Choice Control: The New Connectivity of Opinion Networks

It would seem that a number of bloggers & Twitterers/Tweets are converging on the Pew Internet & American Life Project at present, and its manifesting itself in various articles and reports that are appearing on Cnet's news blog.  It's also interesting that technologies such as Twitter allow people like me to discover fascinating components of reports that I'd previously sidestepped. 

As an example, several days ago I read fragments of blogs that referred to statistics that claim that girls are driving the blogosphere, and I'd also followed links to the Pew project site. However, today a Twitter reference from someone I've never met who 'attached' themselves to me as a follower posted a link to a Cnet report, Girls blog, boys post video, which is recursively prompting me to go back to the read more deeply and to investigate the claim that "Girls continue to dominate most elements of content creation" (according to the study).

As fascinating as the topic of gender domination on the web is - and I'll definitely be looking at it more in the near future - the means are sometimes just as important as the end, and I'm referring to how I actually got to this information.  In my 'old world' interactions I might choose to read a certain subject or specific piece of literature because of a conversation at a party, or because I attend a seminar and a speaker sparks some interest, or because I read a positive review.  This is, however, changing, and at least from the sources and influences that I have, it seems like the culture of recommendation and approval is becoming increasingly active.  We have 'opinion centralization' sites such as Digg, but we still have the chaotic, unbridled means to distribute opinion and approval in our social circles.

This week I've been led to a video on the psychology of nightmares via a group email from a friend in Shanghai; the report I just referred to was via some I've never met but am 'socially' linked to via Twitter; a book was recommended to me from a friend in Hong Kong via Facebook.  I keep lists of my recommended books and music on Facebook; recommended websites via del.icio.us, and leave impressions of my recommendations and choices in all of these places and via these means.  The ability to mine this kind of data for social/market prediction and commercial gain has created new forms of business.  

There are a few questions I have about the power and potential of these new forms of recommendation and opinion transmission:

• What happens to those who aren't enmeshed in these networks?  There are those who are concerned about the 3rd world and their lack of access to information, but how different are we becoming from those in our own neighborhood who don't live within the Metaverse?
• How good are we at managing the deluge of increased connectivity?  Does it lead to attention deficit, lack of focus, lack of specialization, or are there other possibly detrimental consequences that may need to be addressed?
• Where does education and media literacy fit into all of this?  Critical analysis and deconstruction is a component of most modern education programs, but how many K-12 school programs focus on information management and time management.  I don't think it's good enough to just recommend a 'healthy maximum number of hours spent on a computer per day.' 

Ultimately, we have new 'power' to choose and to transmit our choices to others.  However, as the number of choices we have increases, decision making/time management will also become more complex and more demanding.  The potential benefits of increased connectivity are staggering, and the social discovery of knowledge is already 'enhanced.'  However, as we move forward let's remember that there is a "burden of choice," and that an upgrade in one domain (ie. access to and transmission of information and opinion) may demand an upgrade in another (ie. critical literacy, decision making, and time management).  

Choices, choices.

Image by Greefus Groinks.  Some Rights Reserved.

How to Grow Up in Virtual Worlds

Yesterday I read this article from the New York Times with curiosity:

Web Playgrounds of the Very Young. The article highlights the fact that many adults are probably still not aware of what's going on in terms of a shift from passive forms of media, such as TV and movies, to more interactive forms of media. As DVD and box office sales continue to disappoint, companies such as Time Warner, Disney, Mattel, and Lego are all preparing for increased demand:

"Get ready for total inundation,” said Debra Aho Williamson, an analyst at the research firm eMarketer, who estimates that 20 million children will be members of a virtual world by 2011, up from 8.2 million today.

While various adult worlds like Second Life sit amuse adults briefly, but then fail to attract return "business," kid-oriented sites are generating healthy revenues, and the companies behind them are preparing to expand their offerings with movie and physical product tie-ins.

The fact is that many adults aren't able to relate to the experience of virtual reality, and they don't necessarily see how it mixes with their 'real life.' However, if a child is introduced to the concept of virtual reality from a very young age, then might we assume that those children wouldn't necessarily sense a 'disconnect' of experience? Groups such as Disney are currently developing a scaffold of product experiences (in exactly the same way that they've done traditionally), in order to draw children into their virtual magic kingdoms, even as they grow older. In much the same way that children can begin with stuffed toys, and then advance to building blocks, and so on to more sophisticated toys, they will so be introduced to to age-based virtual worlds.

Online worlds can provide children with opportunities to problem solve, and to receive feedback that they wouldn't receive on their own - even if the feedback is based on 'artificial' intelligence. These worlds can be innocuous, fun, violent, money-grabbing, educational... or all of the above! The choice of a safe environment or 'world' for children to play in may be an initial decision for parents, but it probably shouldn't stop there. Actually talking to children about their virtual environments, and occasionally 'walking you through' their private universe is an essential way to link the physical to the virtual.

A concept that seems to be missed frequently is that the online worlds that children play in are not entirely virtual: they consist of an initial layer of programming, and then a complex interactive layer of real people sitting at their computers or their game consoles. Children who know each other in real life often explore virtual worlds together, and they discuss their worlds in real life - I've certainly heard kids talking about their adventures in Starcraft, Runescape, or World of Warcraft. Shared experiences can act as cultural touchstones to bridge from virtual to physical interaction - which is also where some of the risk lies.

The smarter companies in the gaming world have instituted safety technology, and they also employ staff to monitor the safety of their 'digital playgrounds.' However, as an extension of this, I wonder whether truly smart companies can give parents even more of what they want - not just 'parental controls' that give kids access to the Internet or 'safe sites' for a limited time each day/week, but 'smart worlds' that automatically give kids time outs, or vary their experiences, or provide them with educational opportunities on top of the gaming.

It's not healthy for anyone to be stuck inside a pattern of taking care of a virtual pet...or a family of SIMS beyond a reasonable length of time, therefore, I hope that the gaming industry is thinking about building 'automatic variability' into their computer-mediated experiences.