Reflection on Apple/Google/Facebook

From the beginning of this class the concept of people using technology religiously intrigued me, and I had some pretty strong opinions about it. Specifically, I was under the impression that technology was a fairly superfluous, albeit necessary part of life in our modern world. I felt as though spirituality was something inherently human and could not be achieved or fulfilled through technological means. I started to change my mind while reading Steve Jobs biography, and was amazed at how Jobs was a passionately spiritual person who devoted his life to spreading that passion through technology. At this point in the class I switched gears completely, and was under the impression that technology could augment certain aspects of the self, therefore fulfilling some inherent, spiritual need.

This mindset started to change, however, when we began reading about Google. At this point, I started to see the hidden flaws in systems that seem too good to be true. Google may have the ability to augment intelligence to an extent in individuals, but it also encourages mental assimilation and creates dull, fact-based individuals. When reading You Are Not a Gadget by Jaron Lanier, this mindset was only further promoted. Technology augments people in negative ways that leave us less human and unable to lead classically fulfilling lives. In addition to this, we become locked into many forms of primitive, obsolete technologies that could be improved upon in many ways. And it was with this mindset that I began thinking about my final.

What kind of technology could I write about that would allow me to talk about what I think is wrong with technology today? Spotify fit the bill, and I began making my presentation. While typing the paper, however, I underwent another change of heart in relation to technology. Although a lot of the technology we use today is underwhelming and superfluous, that does not mean that personal technology in general is bad for humanity. What it means is technology we have today can be used, in moderation, to organize certain things in our life. iTunes helps us organize large amounts of music, but it can become an obsession. Facebook helps us keep track of our friends, but it can become an addiction. Texting is efficient, but can consume a lot of time. What we see in every scenario is the same: moderation is the key.

We should also consider how we are becoming locked-in to certain technologies, and make a conscious effort to improve the foundations that are being built upon today. Spotify presents an excellent opportunity to practice this process of technological paradigm shifts, but many are needed if we expect to continually expand our technological base. If we continue to build upon unsteady locked-in foundations, we can expect to plateau technologically sometime in the future.

So in the end, my overall view of technology has run a complete cycle. Initially, I viewed it moderately, then very liberally, then very conservatively. Finally, I'm back to viewing it moderately, but I have a much better understanding of both sides of the argument. The base of knowledge I acquired in this class will help me manage the technologies I use in my daily life, and make sure they don't start managing me.

Education's Role in a Community

When searching Youtube videos of Jaron Lanier speaking, one video caught my attention more than others. The video features Lanier speaking about the importance of creativity in education, a point which I believe the modern public school curriculum has effectively ignored. The problem stems from an infusion of technology into the school system. Modern consumer technology focuses on consumption more than creation, and this is reflected in our public high schools. When students are watching youtube videos to learn rather than creating them, or reading articles rather than writing them, or being tested with an exam rather than a project, they are learning a strict consumption based educational model, which focuses on consuming and regurgitating information, rather than digesting and reflecting upon it.

In this video, Lanier speaks on the importance of preserving creativity in education. By doing so, we can resume the creation of dynamic-minded individuals who are used to digesting information, rather than simply consuming it. Unfortunately, it appears as though we may be becoming 'locked-in' to our current state of mind, and this could prove to be a problem for the future of individuality.

How We May Be Becoming Gadgets

The first reading assignment for You Are Not a Gadget presents a valid argument for why the individual needs to differentiate himself from his networking gadgets. Reflecting on much of what Lanier says, however, can prove to be slightly depressing. This dismal thought process began when Lanier discussed the concept of being "locked-in" and how it can influence a market for decades. This concept can be combined with the idea that computers artificialize individuals, leading to the conclusion that out next generation, who have grown up completely in the digital age, will be inherently less human than past generations.

When I was 12 or 13 I wasn't supposed to have a Myspace or Facebook account, and having one at that age was for the most part uncommon. For me, a memorable part of my early teens was hiding my Facebook account from my parents, even though I eventually came to notice that they didn't care. Today, though, it is not uncommon to see children as young as 8 or 10 on Facebook. In fact, some children feel as though they are 'missing out' if they aren't allowed to create one at such a young age.

These children are growing up too closely with technology, in my opinion. Whereas children in the 90s played with toys and did things outside, children today are increasingly becoming attached to gadgets such as cell phones, ipods, and computers. I believe this will result in a generation of less socially adept individuals. In fact, I can see the same factors affecting my generation.

Networks in a Revolution

The role of online social networks in a political revolution has been discussed at length for some time, and my opinion about the subject has changed several times. Following the reading of the Small Change article by Malcolm Gladwell I had a pretty pessimistic view of the potential of sites like Facebook and Twitter in rallying people together to carry out a revolution. Gladwell states that the organizational structure of an online network is mainly horizontal, as opposed to the vertically aligned hierarchical structure of past revolutions, such as the Civil Rights Movement. His basic argument was that with a hierarchically organized structure, a revolution can take its direction from a few central leaders, while delegating work to individuals devoted to the cause. This ability is juxtaposed by the apparent lack of direction in horizontal network based organizations. Gladwell also cites the vulnerability of outside influence as a major threat to resistance movements beginning online.

We see quite the opposite effect in the Egyptian Chronicles Blog online, however. Only viewing this webpage, combined with the apparent use of Facebook and Twitter in starting the Arab Springs Revolutions in early 2011, one gains the idea that social networks are actually quite a useful tool in organizing a revolution. If we analyze the circumstances surrounding the Arab Springs Revolutions, however, we see governments with limited internet presence being toppled by modern internet-based resistance groups. The main reason I do not believe such a revolution would be entirely possible in the United States is because our government is more technologically capable. In fact, cybersecurity measures have been taken to "keep the internet safe" and protect government information online. These security measures would no doubt easily be able to infiltrate and corrupt any sort of resistance movement beginning online.

When discussing the ability of social networks to host an organized socially based revolution, one has to take into account the government's ability to wage cyber warfare. In less technologically comfortable nations, such as those in the Middle East, network based revolutions are more effective than those attempted in more technologically developed countries such as the USA.

Reflecting on Habits of the Heart

The most recent chapter of Habits of the Heart forced some fairly deep reflection of our public sphere on me. In fact, I think it's safe to say I enjoyed this chapter more than most in this book. Most striking, this chapter addressed the increasing growth rate of urban communities, and its impact on small town rural and suburban communities. Surprisingly, different moral values seem to be attributed to different living conditions. Small town values were more traditional, while big city values tended to be more loose. Small town communities also tend to view urban communities as threats to their own moral values.

In the wake of this, small exclusive gated communities have popped up across heavily populated areas like California in an attempt to protect this way of life. Technology, however, has done little to ease this congestion, or its effects on the community. It would be easy to state that social tools like Facebook would allow more like-minded people to gather in larger cities, but the fact of the matter is our physical communities are being eroded. Facebook, hosting small lifestyle enclaves, may serve to sugarcoat this reality, but in the end, in my opinion, it doesn't do much to counteract this change.

If I took anything significant towards the goals of this class out of this chapter, it's this: the worldwide change in community structures growing due to an increasing population cannot be sidestepped using technology. This brings up more difficult issues, such as population control measures. Should the USA instate the One-Child Policy that China has enacted? Once we start asking these questions, however, we stray from the topic of technology and its religious potential.

Social Network & What Makes Zuck Tick

When I first saw The Social Network in theaters I took the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg as factual, although I didn't much care for the film. The second time through, however, I found myself doubting the factuality of a lot of the events, however I enjoyed the film more. I think if I were Mark Zuckerberg, however, I would strongly dislike the film.

Social Network portrays Zuckerberg as a sex-driven asshole entrepreneur, building Facebook to win the favor of his ex-girlfriend. The film also portrays Zuckerberg as jealous, often screwing over his co-founder Eduardo Saverin because he made it into an exclusive club that Mark wanted to join. The real Zuckerberg, as I can gather from interviews, is more product driven, closer to Steve Jobs in his motivation.

The interview with Mark that we watched in class did a fine job portraying Zuckerberg as purpose-driven, continually improving Facebook for the good of Facebook itself, never for monetary gain. This point is touched on in the film, but never developed, instead being abandoned for the more dramatized version of events from the book The Accidental Billionaires. This book, interestingly enough, was written mainly from accounts given by Saverin, which may explain some of the skewed facts.

Regardless, upon my second viewing I was able to appreciate the entrepreneurial buzz surrounding Zuckerberg. This buzz, similar to that surrounding Jobs and the Google creators, defined the age of the Internet boom and its inevitable aftermath.

Religion & Shannon's Diagram

Although initially the stark definition of "information" stripped of any connotational value presents a rather bleak subject for a religious studies class, it soon becomes clear that religion itself follows the same communications pattern presented in Shannon's schematic diagram (p.218, 222), albeit on a much larger scale. Shannon's diagram looks like this:

This diagram can be used to more fully understand the relationship between information transportation and religion. Imagine that the information source is a set of moral values. These values are filtered through a transmitter (a religion or church), and sent to a receiver (an individual). Along the way the message may encounter interference from a noise source, equivalent to the many instances religion has been distorted for evil purposes. The ultimate destination, however, is society as a whole.

Shannon's machine transported bits of specific information from one point to another, representing a very small-scale example of communication theory. Religion, however, can be considered an extremely large-scale example, transporting a set of moral values from one point in history to future societies. Similarly both signals can be corrupted, leading to unreadable files and unimaginable horror, respectively.

The Future of Google & Our Minds

In my last blog I touched on my opinion of Google's effect on how we think and view the world, and partly in light of the subject matter of Part 2, I'd like to discuss this further. Part 2 featured some interesting insight into Google's advertisement model, and how it personalizes the ads to each individual user. I see this as a further example of how Google's specialization of information may be damaging to humanity's mental health.

A supersmart search engine that knows exactly what you're looking for is one thing, but what Google is becoming is something much bigger, and possibly much more dangerous. This may seem like an overstatement, except when you view Google for the paradigm-shifting creation that it is. Google has redefined the way people think, specifically the ways they seek and digest information. Anything you want to know is just a few keystrokes away, so user's tend to skim many articles, rather than reading them one by one.

Although this shift in our learning process may seem more convenient, you have to take into account the specialization of information that you receive. If you have an Android phone or a GMail account, Google knows you, and it will specialize results of your searches to your tastes and opinions. This feature has not reached its full potential yet, however when it does it may serve to create more close-minded individuals, rather than well-informed individuals who have viewed the world from multiple angles. Similarly, the dystopian 'false-past' threat of Google and Wikipedia's control of information distribution seems to be showing itself in small amounts on certain devices (changing the text of 1984 for Kindle editions of the book, certain historical facts missing or misrepresented on Wikipedia, ect.). 

Whether or not these issues will pose a threat to our future mental abilities is difficult to predict, but I think the issue should be recognized and discussed, and perhaps approached from a hesitant viewpoint. 

Consistencies in Apple and Google Product Design

Many people have compared Apple's and Google's recent projects, such as their tablets and smartphones, saying they're quite similar. While I disagree with this statement (I hold true to the opinion that Apple products are higher quality; I'm a fan of end-to-end integration), I understand where the similarity is drawn from. Google's list of Ten Things We Know To Be True is oddly reminiscent of many of Apple's core values (such as #9). The one Fact that stands out in relation to Apple, however, is Fact #2: It's best to do one thing really, really well.

Reading this fact brought to mind images of Jobs's triumphant return to Apple, where he gloriously cut down the product list from hundreds of projects to just 4. Interestingly enough, although Apple's focus began on the personal computer and Google's focus began on a search engine, but the two companies product lines still converged on tablets, applications, and cellphones. Both reached these product lines by way of their own respective focus, though, and these differences show in the products themselves. Apple's desktop (or laptop) became a center to which all mobile devices (phones, cameras, ipods) were synced. Google's products, on the other hand, stem from the ambition to personalize the internet to each specific user (a goal more in sync with Fact #1). The result is a lot of information collection.

While the business models for Apple and Google follow many of the same ideals, the products themselves are quite different. I say this with some level of reserve, however, because I used to be a firm supporter of the PC over the Mac. I have since changed my mind, and may do so again. At this level in the game, however, Apple has presented a series of seamless, intuitively designed products that aren't compatible or customizable to the extend of an Android or a Chromebook, but run faster and more conveniently. The Ten Things We Know To Be True have clearly been utilized by both Google and Apple, but in my opinion they've been utilized better at Apple.

I haven't mentioned the Google search engine yet, and for good reason. I believe that Google has done an impressive job personalizing search results and advertisements to users, however I am fundamentally against the idea. I believe that by providing selective information to individuals, Google may be contributing to one of two things: a super-impressional "hive-mind" type online community, or a community unopen to change, due to constant reinforcement of beliefs. Both of these extremes are just that, extreme, but moving toward any extreme is never a good start.

Connecting "Love & Marriage" to Themes of Technology and Religion

I initially had some trouble connecting the ideas presented about Love & Marriage in chapter 4 of Habits of the Heart with the larger ideas of religion an technology this class focuses on. The default thought process I went through had me wondering how technology could possibly provide the satisfaction and confidence that a healthy relationship provides. Providing an online community of like-minded individuals is one thing, but attempting to supplement the most intimate relationship possible seems futile.

After a bit of reflection, however, I realized I was thinking about the connection backwards. Instead of supplementing the type of connection found in an intimate relationship, technology has worked to bring together the cyber-world and the "real" world. This can be seen, at a basic level, in websites such as eHarmony.com. In a broader sense, one can see examples of this on Facebook as well. In an ironic paradoxical twist, however, these forms of online communication have only served to create a generation of less socially-adept individuals, due to the ability to hide behind an online 'shield'. 

This is not to say our generation as a whole is less socially-adept, however. But the individuals who overcome hiding behind an online shield generally wouldn't need to utilize an online service to fulfill their romantic needs in the first place. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that technology's potential influence on an individuals intimate relationships is relatively limited, due to the purely human aspect of the subject.

The iPad: Convenience or Clutter?

I've always been wary of the necessity of an iPad in our culture. Or, the necessity of tablet computers at all for that matter. Seeing the progress of Apple devices, however, I fully understand why Jobs felt it necessary to end his triumphant streak of ever-simplifying products with such a sleek device. I've never had one, but from what I can tell they're basically a laptop with no keyboard and less storage, which leaves me wondering why I, personally, would ever want one.

Pondering the necessity of tablet computers brings to mind the uncluttered and simple beginners mind that was spoken of by Shunryu Suzuki. At first glance, it may appear as though this device is a reflection of this philosophy, uncluttered with no keyboard and simple with only the necessary storage. However, given the need for a computer to sync and dock the iPad, this tablet changes from an all-in-one personal device to an extra-large iPhone that can't really make phone calls. (And it if can make phone calls, it probably shouldn't.) I feel as though this device is superfluous for the same reasons that the MacBook Air is obsolete. It has the price and allure of a small laptop computer, while lacking some of the basic necessities of such a device; namely, a CD drive and hard disk storage. Something about storing an entire personal device's information database on a flash storage device seems extremely risky to me.

Call me old fashioned, but I like my devices small and my computers powerful, whereas we seem to be witnessing a convergence of the two in certain Apple products. Henceforth, an iPad will probably not be on my list of future purchases; at least as long as my MacBook Pro is in working condition.

As I stated earlier, however, the iPad's place in Steve Jobs' life, as well as in Apple's product history, is impressive. One can only fathom the idea of presenting such small and innovative personal computer devices in the same lifetime as inventing some of the first personal computers. I sometimes forget how young the computer industry really is, and thinking about the range of Steve Jobs' Apple products puts that timeline into perspective.

Jony Ive's Unseen Contribution to Apple

One thing that struck me out of this week's reading is the fact that Jony Ive has been of monumental importance to Apple's product design, yet I've never heard of him before. I found it a pleasure to read about Ive (except for the fact that I continually misread his name as the contraction I've), and I think the very fact that I've never heard of him says something about Steve Jobs.

Ive and Jobs worked together to design the aesthetics of Apple products. And what I mean by that is: Ive designed thousands of prototypes for Apple products, and Jobs gave the thumbs up or thumbs down, while taking most (or all) of the credit. Frequently Jobs would state Ive's ideas as his own, according to the biography.

I understand the role Jobs played as figurehead at Apple, but I feel as though he overstepped his bounds by undermining the credit given to Ive. In fact, this chapter left be wondering what exactly it was that Jobs did at Apple, besides improve morale and rally the work force. In the past I found myself wondering what would become of Apple now that Steve Jobs is dead. I could imagine any number of market flop products because Apple's guiding light has ceased to shine. But now I feel as though as long as Ives is alive and at Apple, they haven't lost too much footing since Jobs' demise.

Ive designing an iMac

Ive listening to Jobs take credit for his design

Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Buddhism, & Steve Jobs

Watching video recordings of Shunryu Suzuki's teachings, one gains a broader understanding of how Steve Jobs implemented the ideals of Zen Buddhism into his product designs. Fundamentally it is difficult to compare physical technology to religion. But when product design plays such a large role in a company, and when aesthetics are an important part of the user experience, one can see how Suzuki's teachings of the Beginner's Mind influenced the user interface and physical design of Apple Products.




The idea of the Beginner's Mind, uncluttered and simple, can be seen in many aspects of Apple products. The idea that even a child can use these products has long been held by Jobs himself, who once suggested that the Macintosh computer would not come with a user's manual. Despite this false claim, Apple has done an impressive job of designing products that people can often use intuitively.

One area we do not see a reflection of Zen Buddhism, however, is in Jobs' personality. Although he had an impressive ability to control his diet, his personal and work affairs were anything but uncluttered and simple. Jobs seemed to make enemies far too often, even doing so to those he was closest too. Whether this flaw is a result of his adoption is hard to say, though the biography certainly makes that argument at times. The bottom line is, in my opinion, Zen Buddhism had a much greater influence on Apple as a whole, rather than Steve Jobs as an individual.

Reflection on Jobs (Week 1)

About halfway through my last blog, it dawned on me that I was taking on a praiseful tone of Steve Jobs, perhaps a bit more than I intended or rightly agree with. While I respect the level of charisma he displays, as well as his impressive ability to motivate people, I also believe that it is important to view Jobs in perspective. During his first round at Apple, many people hated working with Jobs, and while many would later come to appreciate the creative value of their time at Apple, it is apparent that Jobs stepped on a few too many toes.

Just as the people surrounding Jobs changed their opinions of him with time, I find myself changing my personal opinions about his morals and conduct more than I probably should if I plan to convey a consistent message in this blog post. With a bit of reflection, however, I've narrowed my opinion of Jobs down to two completely opposing statements.

1. Steve Jobs was a creative genius who took well designed hardware and software, packaged and marketed it with exceptional skill, and influenced the computer industry to appeal more to the individual.

2. Steve Jobs was a "shithead" who took other people's products, marketed them as his own, reaped all the rewards, and was extremely abusive to those around him, including his friends and family.

However these two opinions only consider Steve in relation to Apple, whereas I would hope to consider his spiritual views in my opinion of him as a person. Everything from his belief in LSD as a spiritual tool to his natural dislike of authority figures create an image of Steve Jobs as a technological follow-up of the Counter-Culture, and it is this image that tends to swing my opinion of Jobs to the "positive" end of the spectrum. While I can conclude that I probably would not have wanted to work under Jobs, that does not stop me from appreciating him as an entrepreneurial and spiritual example to follow. There are lessons to be learned from Jobs' story, both good and bad, and he himself admits it. History will remember Steve Jobs as a creative genius whether we like it or not, and with time everyone Jobs ever pissed off will, like Jobs, be dead. Perhaps we judge Jobs harsher than other historic figures because of his recency, or perhaps because his impression on our everyday lives is so obvious. But who  knows if Alexander Graham Bell was a dick or not? And we know Edgar Allen Poe was just as harsh to the people around him. In the end, I think we must reflect on the impact he left on the world as a whole, not on the emotional doormats of a few individuals.

Steve Jobs Commencement Speech Reflection

Steve Jobs seems to be the type who can appreciate the finer details in life, such as the benefits (and drawbacks) of eating a fully vegetarian diet, and the workings of the inner drives that keep us motivated throughout life. This quality is fully appreciated in his Commencement Speech given at Stanford University in 2005. Steve Jobs, standing in front of an awe-inspired crowd in a black and red robe that may or may not have once belonged to Anton Lavey, fully takes on the role of Cult Leader when urging the students to appreciate life using heavily-weighted stories of abandonment, success, failure, and death. Watching this address one has no quandaries as to how Jobs motivated those underneath him to produce such fantastic products as the Macintosh and the iPod.

During the address, however, it is clear we are viewing a completely different Jobs than we saw at the premier of the "1984" commercial. The blind confidence and proud ecstasy we see in his eyes in 1984 has vanished twenty-one years later, revealing a version of Jobs that is just as introspective, but much wiser. Having lost and regained the company he created and loved, as well as brushing far too closely with death, Jobs seems content with his life choices. The same smug look stains his face, however, as he takes cheap shots at Microsoft (in the name of good humor), and tells students that dropping out was the best choice of his life. His 'third story' on death ended on a serious note, with Jobs stating that he tries to live every day like it was his last, and by urging the students to do the same. There is no way Jobs could have known that his cancer would come back only 6 years later, but he was surely prepared for it. Steve concludes by leaving the students with the inspirational words from the final issue of the Whole Earth catalogue "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish" to a backdrop of slightly displeased looking Stanford College officials. Although the delivery of this speech was more formal than his earlier, more youthful speeches, he is still able to connect with the student body in a unique way, drawing upon the less pure energies that keep people motivated, such as intuition and emotion as opposed to simple reason and logic. In this way, Jobs demonstrates the kind of impressive charisma that can change the world.

When considering which technologies have affected my life in the most drastic ways a multitude of technological luxuries I currently enjoy come to mind. Starting with the obvious, my iPod Touch (1st Gen.) has been by my side for almost 7 years now, and my desktop computer has accompanied me on many a sleepless night. Then there's my GPS, which has become more of a crutch than anything else. The fact of the matter is, most of these technologies are more burdensome than helpful. The iPod is glitchy, the computer is slow, and the GPS gets me lost more often than before I had one. And my smartphone? Well, to be honest it's cool, but I could do without it. I've only had a smartphone for a few months, and the novelty wears off pretty quick. Sure I can access Facebook wherever I want, but it freezes up far too often and needs to be charged with infuriating frequency.

To be honest, I could do without a lot of these luxuries. However, there is one thing I recently acquired that has really changed my outlook on the potential of certain technologies; it's what I'm typing this blog on right now: my Macbook Pro. It's portable, light, twice as powerful as my desktop with twice as much memory. But most of all, it's quite simply the best combination of user-friendliness and capability that I've ever seen. I've never had a Mac, but I've used them before and have always concluded that the PC was far superior. But with the new OSX operating system, dual-boot capabilities, and integration with other apple products, this laptop makes being efficient fun. It's as useful as a desktop and as cool as an iPad, and about as expensive as the two combined. But hey, I couldn't resist shelling out a few extra bucks to partake in the Apple craze.