‘We can implant entirely false memories’ is an intriguing review of the research of Elizabeth Loftus. Ideas about memory have always intrigued me.

I’ve been thinking about memory lately because i’m adamently opposed to the concept of trails put forward by Vannevar Bush in “As We May Think.” I know that the construction of our past is not always the same as the actual reality, but i prefer it to the realistic portrayal of experience. Personally, i’m quite happy to not have easy access to the replay of mistakes made. I realize that the memories that i hold are not only the actual events, but the embellishment of the good and the dismissal of the bad. I have a tendency to store all of these details and emotions around joyful activities, while i conveniently forget much beyond the facts of negative ones. I tend to consider this a good thing, although it can cause problems when i cannot stay mad at someone, even when i should for my own sake. But, it always pains me to interact with people who only hold on to the bad.

This research makes me think crazy thoughts. If you can implant a memory, can you also eliminate memories? For example, what would it mean if someone conveniently forgot that they were abused. Would this be a relief? In what ways are memories a protective force vs. a limiting force?

Sadly, this all comes down to a philosophical debate about what is best for an individual and society. Do we believe in constructing ‘happiness’ or ‘truth’? And what on earth does either one mean?

I can’t help but slip into story time whenever i listen to an older male with a British accent, particularly professors; it just reminds me so strongly of my grandfather. Thus, i absolutely love listening to Professor Buckland talk about his ideas; i just sit there in a trance, completely incapable of thinking critically, but in love with everything presented. He convinced me to love him on my first visit to SIMS, explaining how SIMS is not interdisciplinary, but methodologically diverse while focused on one body of knowledge (i.e. departments vs. schools, methodology vs. target body of knowledge).

Well, this week, Professor Buckland told us stories about Vannevar Bush and Emanuel Goldberg.

I spent my formative years under the guidance of Andy van Dam. As such, i was indoctrinated with the philosophy that Vannevar Bush is god.

Thus, when Buckland started telling us the story of Emanuel Goldberg, i was floored. A new book will be coming out shortly, but the simple answer is that Goldberg had pattened and CREATED the memex before Bush, long before Bush. Emanuel Goldberg appears to be a brilliant man who history has ignored (and Buckland is going to right that historical wrong).

Popular Mechanics is a NYTimes article that addresses sociometry (think numerical analysis approach to social behavior… uber quant-sociology). A large part of this discussion is on social networks. Since social networks has been the recent star child of sociology, it shouldn’t be surprising that sociometrics is also interested in approaching it. Milgram did do the first numerical study of networks.

Continue reading →

Last night, i went to the Commonwealth Club talk on dating in contemporary urban cultures. The panelists included folks from PlanetOut, Friendster, Match.com, and speed dating.

Obviously, i went to get a better idea of what Jonathan’s approach to dating was, in the hopes that it had evolved from the conversation we had a few months ago. It hadn’t. He still believes that relationship formation is not a science and that they just happen. [In March, he told me that the only thing people looked at when dating online is a picture and that he only put up the rest to make his advisors happy.] Of course, he also believes that his site exists out of happenstance and that it is simply that his friends told his friends and voila everyone was interested. –sigh–

Despite my disappointment with his perspective, i was truly taken aback by the rabbi who created speed dating. He was *great*. Unlike the Match.com rep (who had fantastic statistics and scientific analysis), the rabbi just had good insight and wisdom.

He told the audience that dating is like running a company. You can’t just rely on sales and marketing; you need to focus on product development (the product being you). Dating takes work and compromise.

He also told us to change our perspective on seeking people out. Rather than finding the best person for us, look for the person that we could spend the rest of our life trying to make happy. When two people are devoted to making each other happy, the relationship would work.

Those two thoughts are so simple, but yet they were said so elegantly and i really appreciated it.

Michael Mandiberg is an artist that i went to school with. I often find myself referring to his work, particularly Shop Mandiberg – the piece where he decided to sell himself (and all of his belongings) in a statement about identity and consumption.

When i gave money to NPR this year, i got signed up for a subscription of Newsweek. At first, this seemed rather odd to me but i have to admit that reading it over my cereal tends to make me smile.

The headline this week is about gay marriage in light of the fantabulous court decisions last week. But in the midst of it, there was an interesting article on “new age raves.” I guess you could say that i’m a part of that “new age rave” culture (albeit the term weirds me out) cause i still do yoga before dancing and view many of my dance nights as a process of reconnecting with myself spiritually, usually without drugs (no alcohol or caffeine as well). I have to wonder if this kind of press will relieve some of the hostility that people have towards dancing culture. Perhaps one day police in northern California will realize that parties with electronic music do not mean that 16 year old kids on ecstasy will show up. ::sigh::

Last year, the Village Voice ran an article about men who are perceived as gay. This year, the NYTimes has labeled them metrosexuals and validates their claims through famous figures rather than the fashionable NY characters that are discussed by the Voice.

Continue reading →

Talking with my advisor yesterday, he spoke about Sandra Ball-Rokeach at USC’s Annenberg School For Communication who suggests that the sign of a healthy community is one that tells stories. Storytelling has been dramatically undervalued in contemporary society. Creating characters, talking about events, sharing philosophies all through the power of story… I guess TV has replaced this, creating a common story. But the least common denominator is far from interesting… What are the stories that emerge out of truly connected communities? Shared stories of experience and shared fables for enjoyment? Are there communities out there that still value that form of connecting?

Email messages are encouraging people to create flash mobs in New York – crowds that come together for 10 minutes and then disperse. This is an intriguing social phenomenon.

There are few friends that i have who consistently challenge my philosophies on life and force me to delve into why i believe what i do. Of course, spending a day with one of those friends always makes me blissfully ecstatic, even if utterly exhausted. Today, i went to the beach and our discussion ended up focusing on the impact of friends on our mental models of strangers.

There are two parts to this problem:

1) What impact our friends have on our views of others;
2) How we act accordingly.

When we communicate our thoughts about outsider to our friends, we often use very coarse descriptions, highlighting what we see as the salient characteristics of that person, for better or worse. For example, i might say that Bob is really annoying, without contextualizing that statement to explain that he’s only really annoying when he’s around Carl because they are exes and are quite antagonistic. Big brush strokes.

The question is how my friend chooses to encorporate my thoughts. Ideally, we act as though we are strong enough to make up our own opinion on others, but this is probably not what people actually do. More likely, my friend’s view will be colored by what i say (which is not necessarily the whole of how i feel). In interacting with Bob, my friend will see Bob as annoying, even with Carl nowhere to be found. I will have colored my friend’s perspective.

A lot of this has to do with our tendency to create tribes. By voicing our opinions on outsiders to our friends, we encourage them to like the people we like and dispise our enemies. This animalistic tendency allows us to create a safe container for those we love. Of course, by being the one who articulates the tribe’s members, our opinions are validated giving us power within the system.

Given this framework, we started talking about how we operate inside and outside of this. My friend recognizes that opinions from others cloud his view and thus doesn’t want to hear them nor wants to share his own. Yet, in doing so, he ends up following others tribes. I, on the other hand, refuse to take anyone’s account that seriously and thus have no problem making up my own mind, yet i rarely keep my opinions to myself, mostly because i like to hear disagreement. Neither “solution” is ideal and we’ve both seen the reprocussions of our own paths. What’s more interesting is how frustrated he gets when someone shares coarse descriptions and how frustrated i get when others take my opinions with too much weight.

Thus, it begs the question.. how do you communicate your opinions in a way that doesn’t improperly affect the situation?