Lift10 Generations: Doomed to be forever young? A social archaeology of the 'digital natives' (Antonio Casilli) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Doomed to be forever young? A social archaeology of the ‘digital natives’ (Antonio Casilli), part of the Generations and Technologies session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

The myth of the digital native. *steph-note: YAY!!!!*

Lift10 Antonio's cousin

Antonio’s cousin’s MySpace page. His grandma is on YouTube. Different generations, different ways of being online. How “young” are those digital natives?

Lift10 Antonio's Grandma

There is no empirical evidence. No facts to support this myth. Not all children are computer-savvy. As with maths or linguistic skills, their computer skills vary. And the situation is changing quickly. However, increase in broadband access changed the most over the last 5 years for people over 50.

Lift10 Digital Native Myth

Before “digital natives” (2006) we had “internet children” (1999) and “computer kids” (1982)

To debunk the myth, we need to do some social archeology.

Two social dynamics:

  • Computers have changed the space. Reterritorialization.
  • Miniaturization.

Computers have gone from military bases to factories to offices to houses. (This is where the kids come in the picture.)

In the eighties, the child/youth becomes the main protagonist for the computer. Dismissal of adulthood visible in computer names (childhood names, pet names, fruit names… the computer is shrinking). The worst performers have adult/glamour names (vixen, orchidée, dragon…)

Why did the child become the main user of the computer? 3 reasons, but the best is the economic reason. Differences in uses of ICT, and younger generations buy high-added value services, so it makes sense to target them more aggressive marketing campaigns.

Second point, cultural reasons. Natives vs. immigrants, echo of the way we started thinking of technology. Before the eighties, technology is threatening (Big Brother). After, futuristic optimism. Positive attitude also towards the passing of time, insistance on real time, quick delivery.

Third reason: political. Mirrors social exclusion that has existed offline between younger and older generations while accessing technology. Young generations are overrepresented online. Around 55-63 the trend inverts, and older people are underrepresented online. This is also an offline issue. Senior citizens are generally excluded from mainstream society course and innovations.

Actually, digital natives never existed. Economic, cultural and political factors account for the creation of this myth. 2 bio humans online: perception evolves. Increasing participation of older generations => dents in the myth.

Older generations are catching up way more than the younger ones!

Q: how can you work as a sociologist if you can’t categorize people? *steph-note: didn’t get the answer*

Big misunderstanding: the seperation of “online” and “real life”. That’s not how we experience it. People are also aging in cyberspace.

Other stereotype: boys are good with computers, not girls. Military caste stereotype (computers were initially military). But in the 50s and 60s, a lot of female computer experts.

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Generations: Prospects for defeating aging altogether (Aubrey de Grey) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Prospects for defeating aging altogether (Aubrey de Grey), part of the Generations and Technologies session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments. Doesn’t work on longevity. Works on ageing. *steph-note: did I get that right? this makes me think of the RadioLab show on mortality, and the story of the worms a scientist manages to make live longer.*

Lift10 Aging

Regenerative medicine. Many people don’t like his work, which is why he specifies that he doesn’t work on longevity. People think of the impact of longevity. But actually, it’s about the impact on health. Keeping people healthy. When we’re really good at keeping people healthy, they’ll live longer, but that’s a side-effect.

About 90% of the USA population dies of “ageing”. We’re talking of combating aging, which is all the causes that mainly kill older people. Nobody wants to get Alzheimer’s. And even if it’s not about getting rid of diseases, life is more fun when you’re healthy, and it costs less. $200 billion/year to provide medical care to aging people.

People don’t like thinking of ageing, because it’s a terrible thing, and it hasn’t happened to most of us (here) yet, but it’s going to happen. We keep ghastly ideas like ageing and death out of our minds most of the time. A big part of the problem is this rational denial.

Aging: accumulation of damage. Metabolism ongoingly causes “damage”. Eventually that damage causes pathology.

Two approaches to aging:

  • geriatric approach (do something about the consequences of damage of old age — losing battle)
  • gerontologic: prevention is better than cure (try to figure out how to have less damage or clean it up)

But metabolism is really complicated. We can’t really succeed in making it create less damage. There might also be side-effects if we fix something somewhere. System is too complex.

So, rather than that, maintenance. We don’t try to slow down the creation of damage or the consequences, but we try to repair the damage, so it doesn’t get to a pathologic level. A third, more promising approach.

Only 7 types of deadly damage:

  • junk in cells
  • junk outside cells
  • too few cells
  • too many cells
  • mutations (chromosomes)
  • mutations (mitochondria)
  • protein crosslinks

We’re pretty confident about this list (been the same since 1982).

How do we fix these things?

Lift10: Robust Human Rejuvenation

All these therapies will be applied to people who are already in middle-age. Question: at what rate do we need to apply these therapies in order to stay a step ahead of the problem.

Audrey wrote a book about this: Ending Aging. Scientifically thorough but written for the non-specialist.

Audrey is confident that we will succeed in this at some point. Optimal age is not that important, because as with all repairs (think “car”) you can actually, by repairing well enough, “age” backwards. Any potential problems we might create by making people live longer and healthier (and we don’t know what it will be like!) must be weighed against the current problems we have supporting aging in our society.

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Politics: Greenpeace social media strategy and on-line campaigns (Claudia Sommer) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Greenpeace social media strategy and on-line campaigns (Claudia Sommer), part of the Politics session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Changes that have a huge impact on Greenpeace campaigning. (*steph-note: first talk in English for @csommer, she says!*)


Open campaigning. Direct communication with the people. In Germany, some environmental issues have been solved, but some huge ones remain. Need to push those in the spotlight. Need to create pressure on politics and create peer pressure. Get in touch with people who are already active and can mobilize others. Young people are motivated — it’s their future!

Lift10 Claudia Sommer

Greenpeace is present on many social networks and also have their own social network, Green Action.

Building a campaign community:

  • involve the public
  • go where people are active
  • young people are online
  • diverse range of internet users => diverse ideas

GreenaAction to provide a variety of solutions, push industry/politics to implement them, wide public support, and media independant counter-movement. (*steph-note: reminds me of conclusion of workshop this morning, brands need to become their own media*) The platform is completely independant, no advertising, no political parties involved, no companies. Open campaigning initially for Greenpeace, but now open to other environmental campaigns.

Visualise individual commitment, combine strength and wisdom of many, give power and protection (sometimes there are legal issues, it helps if Greenpeace has your back).

After 8 months, over 6K users, many below 25, 15-20% launching campaigns. Individuals, campaigners, and organisations like Bund, Campact…

How do people use GreenAction? Strong offline focus, mashup campaigns, activists actively in touch with each other and other communities, low number of ToS violations, participants involved in improving the platform.

Nestlé KitKat/Killer campaign. Twitter wall instead of Greenpeace banner on Nestle building.

Case study: Gorleben, nuclear waste. Political or geological decision? => access to source documentation from the seventies, so everybody can access and make their mind up.

Lift10 Claudia Sommer & Laurent Haug Q: what should Nestlé have done? *Claudia says it’s not for her to talk about ;-)* They had the wrong kind of attitude towards the customers. Would have been smart to talk to people when the campaign started, rather than just press release (people don’t care about press releases).

Q: concentrating too much on digital natives? Double strategy, online and off in parallel.

*steph-note: didn’t get all the questions, sorry!*

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Politics: The Technological and Social Trends Impacting Politics (Rahaf Harfoush) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is The Technological and Social Trends Impacting Politics (Rahaf Harfoush), part of the Politics session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 Rahaf Harfoush

Rahaf is a social media strategist. How are social networks changing the way we are implementing governments and political campaigns.

The past: 2008. Feels like decades in internet time. The Obama campaign was the first example of how much impact technology could have on a campaign. What did they do that was so different?

MyBO changed the way people organized. The candidates ability to outreach is not limited to the physical resources he has. Scaling. Millions of volunteers who are empowered to self-organize. Ability to reach every corner of America without the real financial ressources to do so.

2 Mio profiles, 35K volunteer groups (Dungeons&Dragons supporters for Obama!), 400K blog posts, 200K offline events.

Redefined the relationship between political candidates and supporters. Not only TV, news, but also Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Twitter (*steph-note: imho that makes the candidate a more real and approachable human being*). The man behind the image. Once you feel you know him, you feel personally invested and motivated. Turn supporters into friends.

Change of fundraising strategy. Raised more than double of McCain.

Somebody made a comment about how she thought that community organisation couldn’t be that powerful. (*steph-note: missed who that was*)

September 2008 had raised $150 mio (two-thirds from online!) Total $750 mio.

Changed people’s perceptions of their possible political involvement. Not just for the people, but with the people.

The present (2010). What’s going on now? Breaking down walls (open data and transparency). The supportive community wasn’t just going to go away after the election!

The Sunlight Foundation. Government showing what they’re doing with the money.

Google Government Requests. 42 data requests for Switzerland, less than 10 removal requests. (Swahili for testimony/witness). Report instances of fraud, abuse, harrassment, etc. Made open to the world something that was not normally spoken about.

Iran protests. Government tried to shut down communication and contain it. Shut down SMS, banned international websites, blocked international calls, confined journalists, raided broadcasters… The people used social media to get the word out. (*steph-note: I know I’ve read criticism about this interpretation of what happened, need to dig a bit more*) Green avatar campaign on Twitter. Killing of Neda Agha and subsequent viral YouTube video.

Future? Visions of utopian and dystopian worlds, of course.

Evolving digital activism. We the people. As people become more familiar with technology, for example the UnCaucus. Citizens looking for a new mayor. Rethinking the political process, job description. From voter to hiring manager. Need to find the right person for the job.

Onion rings and prime ministers in Canada. Outrage, Vote campaign. So unhappy that they said “onion ring can get more fans than him”. Group on Facebook! 176K fans, 31K for the actual Stephen Harper. Not huge numbers, but with more sophisticated tools, this kind of protest operation could reach much more people.

Canadians against proroguing Parliament. 200K members. Protests, etc. Self-organizing through FB.

As we’re interacting more and getting more involved, governments are starting to take notice and respond. Policies and regulations. Good way to understand the future: look at legislations being proposed.

The #FreeVenezuela hashtag got so much media attention that Chavez responded saying Twitter was a tool of terror, and considered banning it from the country. We’ll see more and more of this.

Mexico, Los Twitteros, social networks used by drug addicts etc, to pass information around. Used to break the law.

Cybernetic police force. Their job will be monitoring what is said and shared on social networks. Also consider banning Twitter.

Great firewall of China.

How are governments going to use the tools to further their geopolitical agenda?

Russia. All your tweets are belong to Putin.

New role of corporations: now the product of a company (Facebook, Gmail) has a huge impact on people’s lives, so you see corporations starting discussions with governments. Google victim of cyber-attack. Sino-Google relations. Company taking a bit of a political stand.

Final thoughts: we’re in a time of ongoing battles and creating precedents. We need to pay attention to what laws are being passed, where the opportunities and threats are. If we’re not careful, we’ll end up with legislation that severely limits people’s access/use of the internet around the world. What happens in one country impacts people in others. Risks of slacktivism. Don’t get used to just clicking a button to show your support or outrage. There is more to protesting and getting involved. We need to take care of both online and offline worlds.

Q: what happens when everybody starts using social media campaign techniques? did Obama benefit from being the first to do it? — Wouldn’t recommend replicating what the Obama campaign did because the internet moves so fast that these techniques become antiquated really fast. It’s about listening.

Q: lot of data online, government in Iran using Twitter to locate protesters… — Continuous battle between good and evil. Government bans one hashtag, another one appears, China blocks one site, another one pops up… There’s no turning back. Funny story: campus police trolling facebook and busting parties. They set up a fake party, the police came down, and everybody was quietly playing games.

We’re going to see more and more sites with political agendas.

Q: hijacking

Howard Dean tried, was the first, and failed. But if he hadn’t failed, Obama wouldn’t have been able to come along after and learn from his mistakes. *steph-note: would be nice to hear which ones*

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Workshop: From virtual to real world value — Collective Intelligence as an alternate source of media power [en]

These are my running notes of the Lift conference (Workshop: From virtual to real world value — Collective Intelligence as an alternate source of media power). May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Lift10 Workshop day 2

Collective intelligence: gathering to put bits and pieces of the story together.

Obama campaign. Radiohead In Rainbows (in addition to the “pay what you like” promo they sold over 100K box sets at $80).

Massing old media companies are now in trouble. Well-crafted, manicured message. Different from the grassroots culture. Jenkins: media producer and media consumer interact in unpredictable ways.

New media: no barrier to entry as long as you have the technology (phone, internet connection, camera…)

Media convergence surrounds us. Participatory culture and collective intelligence prevail.

Convergence is not about a big black device that will do everything. Different sources/tools coming together, gathering. Industrialized process, cultures, social communication, etc — everything is changing in the convergence world. (It’s happening now!)

Scary process for some (media organizations in particular). Confusion in the marketplace. New media does not stop old media, but forces it to reinvent itself or find a new place. All these things can exist side-by-side, but the power is shifting.

We now have the ability to participate in the creation on culture — and we do it every day. (On Facebook, for example!)

Convergence is about how people use the devices — not the devices themselves. The platform is just a delivery mechanism. When media consumption occurs within social interactions, it becomes collective.

Some facts:

  • 11M e-readers to be sold by end of 2010 (Kindle $1 billion worth of sales)
  • Nintendo, MS and Sony are in a video console war. Wii 67 M units, DS (simple device!) 127 M units worldwide. If something is device-independant, the important thing is delivery. Nintendo have made the rules in this war, all the competitors are trying to implement motion-control.
  • iPad: 1M in one month (another example of a device where its limitations are also its strength)
  • 65M users accessing Facebook through mobile (and these people spend twice as much time on Facebook as anybody else)

Convergence world jargon fest.

Lift10 Convergence World Jargon Fest

Media actives comment on media, etc.

This is not a Western cultural shift. It’s worldwide. Fan fiction (Revelations, Star Wars, 45 minutes) which horrifies franchise holders (let’s go out and get the fans who built this!)

The cost of producing media has diminished dramatically. HD camera for $99.

Video game franchises: great way of stamping our logo on something and expanding over other media channels. Star Wars Galaxies is an interesting case study of this. Consumers have a stake in the survival of the franchise/community.

Like in WoW, you end up with people focusing more on secondary characteristics of the world, e.g. having dance parties instead of blowing up planets.

Sony got it wrong: don’t try and battle with your grassroots fan base… They alienated everybody who loved the game.

Harry Potter fan fiction. Publishing story coming down on fans. (Oh, and the Church. The Studio is promoting “satanic worship”.)

We’re all storytellers (maybe not good ones). We tell our stories on Facebook all the time.

Copyright laws are antiquated… *steph-note: if you read a bit of French, my take on that*

Photojournalism is dead. Clearly, the profession is under attack. Long live photojournalism!

Huff Post. Of course journalism is not dead. These things exist side-by-side. Burn Magazine (run by a Magnum photographer). Verve Photo. Photojournale (John Horniblow‘s baby): content aggregation, editorial work, community behind it (over 400 professional photographers).

Print on demand publishing (Lulu, Blurb — for high quality photography, Amazon Creative Space, Lightening Press).

With less analog stuff around, it’s intrinsec value will finally go up. Not everybody can do it exceptionally well. *steph-note: cf. Hugh‘s prints, for example.*

Now listening to Jay Z (some mashup). Soundcloud: producers and writers come together. Fairtilizer,, Spotify… *steph-note: I need to get into Spotify, looks really exciting — damn, not available in Switzerland*

Important thing: corporations now need to be media entities themselves. Brands are forced into content production. How do they deal with that? And with the grassroots, and the shareholders?

Brands example: Cokestudios. Virtual world (music, games, digital economy, etc.). Coke as facilitator rather than message.

Other example: Being Girl. P&G. Choice of brand for feminine sanitary products => stick to it their whole life. Worth catching teens immediately. The site/community is not about tampons, but about the life experiences of teenage girls. Not about the brand, but about the girls. *steph-note: bugs me that I’m force-redirected to my country site, though, I’d like to see what the .com site looks like.* => P&G are now competing with the classic teen girl’s magazine on the stand. Business model: narrow audience => advertising on the magazine. P&G are shifting their money from advertising in magazines to their own. *steph-note: the question of independance of advertising and editorial, taken from the other end… food for thought here*

Pour tout vous dire. Another of these brand-driven magazines. Originally: all about the brand. *steph-note: hey, this reminds me of the origins of soap operas — designed so housewives would watch them so that they could place soap ads.*

Starbucks. My Starbucks idea. You tell us how to fix our corporate problem. Let us know what we should do and where we went wrong. Interesting stuff on Facebook too.

Harley Davidson: people’s stories, it’s all about the experience.

Nestlé: Creating Shared Value. How about that for a very traditional and controlled corporation?

Remain local but communicate in a global context.

Similar Posts:

Lift10, The Old New Media: Reinvent Capitalism (Mercedes Bunz) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Mercedes Bunz’s Reinvent Capitalism, part of the Old New Media session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 Mercedes Bunz

What’s going on? Algorithms analyzing text, but also writing it. Algorithms can now search online for information and facts and present them in formal journalistic style. *steph-note: did I get that right? I have trouble following.*

Example, Guardian Zeitgeist — chooses articles by itself.

*steph-note: total fail on note-taking here, combination of reading/audio quality/voice pitch/my deafness*

Public: category that is always changing. Communications used to be private, but as they move online, they become increasingly public and available for use.

Michel Foucault, structure of power (in The History of Sexuality).

Need to stop pushing society into a fear of society. Digitization is new business.

Similar Posts:

Lift10, The Old New Media: The Grand Mashup (Catherine Lottier and Virginia Mouseler) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Catherine Lottier and Virginia Mouseler‘s The Grand Mashup, part of the Old New Media session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 The Grand Mashup

Media content + the digital universe = the grand mashup. Between 2000-2010, cross-fertilization.

  • 2001: 911, Twin Towers on cable and satellite TV
  • 2010: volcano #ashcloud (#ashtag) on Twitter

Internet is the great aggregator. The previous dividing lines between types of media have exploded.

TV or radio is no longer the fastest path to information. It’s social networks like Twitter.

New Deal:

  • hybrid genres (new programmes include online stuff)
  • visual codes of the digital universe (tags or avatars are appearing on regular TV programmes)
  • operating modes of the digital universe (immersion, simulation, sampling, crowdsourcing, commenting culture, behind the scenes culture…)

How does this change the professional TV world? Use of digital communication agencies, curators for lists, UGC, human traces, permanent and expert observation of innovation (keeping up-to-speed). “Catching up is the new looking ahead.”

Series of videos to illustrate all this:

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Post-Privacy: Christian Heller [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Christian Heller’s presentation “Post-Privacy“, part of the Redefinition of Privacy session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Privacy != freedom. Space where we can truly be ourselves, don’t have to worry about being something.

Lift10 Christian Heller

Evolution of the notion of privacy.

In a village in the Middle-Ages, nobody knows what privacy is. Everybody knows everyone and everything about everyone. In the cities we might find people who have privacy (Renaissance). Servants, children, parents sleep separately. Personal space. Intimacy. Private space vs. public space. Female privacy, male publicity. Female emancipation, go on the streets, right to work, to vote, to participate in the public discourse. Privacy = isolation.

Sexual revolution: taking things belonging to the private discourse and moving them to the public discourse.

Privacy is not necessarily something that is equivalent to freedom.

*steph-note: series of charts and things that I didn’t follow — I think I missed the explanation.*

Opening up the healthcare system when thousands of people share their data.

Privacy has been associated with the right to abortion, to be left along, to self-determination… A space where I can do what I want to do without fearing outside reactions.

But information is power, so information about me can be used to have power over me. CCTV. “Caution, you’re under video surveillance.” => data protection. Problem: if we try to enforce this rigorously, so that it actually does something, then we’d have to build DRM for every piece of data online. Oops.

Solutions? Find out ways in which openness is power. Eg. Gay pride, openness which forces society to change its values. Watching the watchers (Transparent society). Equilibrium. (Watching others not limited to an elite.)

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Redefinition of Privacy: Olivier Glassey [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Olivier Glassey’s presentation “Mutual privacy and online distributed social identities“, part of the Redefinition of Privacy session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

How are people constructing their privacy online? Our definition of privacy is evolving fast, and we cannot control it.

Different domains: social networks and the end of privacy; false assumptions about digital natives.

Lift 10 Olivier Glassey

If we look at how people are acting online (based on research) and how they behave towards their data, we can say that part of this apocalyptic end-of-privacy thinking is based on false assumptions, particularly regarding the strategies of so-called “digital natives”.

How can we think about this evolution of privacy without falling into apocalyptic visions?

First of all, realise that online social networks are also identity playgrounds. *steph-note: reminds me of some stuff I read years ago in the Psychology of Cyberspace online book.*

Web 2.0 suicide machine. People want to play with this kind of thing, maybe researchers are mistakenly taking for granted that the online social networks they observe are both serious and stabilized.

There is a huge part of our identity that does not belong to us. It belongs to the communities and social groups we are part of. Examples: Beautiful People (being ousted from the community because one was slack about their figure over the winter) or A Small World.

Social networks are also a place of social control. On Facebook, there are expectations for your behaviour. You need to conform to some extent.

Intimacy exposure online: we don’t all agree on what is intimate and what is not (e.g. pictures of beds). Social agreement on what privacy is. A lot of agression online happens when conflicting definitions of privacy overlap.

Interesting map of greeting kisses in France: Combien de bises? => various definitions of what a normal greeting is, within one country — and also, when privacy will be breached by not conforming to the local social norm.

Social context defines the privacy of data.

Another dimension to keep in mind is the contradiction between social dynamics and online social networks. We switch roles all the time offline. Father on the phone and then colleague, we don’t speak in the same way. Incredibly complex and unconscious behaviour. A lot of the difficulties online are linked to this: these behaviours break down online. Good Turing’s test.

Social flexibility is a very different skill from fine-tuning your privacy settings on Facebook. Our natural way of doing things is to share different types of information with different people, lying (to various extents) if necessary. Building a coherent personal ethic when rules change without notice and various publics collide is very challenging.

How social are these social networks really?

How will we collectively manage the fragmented, often edited or doctored data of our past? On Facebook, we reconstruct our biographies.

The digital divide is going to be about the “haves” and the “have-nots” of online privacy reconstructions. Those who master the tools to manage their privacy and image online, and those who don’t. We’re lacking long-term thinking right now. Will online social networks allow forgiveness, forgetting? We need social memory but also amnesia.

Similar Posts:

Lift10 Workshop: Experience/Memory [en]

These are my running notes of the Lift conference. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Andreas Simon and Flavia Caviezel, from IDK (institute for Research in Art and Design), FHNW, Basel.

Introduction, then group work, brainstorm, and presentations.

Lift10 Workshop Experience/Memory 1

Andreas has been working in interaction for a long time. Better interaction: keeps you in the moment. Flow of interaction.

Found a screenshot of Tetris to illustrate this, and it was part of an article: Can Playing the Computer Game “Tetris” Reduce the Build-Up of Flashbacks for Trauma?

Summary: maybe playing Tetris after a trauma prevents consolidation of memories, in the six hours that follow.

Understand the interplay between experience and memory. Long term effects vs. now.

Working hypothesis: memory is motivated by experiences. Constructed. *steph-note: listen to the RadioLab episode on memory.*

Memory: media, artwork, everyday objects, memorabilia, narrative, ritual.

Media: experience => capture => edit => curate => present/perform => edit etc. Loop that goes on year after year.

Visual media is dominant. Olfactive memories are quite strong but hard to work with. Very few haptic memories.

Two examples of technology which could be interesting to explore:

  • biofeedback: capture the physical effects of emotion
  • video: full spherical video to capture “everything”

Video is usually too much effort to edit. Maybe 360° capture changes things.

*steph-note: not sure I really understand where we’re going with this intro, but I guess we’ll discover that soon!*

*showing us video about a dress-up place in India — guy explains how people’s behaviour changes when they dress up.*

*Flavia Caviezel is giving an introduction to visual anthropology, participant observation — unfortunately am missing a lot because of a very loud projector fan just next to me.*

Example of transfer of cultural experience: Netsilik Eskimo Series. How to build an igloo. Another link. And another.

Similar Posts: