.) Here are three beakers of three colorless liquids. One is an acid, one is an alkali and one is water. Which one is rational to drink and how do we test for which is which?

The obvious answer is to SMELL them. That's an example of current IQ tests not capturing a core part of our intelligence, right there.

(3.) Here is a wire. Typically, a 1 metre wire can conduct 100Wph. This is a 25m wire. How much electricity can it conduct in 3 hours?

Well, if we could TOUCH it our intelligence might tell us an answer about that wire the question doesn't. Firstly, what material is the wire made of (metal, plastic or silicate)? Secondly, what is the per metre cubed conductivity of each material. Finally, is this wire suspended in a vacuum environment or attached to the right + and - connections on a
battery?

In conclusion, intelligence and testing for it requires a synergy of us having all the FACTS as catchingthewaves mentions as well as the recognition that humans have FIVE senses plus consciousness whereas IQ tests tend to focus mostly on our visual ability to read questions.

The facts element is important because it does affect informed decision-making. Unfortunately, although social media has increased perspectives and participation it has also increased noise and inaccuracies (or opinion passing as fact). This means, for example, that if business people were to model future projections about the traction and influence of social media, they'd need to cross-verify differently than before and also take some of the hyperboles with a good amount of
salt.

Another aspect of citizen journalism that's different from traditional journalism and it's standards are related to legal issues and membership of recognised bodies for codes of conduct. Traditional journalists tend to be trained in what constitutes libel and defamation. They're mindful of that and their Editors also have access to and call upon legal advice to ensure they don't put the publication into unnecessary risk of facing legal actions. Certainly, I remember that during Web 1.0 everything I published online was cleared by Legal&Compliance.

Now there are millions of blogs which don't observe those traditional journalistic standards wrt legal aspects. It will be interesting to track the Stephen Fry situation and how the Press Complaints Commission deals with the comments relating to the online disagreements Fry had with one of his followers.

Certainly, I've read threads and citizen posts online (although not relating to Fry's case) which clearly breach legal
definitions of libel and basic humanity.

There are merits to the free flow of information but there are also, clearly, noise and negatives.

Here is another aspect of citizen journalism compared with paid-for journalists. If a paid-for journalist is considered to have contravened the media laws of the country from where they're reporting, they will have their media employers and union of journalists to support them. In some cases, as in the scenario of those two American journalists detained in North Korea, they may even have a former President to negotiate their release.

Citizen journalists don't have the same rights or support.

Therefore, whilst increasing transparency would be considered a positive step, it's also worth bearing in mind that citizen journalists operate under diverse media law regimes - which may not be in the same jurisdictions as the likes of HuffPost, Twitter and other US-origin social media. In which case, citizen journalists face risks for posting without a media employer, trade union or political body supporting them if anything goes wrong.

I'm particularly conscious of this because a friend is currently in Tehran and has recorded materials on the political atmosphere. They are not journalists, politically oriented or have a media giant to call upon for support. As much as I appreciate the benefits of transparency, my concerns are first and foremost for their personal safety.

This is why I'm advising them NOT to blog or post any material if it will attract the attentions of the authorities and affect their freedom of movement out of the country. Yes, blogs and citizen journalism have their pros. However, we also need to appreciate that bloggers post from different media law regimes. The Fifth Amendment and the fifth estate are specific to the US. In some countries, there are penalties and risks for providing information that are markedly different to the US and other Western democracies.

Friends of "citizen journalists" have a responsibility to remind them that they don't have the same benefits and protections as paid-for or officially employed journalists. First priority is to keep them personally safe, way before any breaking of news. They're not Woodward & Bernstein. They don't have a media proprietor to back them up, a contingent of lawyers to double-check the legal issues associated with their reporting and they're not being paid to put their lives at risk to "get the scoop".

It now looks as though Fry has relented.


A lot of good points and links PNAB. "Some commentators (aka "trolls") go onto social media sites and believe that by virtue of expressing their sardonic / cutting opinions or belonging to a group following a well-known "Brain the size of Mars" like Stephen Fry somehow validates their own intelligence."

I think many people simply get swept away by outbursts of rage, prejudice, hatred etc. Best illustrated by some comments of YouTube, (possibly because its a predominantly younger group of commenters); insults and profanity take the place of argument. As if they're being pulled back (down? into a primitive, primate way of responding. Too many people are emotionally-incontinent; their 'thinking' governed by emotional response without any semblance of logic or rationality.

I New Scientist link I gave above was for the 3rd page of the article, which might confuse some. Here's the link to its first page.

I should have written that since New Scientist opened its article questioning George W. Bush's intelligence, it may be worthwhile to watch 'Scarborough: Is George Bush an Idiot' by MRDTalk on YouTube.

How is this all related to HuffPost and Arianna's rushes? Well, as she points out: "Erm you can't really galvanise people without a clear message. It's not just a factor of technology. It's a combination of message and technology." The historical reality is that there are photogenic, charismatic and articulate people who translate their intelligence well across digital media like the Web and then there are those who don't. They may suit non-digital eras and that's not necessarily applicable exclusively to Presidents.

Edgar Allen Poe in written word works and seems intelligent (if occasionally unintelligible) whereas on an onscreen basis he doesn't transfer as readily as Dickens or Chandler's writings. Likewise, Chekhov's plays are compelling on stage but not as appealing or translateable to digital interpretation as Shakespeare's.

Regardless of the era or the field, the talent and their message need to match the medium.

Now, tying in that Times's article on intelligence, one of the commentators (John Ledbury) wrote: "Emotional and social fluency are not "intelligences", this is merely a euphemism designed to make dim folk feel better about themselves."

Well, that's interesting because I'd present the case that President Obama's emotional and social intelligences contributed to his nomination and electoral successes. From recollection, he didn't campaign by focussing on his Harvard education, high IQ, intellectual connections with elite thinking or cognisance of complex structures. Instead his speeches and interactions with audiences were about EMOTIONAL connections and journeys he was travelling like Joe Public electorate: his search for his own identity; his educational opportunities and challenges; his mother's health issues and how that affected his understanding of the work doctors and nurses do; etc. It was that emotional fluency, magnified by the medium of the Web and his grassroots campaigning knowhow - rather than any Vulcan / Deep Blue / Wolfram Alpha-type of logic intelligence - that explain the nomination and election successes. Those emotional experiences probably have and are informing his perceptions, values and visions of democratic society as much as his rational understanding of the functions and operating procedures of the various branches of US legislature.

Personally, I think emotions are core to our perceptions, intelligence, consciousness, values and actions; this includes political choice through to actual consumption of goods and relationship behaviors. It is as primary to our intelligence as numeracy, literacy, dexterity, olfactory, communication and interpersonal skills.

Unfortunately, at present, the emotion dimension isn't being factored into models that matter:

(1.) Economic.

It's not enough to proviso that "We know humans don't make rational choices...so it's a given that markets are imperfect and inefficient and, therefore, sometimes bound to collapse."

NO. We need our economists to approach this in a more evolved intelligent way. We need to ask:

* what are the QUALITATIVE contributors to human decision-making, including consumption choices, as well as the quantifiable information like production output and GDP;

* what are the specific EMOTIONS that determine decisions and influence risk-taking;

* how can we capture and track an individual's emotions towards an array of options, over time?

Incidentally, I don't mean plugging them up to gizmos which measure their heart-rates, adrenaline, serotonin, endorphin or neural electrical activity alone. I mean being able to collect their emotions with online tools and no I don't mean scraping or extrapolating that info from sentiment engines either.

(2.) collective intelligence and consciousness online.

Instead of successive social media "flavors du mois" facilitating the propagation of noise and content confusion, we need to find ways to FILTER IN emotions as a contextualization mechanism. If we can build the tech tools, then possibly we'll convert what seems to be the angry mob / disaffected out-of-tune drum banging on some of the threads like HuffPost / YouTube / Twitter / etc into intelligible and intelligent action recommendations.


Final observation for now relating to intelligence and IQ tests: to-date it's been the social scientists (psychologists and cognitive psychoanalysts) who've developed the IQ tests --- rather than the natural scientists (neuroscientists, geneticists and clinical doctors). It may be that once we uncover more empirical understanding of the brain, it will become clearer that IQ tests are subjective, socially-biased imitations of what human intelligence is when what it should be is an objective, culturally-cognisant tools that are attuned into the entire spectrum of human intelligence.

Now.........THAT would be quite something, especially if someone could build that tool online and it would not only inform bankers PRIOR to them making irrational decisions, it would also inform political choices, consumption actions and relationship behaviors.

Fingers crossed some technologists step up to the plate!

*

LOL and it was completely unintentional and coincidental that I posted that preceding comment at........1:01.

Ha ha. Sleep time, me winks.

:*)

This is HuffPost's coverage on the US embassy anniversary:

*


The number of comments is lower than during the Iranian elections last summer. Generally, there doesn't seem to be the same coverage in the Western media.

My friend tells me there's been fighting on the streets for days. The authorities have stopped the ability to make long-distance phone calls, shut down several ISPs (even as ordinary people are hacking their ways around this) and access to social media sites like twitter, Facebook is patchy. There is only one messaging channel by which they can communicate to family and friends.

My advice remains the same: stay safe. Let the reporting be done by those who are trained and paid to put their lives at risk.