Slashdot Mirror


Mining the Cognitive Surplus

Clay Shirky has been giving talks on his book Here Comes Everybody — his "masterpiece," per Cory Doctorow — and BoingBoing picks up one of them, from the Web 2.0 conference. Shirky has come up with a quantification of the attention that TV has been absorbing for more than half a century. Shirky defines as a unit of attention "the Wikipedia": 100 million person-hours of thought. As a society we have been burning 2,000 Wikipedias per year watching mostly sitcoms. We're stopping now. Here's a video of another information-dense Shirky talk, this one at Harvard.

13 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Nope. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think that stopping the practice of watching long hours of re-ran Seinfeld episodes, so that you can spend even more hours writing and following links to various discussions and trivia about Seinfeld episodes and looking for places to download bootlegs of the same is an indication that, finally, all of that brainpower is getting put back to productive use.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. Double-standards? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If, in defending the free exchange of media, we note that each "pirated" copy does not necessarily equal a lost sale, why should we think watching sitcoms necessarily equals lost useful effort?

    1. Re:Double-standards? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cognitive surplus may be low-grade ore, but a gold mine is economical even if there's only one ounce of gold per ton.

    2. Re:Double-standards? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm actually torn about this situation, because I make my living producing entertainment products that I hope people will mindlessly consume"

      Why be torn? There will NEVER be a shortage of people ready to gobble mindless entertainment. What you do as a self-aware person doesn't mean fuck all to the drones, so make stuff that makes money for you and then enjoy the
      power money gives you. You cannot (no one can) ensmarten the drones. Leave them to their American Idol and other comforting bullshit. They don't care what you want.

      "Someone should put some of their newly-acquired brainspace into finding a way to make TV more socially-and-interactively useful, so I don't have to worry so much."

      They did. It's called a computer.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. Maybe, maybe not by AmazingRuss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been without broadcast TV for 15 years or so, and I find plenty of other trivia to waste my time on. Lacking the daily homogenizing input, I am kind of awkward in conversation with strangers or casual acquaintances. I don't know any of the little catch phrases from the sitcoms, or what any of the sports teams are doing. It would do my social life a lot of good if I watched TV, but I just can't hack it.

    I also think that it's a good thing a lot of these folks have the TV to watch. It gives them something to talk about, and keeps them inside, out of trouble. I don't think the infinite number of monkeys technique really applies to advancing human thought. If they're captivated by sitcoms, it's doubtful they are going to have much to contribute.

    1. Re:Maybe, maybe not by AmazingRuss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You get out there and inspire the Muggles, and see where it gets you. Trying to push the back end of the bell curve into the front is very rarely a rewarding endeavor. As far as I'm concerned, the only way to deal with them is to be polite and get away as soon as possible...which is how I expect them to treat me too, given my ignorance of things that interest them.

      I have an endless store of engineering trivia, others have an endless supply of pop culture trivia. It's not good, bad, or otherwise.

  4. Re:Fascinating by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know anyone that still watches TV like people used to in the 90s. I haven't rtfa'd yet, but if he's saying that those hours will be put to good use now that we're not watching sitcoms I'm not so hopeful; it's not like you can't waste time on the net, that's all a lot of people (most?) use it for.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  5. Re:Fascinating by athmanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's probably right, the TV era is going away and getting replaced with the MMORPG era.

    Not that it makes any difference whether we waste our time on soap operas or getting epix though.

  6. Re:Fascinating by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The irony is that TV makers brought it onto themselves by constantly lowering standards.

    I don't think that's true. Compare a season of "Heroes" to a season of "A-Team" or "Night Rider". Look at the quality progression of "Star Trek" "Star Trek:the Next Generation" "Battlestar Galactica". I think television quality has migrated towards the extremes, there is some television that is very good, and some that makes Charlie the Unicorn look brilliant. I'm hoping that the rise of YouTube is going to be the end of reality TV.

    --
    We are all just people.
  7. Tried it already by 77Punker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm about to graduate from college and at the end of this semester, I realized I had a ton of math homework that I needed to do in order to pass. Why was this the case? I'm a smart guy so it's really not very difficult for me, and it's not just busywork.

    I had been wasting time playing video games. I decided about 3 weeks ago that I wasn't going to spend my time doing things that have no outcome and only serve as time sinks: no video games, no pot smoking, no TV watching(unless it's informative). Exceptions (like social events) do exist, but I've stuck to it.

    Since then, I put time into my senior seminar and it ended up kicking ass, done a whole semester's worth of math in about 4 straight days, greatly increased my guitar playing ability, learned to meditate, and learned a new programming language. I've also taken care of loads of smaller things I may have just ignored and come closer to some friends and family. Most of this great success is due to the fact that I've eliminated my biggest time sink (video games). I imagine I'll also have more money, since video games are expensive and I'm selling my X360.

    These changes have allowed me to come closer to my full potential, and I don't regret it one bit. For me, video games took hours (years?) of time that I'll never get back, but at least I'm young enough that it's not too late. I feel like I just woke up from a coma.

    I strongly encourage everyone to examine his time-sinking habits and eliminate them; it may change your life!

    1. Re:Tried it already by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The key isn't to get rid of it entirely, that is just going from one extreme to another. If you have to worry about being productive all the time you are just going to fizzle out more often then not. The key of course is moderation. Sometimes I find slacking off helps when I am at a standstill on a difficult problem. Just getting my mind off of it seems to allow it to wander and usually I will wind up figuring out the critical step while my nose isn't buried in a book.

      You can also find more productive ways of slacking off, if that makes any sense. For instance, my guilty vice is South Park, so I loaded up the latest episode today and watched it while I was on an elliptical machine in the gym(with a set of wireless headphones). I was able to watch the episode and workout at the same time.

  8. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's right and his proof was made before he wrote the article, evidenced by the existence of Wikipedia itself. For this one project alone, 1/10,000 of the cognitive surplus of one year has already been harvested. Right, because all of the mental effort that went into creating Wikipedia was taken from the mental effort that was wasted by watching TV, and not from anything else.

    Seriously, do you even know what the word "proof" means? Your statement isn't based on any kind of fact so it may not even be true itself, much less prove anything else.

    The article is based on two whopping unfounded assumptions:

    - That this cognitive surplus even exists. It's possible that people simply have a finite amount of thought available per unit time and that this thought is already being completely expended. The fact that people in the past had much less free time is meaningless; they also had much less requirement for thought in their work and in their lives. Maybe a consequence of the move from mindless drones to modern thought-workers is that there isn't much thought left to be used in the free time created.

    - That mental effort is interchangeable. This should be obviously false, not just unproven. It should be clear to anyone who has interacted with humans that when any kind of goal is at stake, some people's brains are vastly more effective at reaching it than others. If your goal is some physics problem, an hour of Albert Einstein's brain is probably worth more than the entire lifetime of that girl who made me a sandwich at the deli today. You can't say that there are X person-hours being wasted in front of the TV which could do awesome things if they were put to use elsewhere. These are not CPU cycles, you can't just load new software and go.

    Now, overall I think that the guy's talk has a good point and tells a lot of truth. But it goes too far when talking about mental effort as if it were fungible, and there's no way that any of his conclusions are proven at all, much less by the mere existence of Wikipedia.
  9. Re:Fascinating by sir+fer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Improving the quality of TV is like improving the quality of shit...at the end of the day it's still shit.

    --
    Debian FTW ;o)