Recently, I read an interesting article, which claims the following
conclusion:
    "The wiring of the world to internet will be the beginning of the
     end of mankind"

The theory being that humans,  as with all species, evolves and develops
in small groups.  That human evolution in this day and age occurs in the
form of the development and enactment of new ideas.  Every species 
living in the world generally adapts to change because they face their
problems in small groups.  To put simply, adaption to change (evolution)
requires the ability to put ideas into action.  And as we all know,
putting ideas into action becomes much more difficult as you are dealing
with larger and larger groups.  With ten people in a room arguing, you
might come up with solutions and get things accomplished.  With a 
hundred in a room it becomes much more difficult and with a million or
ten million people it becomes impossible.
  
So the theory goes that the idea of getting everyone wired in to the
Internet will kill diversity, and result in a homogenization of concepts
and ideas.  If millions of people are linked to america online or
prodigy or whatever, the vast majority are using the same  programs and 
are fuctioning on the net in the same way.  Instead of operating in
their own small groups and finding their own philosophies, they are part
of this big huge collective where their own personal thoughts and needs
are far less important than they even realize.

The end result, says this theory, is that you end up with millions of
people brainwashed in a sense to react and function in the same way.  This
is the fear of many scientists, technology killing diversity.  When
a species loses its ability to diversify, and adapt to an ever changing
environment, it gradually becomes extinct.  

So, this theory concludes, this headlong rush to wire everyone in the
world to the internet is wrong.  It causes people to communicate outside
their own realities, their own worlds, and causes them to see broad
generalities instead of the world right in front of them.

This is not to say that there arent obvious purposes for the technology,
but basically that people today are so mesmerized by new programming and
software that they arent seeing the downside.

   So the question is this...we see every new program and advancement as
relentlessly cool and hip, we run out and buy windows95 and worship Bill
Gates as god, but are we in the process subverting nature by constantly
trying to expand our reach beyond our own communities?  Is there going to
be a time when what happens on-line is more important than what happens
next door, or down the street, in our own towns and homes?  Because when
we cant relate locally and individually, that may well be the first step
towards the extinction of the human race.

54 responses total.

        I would tend to think of the net as doing the opposite of what's
decribed in this theory, mainly it opens people up to different subcultures
allowing for a greater diversity in thought.  I can see this model applying
to the old (40s-70s) broadcast media with its three networks, but not to the
interent with its 7,000 usenet groups.  I think there *is* a danger of
the interent being watered by AOL and Microsoft net.  If these two nets
idea of staging events with a bunch of passive (psedo interactive) bystanders
catches on then loss of diversity of ideas could become a problem.  This
is *not* (to my understanding) the probel being addressed in that essay
however.

   Additionally, the thinking is technology, in the form of television,
has already drastically altered and homogonized human behaviour in
most of the world and that people are conveniently ignoring what has
happened in our society.  Remember television as a mass media tool didnt
exsist until a little more than 40 years ago and has already influenced
and changed mankind more than anything else in the history of the world.

  But television is limited, at this point, it is not interactive.  The
internet is the next step.  If our behaviour and customs were changed
and profoundly affected by the simple one-way effect of television, there
is no telling what changes interactive technology will bring.

  We are at the beginning of a whole new world, in years to come what we
use now as computers will be archaic, but will we lose ourselves in 
the process? Will we lose the ability to function at certain levels, and
as  a consequence, lose that ability to think adaptively and creatively
that is so necessary for our own survival?

On Darwin: I see proof of Climactic evolution, but there is NO survival
of the fitest in Darwin's sense on the human scale.  Here we have survival
of the middle and upper classes.

I disagree with the presented theory.

Whaoh...I *wrote* this book!!! And they stole it. Thiss scuks.
royally. I wrote a sci fi novel about the day the internet/vr thingee
that people implanted in their brains turned off and the upper class
decided to take over the poor helpless people and make them into serfs
except there were these rebels who whupped the crap out of these 
people cause they managed to take over the library of congress and there
was one of them who'd learned the arcaic art of reading as a hobby and
they made some neat bombs and stuff. :<

I kinda like the future. The other night I was cruising around webspace
and found a list of gardens by state. Being from Michigan, I chose that
option. I found there is a "children's" garden up at MSU, designed just
for kids. It has a maze, Herb knot, and other things designed to be of
interest to children. It has been there since 1993, but I've never heard
of it. But now I have, and have another place I can take my son to visit.
Thanks to the internet. Besides, I may even meet some People there!

The internet homogenizes concepts and ideas?  Have we noticed that problem
on Grex?

Television homogenizes, because it is monolithically controlled.  Internet
diversifies, because it gives equal voice to nearly everyone and rewards
uniqueness.

What he said. (Say I, not being particularly unique.)

Richard, I hope the article you read was not written by a cultural
anthropoligist!

I disagree for a variety of reasons with the article. Basically there are two
ways to adapt to one's environment: physically and culturally. Culture
obviously can be changed in an instant, but physical genotypes take years and
years to develop. 

I think the article's conclusion is false. Human biological diversity will
never disppear. Gentically each human is about 15 million traits differnt than
another person. Ther eis no way we can losr biological diversity through the
internet. Whether we like it or not, people cannot inbreed with each other
over the net. Anthropologists often recognize that human breeding between
supposed "racial" groups can be healthy for mankind in general. 

What the article presented is alluding to is the homogenization of culture.
To some extent, all media sources tend to do that, as pointed out earlier.
What the benefit to culture the internet brings is a free assoication of ideas
and other cultures through a non-discrimatory medium. There arent moguls who
control what we basically see on teh screen. The internet will never destroy
cultural diversity. It is impossible. People use the internet, then go back
to their own culture. If we are fortuante, people share their cultural ideas
on teh net so that we all get differnt perspectives on things.

Communication is going to be critical to the survival of the human race. As
more and more problems mount, people must be able to transmit ideas for
solving them quickly.

In fact, I think you see less biological diversity in small groups than you
do in big groups, since the gene pool is significantly smaller.  It is true
that evolutionary changes will take place faster with less interaction between
groups, but since most evolutionary changes lead to less fit, not more fit,
people, and are more likely to lead to a group dying out rather than spawning
a new species, survival of a species that is already surviving pretty well
will probably be helped by not changing too much.

People still split up into small groups, even on the net.

Indeed--the J group and K group, respectively. (in-joke)

Hmmm. I remember that.....but I forget which one I was in.

I think you were a K.
(not sure tho)

Dan is definitely a K, as is most of the current board and staff.
Grex has a strong J contingent; they gather weekly at the NOC.
   (I'll explain what this J/K thing is all about later when I
have more time, unless somebody beats me to it.)

All of which is relevant to the premise of #0, I think. My
experiences and observations from eleven years of computer
conferencing lead me to conclude that cyberspace doesn't
inhibit people from banding together into groups; it merely
affords some new channels for doing so. 

I agree.  The author of #0 doesn't appear to have much actual experience
with what he is writing about.

I no longer recall the subtle aspects of the J/K grouping; the gist is
that J-people are likely to go around hugging each other in both real
and virtual parties, while K-people are not.  All these years later, the
people I still know about and see around on occasion are pretty much K
people, while the population of J folks seems to have a shorter
turnover.

  In the world of J's and K's, I'm a W.
                              - me.

  Well actually (the theory in #0 was from a cultural anthropoligist, and
I dont totally agree with it either), this idea that the 'net breeds
diverse behaviour isnt totally true.
  Most people, in particular the ones who use the commercial services, who
log on to a computer system do the same things.  They do e-mail, they
read whatever is in front of them and they do party confs and such.  Even
using Grex as an example, most people who use Grex do party, email and
Agora.  They do not do the Synthesis Conf or the Sexuality conf or .etc
  The fact is that those of us who pursue special, non-mainstream uses
and subjects on the 'net are in a very small minority.  Millions of
people in this country will never even try to find their way off of AOL
or Compuserve and into backwaters like Grex.  There are very strong
and consistent behavioural patterns regarding general usage of the internet.
  This was brought up during the Exon bill debate, as it was pointed out
the number of people who might find eclectic usenet groups or small boards
is quite small and clearly didnt necessitate the measures being debated.
Even the most active usenet groups generally have a core group of 50-100
users.  
  The point I think this writer was making, and I said that dont agree with
it entirely, is that when people are already conditioned by television to
eat at Mcdonalds, buy Nike shoes and drink Coke, and when the success of these
companies clearly indicates how well the public has been programmed without
any interaction at all, it is easy to see the Internet as the next step.  

  What the writer of the theory in #0 is saying is that when larger and
larger percentages of the population are accepting programming and thinking
from places outside their own environment, there is a danger.  The
practical assumption being that not everyone is intelligent or wise enough
to be able to keep things in perspective

   When ANY thought becomes too prevalent.  When all we start to have in
common is rooted in commercialism and mass-produced imagery, and when the
computer now allows us to participate in the cultivation of such imagery,
there is a genuine threat to diversity in our culture.

In the world of J's and K's, I'm a 7.

Re #18:  You wish it were so, but sorry, no such luck.

The J/K thing was not a theory, it was an observation.  At the time, M-Net
had regular happy hours and picofests that were quite widely attended.  I
began to notice that all M-Net events, once they reached a fluid stage where
people could move around easily, would divide in two.  They would split along
consistant lines into two sets of people.  I posted an item on M-Net shortly
thereafter, describing this phenomenon and labeling the two groups "J" and
"K" (I was looking for labels that suggested nothing about the groups).

About a week after I posted this, during a picofest at John Remmers' home,
I was struck by a perfect division.  With some 30 people present, every single
J had gravitated into the living room, where they sprawled over each other
in an amorphous friendly mass, while ever single K had gravitated into the
dining room, where a few perched on uncomfortable chairs and the rest hung
over the various munchies spread on the table.  The J's were collecting "out
of context quotes" while the K's were discussing disk drive stepping rates.
The division was breath-takingly stunning to me.

So the question is, which set of people would you have ended up with if you
had been in that room?  Who knows.  If you are perfectly comfortable with the
idea of sitting on someone else's lap at such a gathering, you are almost
certainly a J.  If your soul freezes at such a notion, you are likely a K.

I'm not completely convinced that the division is a fundamental human thing.
It may have been an artifact of M-Net culture at that time.  I thought I saw
something similar happening at a recent M-Net happy hour where the J's all
stood up and gathered in the aisle, while the K's mostly remained glumly
sitting at the table.  The Grex founders were almost 100% K's.  GNO's do have
a bit of a J flavor, but not really much.  Grexwalks seem to have a steady
contingent of K's, joined by erratic spurts of J's.

What does it all prove?  Nothing.  I suspect that in a random sample of the
population, you'd find other sets of people who gravitate together, but those
don't happen to be the ones attracted to computer conferencing systems.  I
suspect that the change in the character of !party has contributed somewhat
to the change in the group dynamics that has made the J/K lines less clear.
I think the K's, who used to be very present in party, have largely abandoned
it, so the two cultures on Grex don't even know each other anymore, so they
don't often get into the same room in the first place, so you can't watch them
divide up.

A marginally amusing presentation of J/K interactions can often be seen
on "Dweebs", although the show is so J-oriented it's hard not to get
annoyed about it.  (I've heard tell the creator of said show spent some
time hanging around my current employer, though it only shows up in
small bits.)

Not to be confused with Jeff Foxworthy's new show, "You might
be a J person if...."

"If you would quit Grex in protest if the /hug and /kiss noises were removed
from !party..."

I think I tend to switch between being a J and a K depending on which group
of people I'm hanging out with at the time.

I guess I'm a j. If i tried to deny it, someone would slap evidence
of something else in my face..


and i think you're dealing with academicness/vs./sillyness
shyness(about touching and stuff/vs./cuddliness possibly
even right brained vs. left brained

Jan, my comment in #18 was meant to simply be absurdist, that's all.
This is the first time I've actually seen an explanation of the J/K thing.
I've heard about it for years, but always thought it was a left/right brain
kind of division. However, in partial defense of my statement in #18, I'd
say that I don't fit neatly into your categorys. What you describe as J 
behaviour, is also observed in the SF groups that I've hung out with. We
always refered to it as "touchy feely fandom", lots of group hugs, people
piles, and backrubs. I am very confortable with that and you will find me in
that kind of group as long as I know the other people reasonably well.
Not with strangers. OTOH, you're just as likely to find me talking about
disk drive stepping rates too. It depends on the group, the conversation,
and my mood. On several occasions, I've found myself in the middle of a
bunch of K's discussing bus-speed crosstalk problems, etc, and heard an
interesting conversation coming from the pile of J's in the other room.
I've litterally had to pry my way out of the conversation with an "Ok,
enough about computers already! I want to get into this other conversation,
Bye!" I have observed what you discribed, but I've also met a few people
that cross over and don't fit easily into either category. Maybe think of
it as a sliding scale, no wait, how about a bathtub curve? With a majority
of the population observed at or near either pole, and a decreasing minority
sliding into a middle ground with maybe a dominant preference? From what
you describe, I would describe myself as 40/60 J/K.

BTW, you ever worked with basic digital logic circuits? The choice of J
and K is interesting.

i used to be a 'j', and remember being in that mass of people in
the livingroom <ralphs house?>. but as time went on, i became a
a 'k'.

You had to, if you were gonna move in with *me*...

Hmmm... to me, the distinction was more about touching than about
favourite topics of conversation.

I don't know that the distinction was anything but observational.  People
clearly divided into two groups.  You could make various observations about
the differences in the kinds of people that seemed to appear in the two
groups, but I never discovered any fully defining characteristics.  There
were certainly lots of border crossers.  Iggy and Marcvh were two of the
most obvious.  I suspect they influenced each other.  But most people were
pretty set in their ways.  Hmmm...what ever happened to Mark Harris?

Re #0: My impression is that this medium expresses the most hidebound,
unalterable, fixed, notions I have ever observed. Everybody is mostly just
presenting *their own opinion*, and I see practically no leveling of
opinion as a result. It is a rare event for someone to say, "you're right,
I change my mind".  If anything, this medium will convert us all to
reactionary islands totally hardened against any change of our opinions. 

Of course, this consequence could *also* "lead to humankind's demise". 

Rane: NO IT WON'T!

Oh heck. Rane changed my mind, then Greg changed it right back.

What about those of us who like to lie around in people piles talking about
techie things?

Like, Mac vs PC?

I must be strange. When I am in a "people pile" I am not
thinking about computers. Guess I need a checkup.

Tonight's GNO seperated very nicely along the J/K lines, just as Jan
described.  There was a group of five of us, contaxes, dadroc, drew, somebody
whose login I forgot, and me, who were sitting around a table discussing
computer stuff and/or sleeping, and a people pile on the bench in the corner,
where people weren't discussing computer stuff.

We don't always have to discuss computer stuff just cause we're at a GNO
do we?  Half the fun is getting AWAY from the computer and talking. :)

(Oh, I was in the people pile... more fun that way. :)  )

And I thought the end of humanity was the hucksters wipping us all into
an internet frenzy of such a nerve wracking magnatude that we all simply
self exploed from the hype. You would swear that the Internet is better
than magic, less fattening than low fat yogart, faster than light, more
sensuous than Madonna and more heady than Newt, and instantly transforming
of the poor slock user into a super-mega-ultra-power-user-Plus++-godhead
sorta-being. I suffer from the letdown everyday, perhaps this is a
chronic disorder rather than a acute one...

In all honestness, i forgot that there was a grex thingy last nite. I just
showed up for Saturday Nite Fever.....

The changes will not lead to the demise of humanity. There will be
some radical power adjustments. "Our mission is to hack down government."

re 34-35: No the people pule tended to revert to Anime cartoons. Besides
what do I know about computers? :}

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss