What effects will interactivity have on intellect/serendipitous learning/etc.?

Great Debates
1

Is Technology Killing Serendipitous Learning or Intellectual Innovation?

This may be of interest only to me but since it’s asking for opinions for or against and longer than yes or no I’ll put it in GD.

On last night’s Daily Show Bill Gates discussed his plans to further interactive TV by letting viewers get “only news items or shows they care about” (I’m paraphrasing but not changing meaning). There are a few libraries now and more in development in which the stacks are fully automated- you don’t find a book in the catalog and go get it, you type in its number and robotic arms put it on a conveyor that brings it to you, none of that “pesky” browsing. I buy far more books online now than I do in bookstores which limits the amount of browsing through actual print that I used to do.

My problem with all of the above is that it cuts down on serendipitous learning. Ask me if I greatly care about the opening of a new shopping mall in Iowa and I’ll probably say ‘no’- neither “shopping malls” nor “Iowa” nor commerce, etc., are going to be on my wishlist of news items. However, it could well be that if I’m watching CNN or the nightly news or whatever and happen to see an article on a new shopping mall in Iowa that I might notice a store I’ve never heard of or happen to notice a windmill powered Starbucks or see a blind customer using a burro as guide animal or something equally as tangential but that will fascinate me for a while and send me on a researching spree. The same is true of TV: if it becomes filtered into only what I want to watch based on previous viewing how do I develop new interests? (Example: I couldn’t give a whit about women’s fashion or "another @#$U()UERU&(&#$ing elimination reality show, but I LOVED Project Runway which wouldn’t have survived through any filters I can think of.)

The closed-stack library MAJORLY pisses me off with its very concept, not as a librarian half as much as a patron. True, I can look in the catalog and find books on a subject, and this is fine if what I need is academic assignment strategic strike information (i.e. if I have to write a paper on sweet potato farming and sales and I’m really not that interested in either I can get the books and get out and don’t care about browsing the stacks). However, when I’m doing research for my own interest I far prefer to browse the stacks because that’s the way I’ve found some of the best information and most interesting topics I’ve ever run across; in fact, for academic papers I would often change the topic because a book two rows down on the shelf grabbed me when the subject I was looking for didn’t, or I’d have a “hmmm, I never even thought about looking up info on Women of Ancient Pakistan and their Mating Habits As Expressed in Pottery” or whatever but that does look good.

Also, anybody who’s ever used library catalogs much knows that they rely on odd keywords and subject headings that may not be how ‘normal people’ would classify them. (Two expamples based on stage plays: ANGELS IN AMERICA had the subject headings/keywords gay, Mormon, angels, mythology, New York City, 1980s, drama, etc., all of which are technically correct but none of which are about one of the play’s main subject matters- AIDS, while the Library of Congress Subject Headings for “Death of a Salesman” used to famously be limited to “sales personnel- dramas about”; unless you’re just looking for these specific titles you’d never find them browsing the stacks of a drama section.)

OTOH, this was a concern when the web was newer and if anything I’ve found more, not less, things of interest than before. Amazon.com is one example of a store that does well at the illusion of browsing shelves and I’ve found good stuff there the same as I would in a store, plus the option of reading chapters or indices or the like helps. TIVO’s suggestions have brought programs to my attention I’d never have noticed on my own or even been awake/at home for to find them channel surfing.

So short OP long and then short again, do you believe that increasing interactivity and personalization of media and research materials will have any ultimately bad effects on scholarship, intellectual curiosity, broadened exposure, etc., or that it’s a good thing? Do you think that the serendipity aspect of learning will be hurt or just mutated into a new form? (Feel free to share opinions on other broadly or vaguely related topics.)

2

A subject dear to my heart as a lover of learning and research. For me, the card catalogue was just a key; it would give me some basic information about generally where the books on the topic I was researching were grouped. Once there, I’d scan the entire shelf where the books were and then the shelves above and below as well.

Similarly, a journal article was the door to a dozen others; I’d often check the footnotes, end notes and bibliography before reading the article and that’s how I always found more.

The internet is the same in that links will lead to sites that list other links — ooo it’s delicious!

Microsoft has a dreadful way of ‘helping’ the user far too much. I do not want icons, thanks; I want a list of my documents. I do not want you to edit my HTML for me, thanks; I know what I’m doing. And I don’t want you to weed out content, thanks; I’m a big girl and I’ll make my own choices.

In this case, I don’t really think it’s about creating a nifty technology to delight users but rather creating a nifty technology to help marketers hit their intended targets even more accurately.

Fortunately, while Billy G managed to dominate the home computing machine market, the TV market developed and grew long before him. He’ll be just one player. Best case scenario is that the people you know who proudly tell you they never open a newspaper or watch the news will gladly buy Billy G’s new machines so they don’t have to actually, you know, learn something new but the rest of us will still be able to choose less ‘helpful’ technogoodies.

3

I’m kinda “meh” on this subject. People have been talking about narrowcasting for at least twenty years; it’s just that the technology is now starting to get to the point where it might be feasible.

There are benefits and drawbacks to this approach, but I can definitely see a rise in subject matter librarians or the equivalent. Think of blogging, Fark, the Fortean Times, or MPSIMS; there’s nothing to really stop people from launching the “Cool Shit You Oughta Know About Channel”, or multiple flavors thereof for people with various areas of interest.

4

Several scattered points

When I went to a library for a specific book, I always grabbed the two books next to it. Just in case. That may get lost in the future you are presenting us. A real shame.

An extension of your concern is that we now surround ourselves with playlists of our choosing, hindering discovery of new music. We search rather than browse, limiting our exposure to related topics. We “live” in virtual communities (such as the SDMB) where we surround ourselves only with people who share our value, limiting our exposure (and tolerance) to contrasting ideals. Even cable TV is already a step towards narrowcasting if compared to broadcast networks. This might turn us into a very intolerant society.

Amazon suggestions tend to be crap. They offer what they want to sell, not what you would like. We need better suggestion engines. iTunes is only marginally better.

Google is bad enough to list a ton of crazy junk next to the result you want. A great source for random discoveries. They are working to eliminate that. I hope they have only partial success.

In summary, the personalization of our space is real. It is happening. Will it be successful in completely shielding us from novel ideas? I don’t think so. It might make us less tolerant to them, though.

5

Interesting points, but to contrast them:

I get better suggestions online for books online or in a bookstore rather than a library. There are dozens of book reviews sites with neat ways of linking similar books, Amazon suggestions may suck, but it isn’t the only option.

One word: Myspace. They have music you can browse. There is also Pandora.

Most people in days gone by tend to listen to one type of music anyway. We are creatures of habit, as we get older, we tend to like less and less (there are exceptions, but they are not the rule). That is why you get people with Mullets still listening to Lenard Skynard and thinking they are cool for it.

I don’t know about you, but I go to places like digg and rededit and I do most certainly browse.

Uh, well your definition of contrasting ideals must be something different than mine, because I certainly see a lot of contrasting ideals just on this message board. I don’t limit myself to just here either. You might, but that should be seen as a habit of yours, not others.

Well, TV is crap for the most part, a bunch of the same “reality” TV shows. I don’t know how it would make us a more intolerant society. I think if anything, the internet allows society to become much more tolerant.

If you rely on google to get you “Random” discoveries, you really need to get with the day and age and look at some other sites. Google is a SEARCH engine, not a browser engine. There are many great “web 2.0” sites out there that allow you to see a bunch of really cool and random sites. (stumbleupon, digg, delicious, etc)

No, I don’t see any shielding, and I doubt it will happen. Having more things with a wider variety of options is always a good thing. The internet used to be boring, now it has so much content I’ll never get to see it all, and it is ever increasing. I also have noticed that unlike many of my generation, I have a more open mind to novel things and ideas, where as my friends tend to like it how it was. I can only surmise that this is due to my time spend at places like this, ones you suggest make one more intolerant of new ideas.

6

Epimetheus, I realize and agree with all the things you are saying. All I am saying is that, for the so inclined, bubbling up is becoming easier. The tools are there and they are equally useful for expanding your horizons or limiting them.

It is just that we don’t need to shack up in Montana to isolate ourselves from society. We can very easily surround ourselves with only the stuff we want. And I can see how, for those who choose to, dealing Jenny the quirky secretary, who you can’t really shut off, becomes more of a nuisance since she is now in contrast with all your other tailored environments.

7

Today we have more narrow choices. The Beatles first few albums had their songs, but also Chuck Berry, some country, and some showtunes. You listened to radio in a few broad categories - now you listen to quite narrow stations. When you watched TV, you had three to seven choices, so if you watched you’d get westerna and murder mysteries and sitcoms. Now you have more choices, but you can narrowcast yourself. My satellite box allows me to filter out all but the channels I want.

TV news filters, versus a newspaper. Now you can filter even further. And while I like Amazon, it can’t point you to a book in a totally different category you find through serendipity in a library or a bookstore. The reviews are nice, but you can read the book in your hands also. (I agree that closed stack libraries are evil unless needed to protect rare books.)

Wasn’t there a study (I think I read about it in Blink) that putting more choices on a supermarket shelf actually reduced sales? We’ve got more choices now, but we’re reacting by reducing our choices by looking at only the few channels meeting our specialized preferences.

8

Heavily tailored information is one toolset available on the web, and certainly a necessary one. With the quantity of information available increasing at a daunting rate, you need filtering and tailoring tools in order to find what you’re looking for. At the same time, though, serendipitous learning tools are also growing, both in scope and availability. If a person is just looking to satisfy a bit of curiousity, there are numerous options available that are very easy to find. As others have mentioned, there are things like stumbleupon and digg for the truly random experience, and links from blogs of other sites of interest that can lead a person off on wild tangents. In fact, I would say serendipitous learning is even easier than before. I don’t have to go to the library or a bookstore. I can sit at my desk and find myself browsing any number of oddball websites, sometimes intentionally, sometimes just as a happenstance of where a link from someone’s article leads.

Finding random information is easy. Finding relevant information is what often requires better tools.

9

Agree. Browsing is VERY important to research. You would think that university libraries would understand this.