Recent Comments
-
Recent Posts
- The Cooperative Principle in Conversation versus the Prejudice in Silence
- Scripts, Stories, Narratives, Filling in the Gaps without Resorting to Fake News and other Propaganda Techniques
- The Continued Toleration of Illiteracy
- The Rationality of Interdependence vs. Independence (+ Self-Reliance + Inter-Reliance)
- The Rationality of Uncertainty
- The Rationality of Literacy
- It’s Not What You Think It Is
- The Irrationality of Irrationality
- For some, we get lost in media
- What are you going to do about it?
- Should You be Concerned about the Rate of Literacy if Over 99% Are Illiterate?
- The Rationality of Intimacy
- You can reach me at the Internet
- The Rationality of Buzz
- Voluntourism
- Global Languages (and/or Classification Schemes) + Generic Top Level Domains (TLDs)
- Auctions + Markets for Domains, Domain Names + TLDs
- Anti-Dis-Establishment-Arian-Ism + AntiDisInterMediaTion
- The Rationality of Algorithms: Facebook Algorithm, Google Algorithms or No Algorithm at All?
- The Spectre of Populism
- The Unanswered Questions
- The Domain Name is the Medium
- Sign My Guestbook + The Rationality of the Written Word
- The Rationality of Ignorance
- Don’t Listen to One Single Piece of Good Advice — Listen to Many
- Spam Index, Shopping Catalog & Co. – An Introduction to Anti-Social Rationality
- Rational Media + Literacy
- The Big Data Rationality of Large Numbers: Quantitative Statistics + Fanatical Delusions
- The Rationality of Large Numbers
- The Ubiquity of the Text Box (excursus)
- Literacy and Machine Readability: Some First Attempts at a Derivation of the Primary Implications for Rational Media
- Fundamental Principles of Rational Media
- First Essay on Rational Media
- Rational Media, Alternative Media + Mainstream Agendas
- The Rise of Rational Media
- Sense-Making vs. Sense-Unmaking
- Dumb
- There is No Such Thing as Context-Free Meaning
- Limitations in the WordPress Notifications algorithm
- In Our Brains…
- Do You Want To Be Right Or Do You Want To Be Happy?
- Propaganda + Subjectivity in Retard Media
- More about Rewards
- Rewarding Life May Be Counter-Productive When Rewards Undermine Habits
- Something to Hide: Nothing to Show
- The Complacent Illiterate Generation
- The Web Doesn’t Change Much from Day to Day
- If you thought Apple Ads Block was going to lead to the demise of Retard Media, then think again
- Explicit Thoughts
- The King of the New Media Jungle
Tags
- advertising
- brand
- brands
- business
- communication
- community
- data
- domain
- domains
- economics
- economy
- idea
- ideas
- illiteracy
- illiterate
- information
- information retrieval
- Internet
- language
- life
- literacy
- literate
- love
- marketing
- media
- natural
- natural language
- nature
- online
- propaganda
- publishing
- rational media
- remediary
- retard media
- science
- search
- social
- society
- technology
- web
- website
- websites
- Wisdom of the Language
- writing
Categories
Archives
- January 2018
- April 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
Meta
The Rationality of Literacy
Posted in freezine
Tagged community, engage, engaged, engagement, goal, goals, illiteracy, illiterate, language, literacy, literate, mission, mission statement, rational media, remediary, social, society, technology
Comments Off on The Rationality of Literacy
It’s Not What You Think It Is
My friend Jean Russell shared a really fascinating meme the other day on facebook. The main gist of the idea was that “you are what you think”… such that rather than “I am what you think I am”, in fact “you are what you think I am”.
This is a very powerful message — and yet there seems to be another message hidden behind the surface: Many things are not what you think they are. Some people also use the phrase “the map is not the territory” to draw attention to this phenomenon.
Yet many people make this exact mistake, often many times over — I guess sort of non-stop. Let me give you an example.
When I warn people about the dangers of relying too heavily on Google (or even about the dangers of using it at all — see also “Definition: How to Define “Retard Media”“), they often respond with “what do you have against the Internet?” or maybe “well, I don’t rely exclusively on the Internet”. These people apparently don’t realize that Google is not the Internet (neither is Facebook, nor Wikipedia or any other individual website).
In a similar vein, there is a podcast called “No Agenda” that purports to be all about media deconstruction. I enjoy listening to this podcast very much, but as far as I know neither of the creators of the show have ever given a functional operational definition of what they consider to be media (versus “not media”). As it is, they primarily deconstruct television programming (and also TV ads). But they sometimes also analyze websites (such as facebook.com and/or google.com) — but not all websites… so which websites? Their limited view of media distorts the usefulness of their information — to put it simply: because they deconstruct some things, but not everything.
Granted: deconstructing everything would be a quite formidable task… and it may even be impossible. But since they do not explicitly delineate what it is they want to deconstruct, the result is that the selection of what they do actually deconstruct may very well be quite biased. That is sad, because otherwise I would say that their approach is refreshing and insightful.
Posted in freezine
Tagged ad, ads, advertising, deconstruct, deconstruction, Internet, media, media deconstruction, propaganda, remediary, retard media, site, sites, television, tv, web, website, websites, World-Wide Web
Comments Off on It’s Not What You Think It Is
The Irrationality of Irrationality
When you let the word “irrational” roll off your tongue, you do a very irrational thing: You specify something that doesn’t exist. It is very much like trying do describe a vaccum (not the cleaner, but rather the contents of emptiness).
These days, it is very popular and a big hit to argue that people are economically motivated by irrational behaviors. That is also sort of like saying “light is dark”.
Arguing with such nonsense is an exercise in futility. Just because someone can’t explain something does not mean there is no explanation for it. Besides that, I challenge anyone to give an adequately precise definition of the term “irrational”. In my opinion, the fact that a brain is in a living state means that there is some kind of rationalization going on. It may seem odd, but mainly if you are unfamiliar with odd things, odd thought, odd behavior and such.
Let me give you an example. There’s a guy named Dan Ariely who maintains to be an expert on irrationality. I’ve watched some of his presentations, and I’ve observed that he actually seems to be jiving people: He says he talks about irrational behavior, but actually what he is talking about behavior that simply doesn’t conform to the laws of economics commonly taught in academia. For example, in one talk I paid attention to, he mentioned some law which basically said that if someone prefers A to B and also prefers B to C, it would be irrational to prefer C to A. What nonsense! This would be like saying that if someone likes ketchup more than relish, they would do something like drink a whole bottle of ketchup right out of the bottle. My hunch is that before someone had drunk less than half the bottle, they would no longer go near the ketchup for at least a week. Would that be irrational?
Posted in freezine
Tagged economics, irrational, irrationality, psychological, psychology, rational, rational behavior, rational expectation, rational expectations, rational media, rationality, remediary
Comments Off on The Irrationality of Irrationality
For some, we get lost in media
I opened up a copy of the New York Times today, and in an empty space within an article, there was a blurb that reads
Social networks put individuals at the center of their own media universes
— I am not even sure I understand what that is supposed to mean. Let alone the notion of a plurality of universes, the idea that media are not between people but rather like belly buttons for individuals to discover themselves within … I just find it mind-boggling. Then again, according to the surrounding words in the article next to this message, social media are depicted as breeding grounds for “fake news”, as cesspools for propagating mythical stories, for manipulating large populations of suckers into following this or that social media expert, leader, salesman or whatever.
“Social” is seen as the big mistake, the errant sidetrack from the collapsing foundations of journalism. Four words seem hidden somewhere in between the lines: I told you so. Naive and forlorn like Dorothy in a dizzying whirlwind, individuals end up as victims of lever-pulling hackers, clowns and con-artists. Social media transport hoaxes and fairy tales, yet they are also instruments targeted at novice users, training wheels to guide their first steps in the cyber-landscape. The virtual world is both for the light-hearted at the same time that it’s a wide field of thin ice. Throughout this portrayal, the real world is not embodied in media. Instead, real-world people with real-world addresses exist behind real-world mastheads printed on real-world paper. They carry real-world business cards, not fake virtual URLs.
Real-world buildings, with real-world street addresses, real-world telephones and such media are the physical conduits for real-world relationships. In contrast (so the argument), virtual facades evaporate into thin air as soon as a video screen is turned off.
This contrast might be all good and fine, except that it is a lie. None of these things are any more real than the other. Main Street is nothing without the street sign signifying it as such. The reason why we can agree to meet at Main Street is that we both understand it to be Main Street, and this agreement is based on us both understanding how to read street signs. Indeed: we agree on many things, of which such street signs are fine examples. We can also agree on the time of day, to speak the same language, or to answer each other’s questions succinctly and truthfully. Such agreements are crucial for us to help each other reach our goals, whether we hold the same goals in common, or whether each of us is trying to reach our own particular individual goals.
By reaching our goals, we become not only successful, we also become who we are. We actually self-actualize our identities. For example: a writer does not simply exist, he or she becomes a writer by writing. A worker becomes a worker by working. A buyer becomes a buyer by buying, a seller becomes a seller by selling, a consumer becomes a consumer by consuming and a producer becomes a producer by producing. As these last examples show, sometimes we can only self-actualize when other conditions are met, and sometimes these conditions also require the engagement of other people. In this sense, reaching our own goals involves a team effort — as, for example, a sale involves the teamwork of both a buyer and a seller.
Therefore, the real world is not so much a matter of separated individuals as it is the interaction and engagement of individuals with each other in a symbiotic process of self-actualization. We become who we are by interacting with one another. Our goals aren’t distinct and separate, they’re intertwined. We need to think of media as bustling marketplaces for such exchanges to take place, rather than as sterile and inert transport mechanisms. These are not empty tubes simply bridging gaps, they are stages for playing out our roles in real life.
Posted in freezine
Tagged action, activity, actualization, common, communication, communications, community, engage, engagement, identity, individual, individuals, interaction, language, market, marketing, marketplace, marketplaces, media, real, remediary, self-actualization, share, shared, sharing, social media, social network, social networks, virtual
Comments Off on For some, we get lost in media
What are you going to do about it?
I have a friend who works in the field of healthcare, and we were talking about corruption in the medical and pharmaceutical industries – the kind that leads to patients getting misdiagnosed and mistreated. I had shared something I had written with him, and as he is also a renowned author, I asked for his opinion on the piece… which was in particular also quite critical of healthcare providers in his particular niche (though it was not critical of him personally).
He remarked that it was very well written and convincing. I wondered and asked whether he also felt that my criticism of his professional colleagues was warranted. He noted that his profession could hardly be criticised, and agreed that this bad situation is rather the result of a corrupt system. Then he asked me what I intend to do about it.
I was somewhat taken aback, because I feel I am already doing quite a lot. I quite often speak publicly on this and related topics, I probably write even more on them, and then I am also working to correct what I consider to be one of the primary root causes of these very significant, very fundamental problems in the healthcare industry.
In order to explain what I mean, I need to backtrack… more than a decade. Another one of my friends has done a lot of medical research, has quite advanced academic degrees and is also the director of a hospital. (I have many friends who work in healthcare, in part because I spent a large portion of my adult life living very close to a quite well-known medical school) Once in a discussion with many of his colleagues – plus me – I heard him say that the vast majority (perhaps something like 80%) of medical conditions are a matter of psychology, or at least that they are so strongly influenced by the patient’s psychological state, that it is essentially a matter of psychology. This statement strongly influenced my thinking then, and since then I have also not heard of anything that might contradict the hypothesis. Nonetheless, I don’t know to what degree it is an accepted medical theory.
On the contrary, my close affiliations with the healthcare industry – whether as a patient or as a support group leader or even simply many close connections to people affected by a wide variety of conditions – strengthen my belief in this very insightful observation. Another „academic“ friend of mine has quite often mentioned Rudolf Virchow in this vein, maintaining that it was Virchow who first recognized that many illnesses are … something like: socially constructed.
This is no wonder to me. For years now, I have increasingly become aware that perhaps one of the greatest plagues humanity suffers is the way some humans behave with respect to their fellow humans – to put it succintly, many (if not even most) behave abominably. One example of how such abominable behavior plays out „in real life“ is what is often referred to as „bullying“ (or a similar phenomenon known in Europe as „mobbing“). My gut feeling is that whereas bullying refers to demeaning a person in general, mobbing is more about a concerted „social“ effort to „be negative“ towards a person. What I find particularly odd is how the healthcare industry appears to have no problem whatsoever with portraying the victims of such behavior as the people who are ill, sick, who apparently need to swallow pills or whatever. The same holds for many other illnesses considered to be psychological in nature, such as depression, post traumatic stress disorder, etc.
Now let me get back to my discussion I had the other day – and my answer to the question: „what am I going to do about it?“ After being taken aback, something clicked in my head and I replied: The problem is, really, that we measure the value of people using only one statistic: money (see also „the vast majority of people have been drilled with truisms such as the notion that money is a reliable metric of value“). Today, if you have a lot of money, then you are usually considered successful. Likewise, if you have little or no money, you are usually considered a failure. What is more: The validity of many statements (e.g., what is written on the front page of the New York Times) is often considered to be supported by the money „leading“ companies contribute (i.e. as advertisements) in order to show up in support of such headlines (cf. also the definition of „retard media“). The meaninglessness of brand names is very closely related to the anonymity of money as a unit of value, as a technology for transferring value without the friction of any sentiments whatsoever. Ideally, you can easily use „cold hard cash“ to pay for a product or service without leaving even the slighest trace of your name, your identity, or your affilation with anyone or anything on Earth. Your cash bills may contribute to slavery, exploitation, global warming or any other issue on a long laundry list of social diseases… without leaving any fingerprint, footprint, or whatever. Money enables you to be so careless that you are basically free to have no cares at all.
This care-free power of money is probably why many people consider it to be the ultimate measure of success. I, on the other hand, see in money nothing but anonymous power – like that of a king with no face. Money is actually no more capable of transmitting what you care about than a robot is capable of feeling what you feel.
If you want to feel – no, if you want to be attached to something you care about, in other words if you want to engage in a relationship with that thing or person, then you shouldn’t use money to do that. Money leaves no trace. You want to create a bond. You need to sign, your signature needs to be part and parcel of your care, your values, your engagement, your actions and you yourself. You must use an „alternative currency“.
The currency you use must be meaningful, the antithesis of a meaningless brand name. Meaning is also socially constructed. You can heal just as well as you can hurt. What are you going to do?
Posted in freezine
Tagged ad, ads, advertise, advertisement, advertising, alternative currencies, alternative currency, anonymity, anonymous, authentic, authenticity, bond, brand, brand name, brand names, branding, brands, care, careless, cash, construct, construction, constructs, engage, engagement, failure, identity, meaning, meaningful, meaningless, money, power, rational media, relationship, relationships, remediary, retard media, social, social construct, social construction, social constructs, social engagement, social system, social systems, society, success, successful, system, systems, trace
Comments Off on What are you going to do about it?