Advances in Technology = Regression in Independent Human Intelligence

This particular pseudo-paradox hit me while using the Google Map function on my Blackberry Bold 9000 as I drove.  In the old days (haha, like year 2000), when going to a destination I'd never been to, I would get verbal directions and then follow-up by looking at a physical map, so I had an idea of the lay of the land, the distance, etc.  When I drove, I might have the map next to me as a reference, and of course I'd have written down directions on a scrap of paper.

Since I reviewed the directions and map prior to driving, I usually didn't have to spend too much time referring to them while driving.  I pretty much had the route memorized, and just referred to the directions to verify if I was heading in the right direction, or if something unexpected happened, like road construction, I'd look at the map to see what alternate routes there were.

Heck, I might map out alternate routes in mind before driving, so even then I'd be able to drive around with referring to the map.

In other words, I could concentrate on DRIVING.

Now, let's fast forward to today.  I punch in the destination address in Google Map.  It generates a route, using GPS to locate me and track my every move, within 3 meters of accuracy.  I briefly run through the map route (I barely read the street names; I'm more concerned with distance, time, and anticipating the turns) and then drive.  I keep the phone on the dashboard, and watch myself move on the map as I drive.

So, it's like I've given up a mental skill by adopting this new technology.  I've freed up a task my mind knew how to complete, and replaced that space in my mind with knowledge of how to use my spartphone and download apps.

This is progress?

I recently saw on Drudge that Sergei Brin, Google Co-Founder, said he wants Google to be the "Third part of your brain."

Huh.

I think modern technology is a reflection of our current generation(s), and is not necessarily an improvement for humanity.

I'll give you another anecdotal story. When I was a kid, my brother and his family would visit us from Brasil. I was lucky enough to learn how to speak Portuguese while growing up in New York, so I could communicate with my Nephew, Nieces, Brother, and Sister-in-Law. Well ... I thought I was doing a good job communicating. My family would occasionally chide me for not conjugating a verb properly or whatever.

Years later, I saw my Sister-in-Law and she recalled this. I did not remember this, nor did I remember the specific Portuguese grammatical lesson they had been trying to impart.

I wonder now, if I had been growing up in an era without C64's and 2600's and Nintendo's, if I had less video games and programs soaking up limited mental capacity, if I would have remembered the grammatical lesson.

My point on this second story is this: I believe we've pretty much lost our ability to keep an oral history. If it's not codified on paper, film, digital, whatever, we are more likely to forget. I think, even in the 1980's, my mind was being hardwired for the notion that technology would help me remember things, and that if it's worth remembering, it'll show up on my television screen, or be in a book I'm reading.

I think Sergei's pronouncement is part of this.

Now, I've joked with Damian about the idea of computers being part of our brain in the past. I'm still looking forward to the day I can plug in an SD chip into my brain and speed up my mental processes, download info, etc. Unfortunately, we, as a society, have given up essential human skills in order to adopt new technologies without considering whether or not this was really a good idea or not.

It's like the new religious mantra is "New is always better, particularly if the crowd adopts the new." While I embrace and love technology, I feel, perhaps too late, that we put the proverbial cart before the horse on this issue.

I feel like we're caught in a Pseudo-paradox.

One Bad Image

Damian came up with a great pseudo-paradox (conundrum) the other day.  Imagine you're paper scanning one thousand documents for a client.  You complete the project, and mail off the CD's and docs, and receive payment.

One week later, the client calls and says, "I found a bad image on the CD!  The text is cut off!"

You apologize profusely.

The client adds, "This is no good.  I'm sending the whole project back.  I want it redone right this time.  IF THERE'S ONE BAD IMAGE, THEN THE WHOLE THING IS PROBABLY WRONG!"

You apologize again, and begin looking at your back-ups (just in case the client's CDs break or don't work -- it happens).  You spend two hours scrolling through all 1,000 images and ... you only find the one image that is wrong.

By Sigma-Six standards, one image out of 1,000 is a perfectly acceptable error rate.  It's .1%  To be frank, it's to be expected.

The client, who either didn't read up on Six-Sigma or doesn't care, insists that the entire job be redone.  He did not look through every image, like you did, but is convinced there have to be more mistakes.

It's like this: the client is convinced that, since he spotted a bad image without even trying to look, this statistically proves there are more bad images, even though a true statistician would say the opposite is true and request only the one page be rescanned.

Quite a pseudo-paradox, huh?

Now, imagine the same scenario, but with millions of images on microfilm or microfiche, and you'll have entered the world of Microfilm Scanning.  It takes scanning and QC to keep error rates low, and guys like Damian and I happen to be experts in that field.

"I'm Always Right, You're Always Wrong" Paradox

A painter paints a wall within a house. He has difficulty with the quality of the paint, and informs his boss of the problem.

Now, let's change the scenario: the painter calls in sick, his assistant paints the wall, encounters the same problems, and reports it to the boss. The next day, the painter comes in. After being told about yesterday's problems, the painter boasts, "I wouldn't have had any problems. The paint would've worked fine on my brush!"

So, the problem is legitimate if the painter encounters it. If the assistant encounters the same problem, then the assistant is incompetent in the painter's eyes, and declares it out loud. The boss, not having time to investigate the problem fully, reprimands the assistant.

Another example:

An editor for a major traditional publishing house reviews a manuscript from a popular author. He finds several chapters that need major rewriting ... he makes his notes and sends it back to the author for a rewrite.

Now, let's change things ... let's say the editor called in sick that day, and another editor reviewed the book. The other editor finds essentially the same problems with the manuscript and has it sent back to the author.

The next day, the editor comes in and finds out what happened. He boasts that he could've "Massaged the manuscript ... worked with what the author had sent ... now we have to delay release of the new book! I would've done a better job!" Needless to say, the other editor is reprimanded. Upper management believes the editor to be productive, and do not question his boasts.

"Let's Hire/Give a Raise" Paradox

The Director of the Cleveland office wants to track birthdays and throw parties once a month during lunch to boost employee morale. She decides to hire three people whose sole purpose in life is to plan parties and other special events (holidays, charity events, etc.). They add no productive value ... and although the events are supposed to boost morale, they only promote cynicism, because EVERYONE knows that these three people make more money than ten of the people manning the phones.

There isn't really a paradox ... I suppose I could imagine a scenario where certain employees are given the additional responsibilities those three people were given, along with raises to compensate for the added workload (which, for productive employees, amounts to about two hours of work per week). I suppose we could argue that the employees would, after awhile, become dissatisfied with the extra money and tracking of birthdays ... longing for the days of three people whose sole purpose was to do these trivial things.

This 2nd scenario is pointless, because 1. employees, in my experience, rarely get raises for added responsibilities they could handle, when a brand new person earning an exorbitant salary and benefits package is an option, and 2. the reality is birthday parties do not boost morale. Practical things people can use, like bonuses, paid time off, free meals (notice meals are practical, whereas birthday parties are not), free cars, gift cards to Wal-Mart ... things like this would actually help increase loyalty.

"Time is Relative" Paradox

"Planes, Trains, and Automobile was a great movie."

"Oh. That movie came out a long time ago."

"What? It came out in the 80's!"

"Yeah ... I don't like to watch old movies...."

"The 80's weren't that long ago...."

So, one person's "Recent" is another person's "Long time ago." Einstein was right -- time is relative.

"Man out of Jail" Paradox

A criminal is released from prison. During an interview with a journalist, said criminal reveals that a famous actor, "Cheated on his taxes."

There were rumors that this actor was in trouble with the IRS ... and this criminal just happens to be a former accountant with the firm that handled the actor's affairs. So, the journalist runs with the story. The next day a headline appears in the newspaper he writes for: "Actor Cheated on Taxes, says Former Accountant," and the news spreads around the world. The fact that the accountant is also a felon is glossed over.

Now, let's take the same criminal ... the same circumstances with the actor rumored to be investigated by the IRS ... and this time, when the criminal is released from prison, he tells the same journalist, "The actor is innocent. I know, because I was there. He didn't cheat on his taxes."

This time, the journalist writes a piece critical of the criminal: "Felon claims Actor didn't Cheat on Taxes," a negative headline followed by a negative skeptical article.

Do you see the paradox? If the criminal validates the rumor, the MEDIA believes his words. If the criminal refutes the allegations, the MEDIA turns a skeptical eye towards the felon and says, "Consider the source. How can we believe a felon just released from prison?"

Just to add to the paradox: in the first example, the accountant gets a seven-figure book deal, and is interviewed on 60 Minutes and Oprah. In the second example, the same accountant becomes a minor footnote in history, forgotten by the mass MEDIA and most of the general public -- except for the few readers of the DailySkew, who take careful note of such things.

Rich Man's Paradox (Or, the grass is always greener on the other side, until you get there)

A poor boy dreams of being rich and having everything he desires. He grows up and becomes a wealthy businessman. The world is his oyster. Servants are at his beckon call. Hot women left and right. Whatever.

He has it all ... and becomes frustrated with it. He becomes "bored" by all the choices. The freedom to do whatever he wants becomes a prison of choices. His ability to do everything constrains him from doing anything.

A few miles away, in all directions, millions struggle to achieve the wealth the rich man has acquired, so they can live that life....

So ... people struggle for something that, in the end, they won't want.