Strangeness
Need for Strangeness
27.05.13 Filed in: Opinion
I just came across this extremely interesting TED Talk by Maria Bezaitis, principal engineer at Intel.
In it, she proposes that our society is slipping towards an ever higher level of homogenization - like meets like, like marries like. You can’t be a member unless your like us.
With personal data processing by Google and the like, the variety in (digital) life is diminishing on a daily basis. I can see truth in that: sure, Amazon “knows” you’ve been looking at that portable digital camera, so they present you with a whole range of different models the next time you log in.
Instead of prompting me to buy one, however, I can see how the reverse may actually be true. With non-essential things like purchasing the third digital camera in the household (“one for travel, one for home and, well, one for just-in-case”), getting swamped with digital camera offers may put the consumer off the purchase. After all, things purchased “because we can” tend to go by different market dynamics than things we buy “because we must”, like food.
A camera may actually be more attractive to buy if we’re presented with a “only two left in stock” message than a plethora of choices.
Or, it may become more attractive if - instead of a multitude of nearly identical options - we’re presented with trips to places where a camera might be of good use (not that Amazon sells travel packages, but you get the point).
Take political parties: clearly, a “if you don’t think like us, you don’t belong” type of situation. If you’re a conservative - well, why on earth would you sit down and talk with liberals? That’s tedious enough at dinner parties. Or is it?
I remember hearing an article on one of my favorite podcasts, Quirks and Quarks (CBC), on a science writer that had spent some time on a research vessel in the arctic ocean. Only through her experiences with another research team from an entirely different branch of science were they able to solve a puzzling phenomenon with algal blooming.
Science doesn’t profit from homogenization - the example above shows clearly, that certain scientific issues and problems cannot be solved unless the scientists go outside their “comfort zone” to chat with “strangers” from another field of research.
Lets not forget: the internet is certainly a good medium to keep in touch with people like you: be that by email, skype, facetime, blogging, facebook, twitter, etc.
It is, however, also an excellent medium to contact complete strangers and get to know - and learn from - them! Maybe this will turn out to be the Web 3.0?
In it, she proposes that our society is slipping towards an ever higher level of homogenization - like meets like, like marries like. You can’t be a member unless your like us.
With personal data processing by Google and the like, the variety in (digital) life is diminishing on a daily basis. I can see truth in that: sure, Amazon “knows” you’ve been looking at that portable digital camera, so they present you with a whole range of different models the next time you log in.
Instead of prompting me to buy one, however, I can see how the reverse may actually be true. With non-essential things like purchasing the third digital camera in the household (“one for travel, one for home and, well, one for just-in-case”), getting swamped with digital camera offers may put the consumer off the purchase. After all, things purchased “because we can” tend to go by different market dynamics than things we buy “because we must”, like food.
A camera may actually be more attractive to buy if we’re presented with a “only two left in stock” message than a plethora of choices.
Or, it may become more attractive if - instead of a multitude of nearly identical options - we’re presented with trips to places where a camera might be of good use (not that Amazon sells travel packages, but you get the point).
Take political parties: clearly, a “if you don’t think like us, you don’t belong” type of situation. If you’re a conservative - well, why on earth would you sit down and talk with liberals? That’s tedious enough at dinner parties. Or is it?
I remember hearing an article on one of my favorite podcasts, Quirks and Quarks (CBC), on a science writer that had spent some time on a research vessel in the arctic ocean. Only through her experiences with another research team from an entirely different branch of science were they able to solve a puzzling phenomenon with algal blooming.
Science doesn’t profit from homogenization - the example above shows clearly, that certain scientific issues and problems cannot be solved unless the scientists go outside their “comfort zone” to chat with “strangers” from another field of research.
Lets not forget: the internet is certainly a good medium to keep in touch with people like you: be that by email, skype, facetime, blogging, facebook, twitter, etc.
It is, however, also an excellent medium to contact complete strangers and get to know - and learn from - them! Maybe this will turn out to be the Web 3.0?
Comments