Social networking as conversation is a good analogy, and one that Gabler doesn't follow through on in this article. Yes, the vast majority of conversations are banal, and always have been. The only difference is that, because of social networking, we now have a lasting record of how mundane our conversations are. Most conversations are not three-hour monologues about the End of History (and thank God for that). That doesn't mean that the quality of discussion has declined, or that we are in a post-idea era. It just means that throwaway small talk is located on the same global platform as the big ideas.
A positive side effect is that the interesting conversations are now available to everyone. For example, most chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 2011 is of no interest to anyone except the people having the conversation, but chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 1776 would make a fascinating read. I sure wish we had a record of that. Take Twitter as an example, since Gabler singles it out for criticism. Most of the time, I don't care what Muhammad Everyman in Cairo is tweeting about, because the quality level is the same as that of ordinary conversation. But when a revolution breaks out, I can listen in on tens of thousands of conversations talking about what is happening on a street-by-street level. Conversation is mundane, except when it isn't.
As for the comment about the Internet following a sort of Gresham's Law, with trivial information pushing out the big ideas, I think it's off the mark. Nothing is getting pushed out because there is nothing to get pushed out of. More bytes of kitten photos does not mean less bytes of Nietzsche. The amount and availability of big ideas and trivial data are increasing concurrently. The issue is one of attention: You can seek out and pay attention to big ideas, or you can look at cats. Most people look at cats. But that's always been true.
> As for the comment about the Internet following a sort of Gresham's Law, with trivial information pushing out the big ideas, I think it's off the mark. Nothing is getting pushed out because there is nothing to get pushed out of.
I disagree. What it gets pushed out of is human thought. Both that of individual humans and of our collective processing of notions.
I notice it in my own life for sure. I read more now, but I read a lot fewer books, and I spend less time thinking about what I read: I tend to leap to the next shiny thing.
I'm using tools like LeechBlock to claw back some of that time. And the time spent on lighter-weight web stuff isn't totally wasted; it allows me to maintain a much larger social network, which is both enjoyable and professionally useful. But I'm starting to feel about the web like I feel about modern grocery stores: I don't mind that they have candy, but I kinda resent having to run a junk-food gauntlet to get to the broccoli.
I notice it in my own life for sure. I read more now, but I read a lot fewer books, and I spend less time thinking about what I read: I tend to leap to the next shiny thing.
I know what you mean, and I have the same problem. I think that the big difference between the present and the past is that the monetary value of our attention has increased dramatically, and companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars just to get us to look at them. It takes a lot of discipline to keep yourself from looking at a trillion-dollar lightshow.
I just don't buy the premise of this article, which is that because of all of these distractions, people are no longer grappling with big ideas. To extend your grocery store metaphor, it's as if the author were to argue that because there are so many candy bars, vegetables no longer exist. He mentions Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould as examples of people who would be superstar public intellectuals in an earlier time period, but I think that they are now. This is pure conjecture on my part, but I think that the percentage of the population that knows who Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould are is higher than the percentage of the population that knew who Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes were when they were active. In fact, I would venture a guess that Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes are also more well-known now than they were in their day. It's a lot easier for big ideas to reach the general public through the Internet than through old media and local word-of-mouth. Most of these people will never penetrate beyond the surface level, but at least they're aware that these big discussions exist. For the people who want to go deeper, they still can, will, and are, even if it means taking dramatic measures to focus their attention.
I don't think he means people are no longer grappling with big ideas. He is saying the people that are "thinking big" are not being recognized due to the huge information overload. We are focusing less on whats important and more on what generates buzz.
A positive side effect is that the interesting conversations are now available to everyone. For example, most chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 2011 is of no interest to anyone except the people having the conversation, but chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 1776 would make a fascinating read. I sure wish we had a record of that. Take Twitter as an example, since Gabler singles it out for criticism. Most of the time, I don't care what Muhammad Everyman in Cairo is tweeting about, because the quality level is the same as that of ordinary conversation. But when a revolution breaks out, I can listen in on tens of thousands of conversations talking about what is happening on a street-by-street level. Conversation is mundane, except when it isn't.
As for the comment about the Internet following a sort of Gresham's Law, with trivial information pushing out the big ideas, I think it's off the mark. Nothing is getting pushed out because there is nothing to get pushed out of. More bytes of kitten photos does not mean less bytes of Nietzsche. The amount and availability of big ideas and trivial data are increasing concurrently. The issue is one of attention: You can seek out and pay attention to big ideas, or you can look at cats. Most people look at cats. But that's always been true.