There was a time when searching any string of words with “Lascaux” in it would bring up my post, “The truth and change, 3a: From Life on Mars to Linden,” as one of the top three hits in the images section—because of the photograph I used of the caves in Lascaux, France. I got the photo from Wikimedia Commons.
Then there was “bee tree,” or “bee bee tree,” which for a long time brought up my photograph of a tree in Prospect Park, Brooklyn (11215), where I observed a bee swarm with my son in 2008. I took the photograph, along with the photograph of the bee warm itself. This photo was in the post, “The truth and Twitter, part 3: The Swarm.”
And then these images completely disappeared from the Google Images searches.
Which made me begin to wonder: How do search terms work? A friend told me to embed vivid descriptions in my photographs, because Google really likes this. And then I thought about all those search terms that I see every day on my data. Some are downright weird—“life goes on symbology” or “rocket party dei black eyed beans”—and some sound really cool—“gilgamesh Foucault” and “shot of major truth and rocket science.”
I’m no whiz in SEO (search engine optimization), but I thought it would be fun to post all the search terms I have seen, down to a certain level (all these are multiple viewings) that people have used to find truth and rocket science, whether they intended to or not. What happens when people search these terms? Do they come to this posting, or some other? Does this (not entirely) random assortment of words bring about some kind of Internet query magic? Would be fun to see …
Update, 15 minutes after I posted this originally
Within 15 minutes of posting this, these search strings came up. I just had to add them. It’s obvious why.
medieval witch killings paintings
envy the epic of gilgamesh
eclectic
wolverine michigan desk
maghan lusk
sleeping dogs
pond @wordpress
blacklight poster
zebras
brigadier pudding
hubris fingerprint
faroeste gary cooper
mirrors “lady from shanghai ”
blacklight poster
bee bee tree (almost every day for a while)
lady from shanghai mirror scene
“not many people make me laugh”
tett creativity complex
john locke public domain pictures humane
iran twitter
rocket party dei black eyed beans
bacon francis house
Walgreen
lotte zweig
“kareem fahim”
zebras
twitter iran
reichstagsbrand
sleeping dog
bee tree
sleeping dogs
Walgreens
zak smith
tattoo and tattoos
“life goes on” tattoo
tattoo design principles
Credit: The photograph is of tattoo work by Grisha Maslov, copyright 2010, obtained from Wikimedia Commons.
Gilgamesh
heroism in Gilgamesh
gilgamesh Foucault
Foucault Gilgamesh
Note: I am not sure where this came from, since Foucault is not mentioned in the post with Gilgamesh.
amoebas and dysentery
gas exchange in amoebas
amoeba pictures
poem on dysentery
amoebic dysentery brazil
live amoeba vs. fixed amoeba
Amoeba
Brazil
brazil land of the future by Zweig trans
lolalita brasil1
brasilia architecture falling apart
brasilia
faroeste caboclo
brazil colony
forest manaus
social science
standard deviation diagram
one standard deviation bell curve
stats bell curve normal curve
standard deviation bell curve
bell curve
iq bell curve
bell curve standard deviation
iq bell curve diagram
standard deviation diagram
bell curve diagram
unicorns and medieval stuff
medieval maiden painting
unicorn pictures
unicorn truths
unicorn Bristol
unicorns
unicorn
unicorn medieval
unicorn museum castles in new york
the unicorn leaps out of the stream
the start of the hunt
unicorn in captivity
the unicorn is found
the start of the hunt
the truth about unicorns
the hunt of the unicorn
Sylvia Plath and Leonard Shelby
plath writing
leonard shelby
Credit: The chart of the timeline of Memento (Christopher Nolan) is by Dr Steve Aprahamian, and can be found on Wikimedia Commons.
The 140 Characters Conferencewas held at the New World Stages in New York on June 16-17, 2009. The New World Stages are a large complex of five stages seating different audience sizes, up to about 500 people, along with lounges, lobbies, and galleries. Much of it is underground – one who’s never been there is quite unprepared for what he or she will find once inside the doors and down the escalator.
In the theatres, the seats rise on a steep gradient. Everything is painted black, and the lighting makes anything on stage come out into the setting, seeming to float in space, vividly in color.
During the conference, I was distracted by a low hum in the background: the sounds of fingers on keyboards. At least half the audience had their laptops open and were tapping away at all kinds of messages, dozens of Tweets being unleashed as each speaker spoke about the world of Twitter and Tweeting from some different point of view.
The hum was distant and faraway, sounding as though it came from some hollowed out source not quite in the room. It was enchanting, if in an industrial kind of way, bringing to my mind in a Proustian moment an incident that was altogether different and yet fundamentally similar.
Act 2: One dog, one man, and thousands of bees
On a sunny spring day in April of 2008, I laid down with Duke under a gnarly, knotted, scrubby, runty tree. There we rested for some time, children (including my own son) playing nearby, blue sky and warm yellow sunlight all around.
I noticed a bee flying just over me. It wasn’t trying to touch me, though it came close. As it buzzed off, I saw another coming down, slowly descending – then another, and another. Suddenly, hundreds of bees reminded me of World War II photographs of paratroopers, but unlike paratroopers, no bees landed on us. They came close and then flew off.
In the air above, I heard the low grade, ambient sound of buzzing. Unlike anything I’d ever heard, it was assuredly distant, warm, and safe. An aural blanket covering the scene, enchanting in a distinctly pre-industrial kind of way.
Act 3: Enter the Queen
I sought a pattern in their behavior, and I soon found one. Each bee – after buzzing around in an inert, hovering, apparently directionless state – slowly made its way to an extended branch of that knotted tree. The swarm began packing itself on one part of the branch, growing from a small ball of bees to an enormous, undulating bulb. A huddled, tired mass, to be sure.
Swarms like this occur when the Queen decides it’s time to move the whole the colony to a new home, or when a new Queen is born and leaves with part of the old colony – her brothers and sisters and not her offspring – in order to establish a new one. Somewhere beneath the mass of bees above me was the Queen, who would be vulnerable until they built a new home.
Act 4: Of the social organism
In the Queen, the insect colony becomes incarnate and we see that very magic trick that occurs again and again in nature: the metaphysical made real. To live or die as an individual bee makes sense only as a function of the Queen’s existence. She alone carries the source, yet she cannot exist alone, without her offspring. The social organism is a whole that has no physical being in itself, but is instead a thing greater than sum of its irreducible, individual parts, each of which will fight to the death to protect the Queen.
The social impulse, according to Donald Ingber, is something we can see in fractals throughout organic nature, beginning with bacteria, single-cell based colony creatures, cellular cooperation in larger organisms, insects, and possibly ourselves.
One group of Argentine ants may have broken the geographical barrier between kinship and colony. These ants have created a kind of mega-colony that exists in North America, Europe, and Japan. Even though they live across such vast distances, they behave like ants who live in one colony, refusing to fight each other and yet ruthlessly destroying non-kin ants they find in their way. It is the “largest of its type ever known for any insect species, and could rival humans in the scale of its world domination.” Interestingly, these ants were able to establish such distant colonies because people, however unwittingly, carried them there.
Human beings are the only large animal that has managed to populate the world in numbers and social structures that can be compared to the social insects – ants, bees, termites. Our technologies – language, boats, smoke signals, printing presses, as well as the World Wide Web and Twitter – have enabled us to break the micro-social, hunter-gather barrier and form true social organisms.
Act 5: Living in the land of ideas
Unlike ants or bees, however, we may be creating a new kind of meta-social being that relies on the very gap between the individual and social organisms. In that gap, we remain as individuals happily, fruitfully, and contentedly human in the smallish communities that make our lives meaningful. Exploring that gap was the whole point of the 140 Characters Conference, as it is of the plethora of commentary on Twitter and social media that one can find all over the Web, from those who damn Twitter for destroying thoughtful cultural production to those who celebrate and explain its benefits.
Further distinguishing ourselves from social insects, each Twitterer and his or her followers constitute a kind of spontaneous swarm that exists only in cyberspace. Unlike the swarm of bees that I witnessed overhead last year, one very busy bee in Twitter can be part of many swarms, in addition to being the Queen of his or her own. These swarms are multiple, derivative, tumescent, and utterly human.
He notes such people are “lost in invisible worlds,” but that’s not true. They’re living in the spaces between very real and tangible worlds, seen and unseen, building swarms and with them the ethereal sounds of buzzing keyboards humming in the background of everyday life, as audible now to the rest of us as presumably the sounds of automobiles once were to our great-grandparents’ generation.
Dénouement
I doubt we’ll ever truly understand ourselves as a social organism. We are biologically individual creatures, and we perceive the world through individual minds, even when our perception is helped along by the grand edifice of knowledge and social consciousness that helps us understand the world.
Yet solipsism isn’t what it used to be.
We needn’t be as depressed and desperate as Sartre or Morrissey, nor as arrogant as Richard Dawkins, in order to understand how the gap between self and other makes us who we are. That gap is the place of creation: of all art, science, technology, storytelling, representation, and myth-making. Einstein, unicorns, cave paintings, and Twitter all come from the same urge to touch the whole, and in these bursts of creativity we see truth and beauty and all that makes our short time in the conscious world as good, or bad, as it can be.
Notes and credits
A special thanks goes to Marcia Stepanek, a friend and colleague whose Cause Global blog chronicles how new developments in technology and communications affect the worlds of philanthropy and cause-based action. She invited me out to the 140 Characters conference which made my observations on Twitter possible. You can also see her blog postings at Pop!Tech and the Stanford Innovation Review.
On the micro-social, hunter-gatherer societies: For people, these are the smallish, tribal societies that were the basic form of human social organization for most of our history, say from the time we began living on savannahs until the advent of large, social agriculture. This covered a time period of roughly a million years or more, depending on how you want to define human beings. In the animal world, wolves, lions, elephants, wasps, and a few other animals still use this form of social organization. Some of the writers I’ve read on this period of our history are Jared Diamond, in The Third Chimpanzee and Guns, Germs, and Steel, his blockbuster on technology and change in the social organization. Also quite interesting is Colin Tudge, The Time Before History, which examines human history and the impact of people on the planet for the last 5 million years. Tudge’s book is good fodder for thinking about global warming in a very long-vue sense.
William Saletan’s posting which I quote above was not about Twitter, but rather about Blackberry and cell phone usage. Interestingly, a search of Saletan’s blog at Slate for “Twitter” brings back no results. Full disclosure: his blog, “Human Nature,” has been a source of inspiration for a number of years.
Chris Weingarten’s presentation at the 140 Characters Conference was one of the more raucous and interesting. Among his provocations was this: “Crowd sourcing kills art,” and I reference him above as a critic of Twitter, who is also a constructive, critical user of it. At @1000TimesYes, Weingarten is reviewing 1000 CD’s on Twitter, even while he provides a very pointed view on the negative impact of Twitter on cultural production. Weingaretn’s blog is called Poisson d’Avril. Here you can see the Twitter reviews and appreciate the minimalist form of review on your own, such as the review of one of my favorites, Green Day, “If the world ends tonight, Green Day made the album of the year.” Or the more esoteric pan of someone whose music I have also enjoyed, Regina Spektor, “In New York, even our twee is meta.#4.5.” Gonna have to find the album just to figure out what he means, though I have an idea.
Counterpoint: Solipsism isn’t what it used to be, but for Chris Weingarten and lots of others, social media like Twitter have the ironic effect of increasing solipsism by creating flocks of people telling each other “all about me.” It’s a topic I am thinking about.
On January 28, 2009, a group of journalists and media professionals gathered in New York to talk about how the new social media were changing the field. The conversation was abuzz with Twitter, which was creating fascinating new possibilities for breaking and sourcing stories. Yet the same technology responsible for social media was killing off the newspapers by destroying their revenue base, and the rot was moving up the media’s trunk to broadcast and cable news. No journalist’s job was safe now. The issue, said Jay Rosen, one of the panelists, was that no one knew how we were going to pay for “verified truth.”
This month, the Ann Arbor News will complete its transformation into “AnnArbor.com,” a Web-based news organization and community platform that brings together traditional journalism, digital media, and freelance bloggers. The paper itself will be printed twice a week, on Sundays and Thursdays. This is a first in the country for a market its size.
How AnnArbor.com intends to verify truth is not clear, but their constituents appear to have other concerns: as of noon on June 27, 2009, the site’s “feedback forum” showed that “print the newspaper” had received 209 votes (more than any other category), while “ensure that all paid content is reviewed for accuracy” came in fifth at 80, and “investigate/analyze local issues” came in much further down the line at 21.
Perhaps some people prefer to go about verifying their own truth, on their own time, rather than trusting an institution to do so. Social media is, after all, a DIY culture. People who care most of about the accuracy of what they believe have always looked for news in multiple places: papers, on-line, television, etc. Some even read books (paper and Kindle).
At the 140 Characters Conference on June 16 and 17, Moeed Ahmad of Al-Jazeeragave a short presentation on how they used Twitter during the Gaza War of late 2008. He discussed how they are working on a method to verify Tweets, by creating a table format for the feeds, including a column for each entry stating whether or not it was “verified.” In the mayehm of the Iran uprising, the major news organizations in the US have started posting pieces from YouTube and reader-contributers, noting that the organization isn’t responsible for the content. It’s the only compelling content that can be found; if you don’t post it, your competitor will.
What if reading the news became like swimming on a beach with no lifeguard? I don’t think this is what will happen, but just consider the possibility. Think about truth as a risk proposition: what I believe should inform what I do, and therefore what I do is only as good as what I know. Bad info = bad action. This is not new – people always have worked very hard to create ways to mitigate the risk of believing things.
To deal with this risk, we create truth: value-based, self-interested calculations about events that make sense to people and mitigate the dangers of belief and action. Some of us construct that “sense” with a lot of external research (fact checking, asking friends, etc.). Others rely on their internal “sense” of “The Truth” (moral codes, principle, etc.). Still others mix these processes or switch from one to the other when it’s convenient.
Twitter doesn’t change the way we go about trying to verify truth in everyday life, nor will it stop us from needing to do so. Rather, Twitter speeds up the capture and dissemination of information, magnifying both the potential gains and risks of believing something we read.
In a hyper-competitive world of individually-based incentives, motives, and pay-offs, Twitter allows people to become more risky. Social media allow us to believe that we have dispersed the risk of belief through crowd sourcing, and in turn, we’re less worried about acting on the wrong information than not acting on the latest information. Crowd sourcing creates something like “truth default swaps,” in which risk is carved up and transferred to so many people that it seems to disappear.
This works for a while, probably most of the time, but mistakes happen. To wit: the New York Daily News appears to have reported Farrah Fawcett’s death about a half hour before it actually happened, though it appears their reporting was accurate, if out of time. Fortunately, the Daily News‘ slip in time did not involve the firing (alleged or real) of nuclear weapons.
On October 28, 2008, Blythe Masters, one of the young turks at J. P. Morgan who was involved in creating the mechanisms and structures of credit default swaps in the 1990s, addressed the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s annual meeting. She emphasized that “it is important to distinguish between tools and their users. We need to remember that innovation has created tools for managing risk.” Masters’ point was that people in the industry behaved as if they had eliminated risk, instead of recognizing that risk never truly went away.
The issue for journalists and citizens alike in the age of social media is similar. In a world where information is flowing much more quickly than anyone’s ability to verify it, will we use the new technology to manage the risk of belief or ignore it?
Either way: The truth will be derived.
Notes and Credits
This is the second of three posts on Twitter. In the third and final installment, truthandrocketscience will get its own twitter account. Also, I am a big fan of lifeguardless beaches.
The newspaper pictured at the top of the posting was generated with the Fodey.com newpaper generator, which I find especially useful when mixing up a new batch of truth.
The panel on January 28 was hosted by MediaBistro, a professional service organization for journalists. The panel was called “Journalists and Social Media: Sources, Skills, and the Writer,” and it featured Jay Rosen of NYU and his PressThink blog, Shirley Brady of BusinessWeek.com, Andy Carvin of NPR, and Rachel Sklar of The Daily Beast and other media endeavors.
Apart from the 300 or so people who have “voted” on the AnnArbor.com site, there are approximately 99,700 other Ann Arborites who have not yet registered their preferences (this grants that each of the votes is a unique individual, which is most likely not the case). Perhaps they are reading the Detroit Free Press, on paper. Or freep.com.
Further: One might interpret the general interest in “print[ing] the newspaper” at the top of the feedback poll as a desire for all that old fashioned newspapers represented, which would automatically include “verified truth” and local investigative reporting. But one would have to ask and explore more deeply to figure it all out.
My interest in the Ann Arbor News is partly personal. I lived in Ann Arbor from 1988 to 1996, during which time I was a graduate student in political science. Besides reading the News, I once appeared in the paper, in a photograph of Gulf War protestors in December of 1991. I saved the paper that day, but somewhere along the way in moves around the upper Midwest and finally to New York, I lost it. But every Christmas, when I unwrap the creche to put beneath my tree, I look at the the shreds of a 20-year old Ann Arbor News page and remember my days there.
Last week, I went to the 140 Characters Conference here in New York. There, hundreds of people met to explore how Twitter, new media, and micro-blogging are disrupting life these days. People were asking important questions of all this new technology: What do we get out of it? Is it changing anything that matters in any interesting way? Where’s it going? What does it mean?
The conference couldn’t have been more timely, though this was completely an accident of fate: On the very days of the meeting, June 16 and 17, the Iranian people were using Twitter, cell phones, and other inventions to coordinate and narrate a national uprising to protest the (allegedly) fraudulent results of the recent presidential elections. The story is available only over the internet, because Iranian control of the press and media have made it impossible for regular journalists to cover the events on the ground. Thus we turn to Twitter and bloggers to understand what’s going on. Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney is singularly inserting himself into the moment by providing the only comprehensive, live blog of the event.
These are the largest and most disruptive public demonstrations since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when masses of Iranians overthrew the US-backed Shah of Iran. The Iranian Revolution was one of the few documented true revolutions (to use a political science term!), in which the structure of society itself, and not merely the regime, was changed in a rapid convulsion of political will.
Something similar might be happening today.
The events of 1979 have an interesting parallel to the present, for the earlier Revolution was spurred along by the innovative application of a radical new technology that not only subverted the regime but also fit neatly into the lifestyles and habits of regular Iranians. The new technology was accessible to everyone, regardless of education, age, gender, or geographical location. I am referring, of course, to cassette tape recordings, which in the 1970s took the entire world on a quantum leap of do-it-yourself cultural production, re-production, and mashing-up.
In the West, this took the form of the mix tape. We used the songs of our favorite bands to declare love or war, to apologize for insensitivity, to make a stand, break up, explain any of the preceding, or simply state the case for plain, animal lust. The truly radical could even place Yes, The Clash, and Air Supply on the same tape, just to make a point. The mix tape reached its all-time high with Nick Hornby’s novel, High Fidelity, in the mid-1990s, which was later immortalized on the silver screen with John Cusak at the very moment in time when the cassette tape itself was tossed into the dustbin of history by the arrival mix-CDs, MP3 playlists, and (a few years later) the iPod.
At the same time that mix tapes reshaped the possibilities for personal expression in the West, Iranians were gathering in private, often hidden, rooms to listen to cassette tapes of sermons by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a prominent religious leader who was exiled from Iran in 1964. Khomeini took refuge first in Iraq, which has a large (majority) population of Shiite Muslims, and later in France. His sermons were smuggled into Iran, where they met a large audience, hungry for his words.
Khomeini’s message was both religious and social. He married basic Islamic piety to a consciousness of poverty, economic injustice, and outrage at the atrocities of the Shah’s violently repressive state. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was deeply tied to Islam’s notions of charity and essential human equality (not the same as “freedom” in any Western sense), tenets of belief that the Shah’s regime violated so openly and egregiously. Cassette recordings overcame the literacy barrier and brought this message to wide audiences that might have missed him had he been restricted to paper texts and photocopies. Cassette tapes were the samizdat of the Islamic world in the 1970s. Anyone could listen.
Cassette tapes allowed the Iranian opposition to gather, communicate, and plan for a better day. When that day came, in the heady rebellion of 1978-79, it seemed as if the world exploded, just like it did this week as Iran commanded center stage everywhere. It’s no small coincidence, it might be added, that some of the chief protagonists of the present turmoil – Ayatollah Montazeri, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and Hashemi Rafsanhani – were there in 1979, in similar roles, only as much younger people.
So Twitter brings us full circle, from cyber space and cell phones – whose ubiquitous flip-top form bears more than a passing resemblance to the original Star Trek Communicator – back to cassette tapes. Déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra once noted.
Today, Twitter and cell phone videos are our cassette tapes of Iranian change, bringing us the haunting images of people shouting Allahu Akbar from the rooftops at night, just like they did in 1979. Then, as now, regular people sang the traditional Muslim declaration, “God is great,” to indict the regime in power.
That’s the original cultural source of change in Iran.
Note
This is the first of 3 postings on “The truth and Twitter.” More to come…