Lehrblogger

Our cognitive surplus is being spent on Facebook.

In the beginning of his recent book, Clay Shirky compares the early-18th-century London Gin Craze to the relatively recent American obsession with television. Both are things into which people sank an incredible amount of their free time, but now the Internet is providing us with new social tools that allow us to harness this time:

One thing that makes the current age remarkable is that we can now treat free time as a general social asset that can be harnessed for large, communally created projects, rather than a set of individual minutes to be whiled away one person at a time.

If we, as a society, spend an amount of time watching television every year equivalent to how long it would take to write 2,000 Wikipedias, what else could we do with that time?

I was chatting with Nina Khosla about Facebook, and she contrasted it to Google, Wikipedia, Flickr, and other “aspirational tools [...] that suggest that we can do more, see more.” Facebook isn’t like this – in some ways we can use it to keep up with a larger number of people than we otherwise could, but perhaps 80% of a person’s time on the site is spent engaging with perhaps 20% of their friends.

So what else are we doing with that cognitive surplus? We’re spending it on Facebook, mindlessly reading and liking and commenting on our friends’ posts, just as we used to spend it mindlessly watching television before that, and just as we used to spend it mindlessly drinking gin before that.

Cheers!

This is not necessarily an unhappy conclusion to reach though – I think there’s more value (however one wants to measure it) to time spent on Facebook than there is to time spent watching television, just as I think time spent watching television is of more value than time spent drunk. But I think it’s foolish to expect thousands of Wikipedias to emerge any second from our ‘series of tubes’, and it’s going to take concentrated design effort to create rewarding and enjoyable yet productive places where we can spend our time and attention. Sharing isn’t an end in and of itself. Facebook is compelling, but we can do better.

Update on May 4th, 2011: Alex Rainert tweeted about an article in AdWeek that also suggests that Facebook games such as Farmville are eating into the attention surplus that had previously been devoted to soap operas, and it cites some interesting (although only correlative) numbers:

When Zynga – publisher of massively popular Facebook games such as FarmVille and CityVille – arrived on the scene in 2007, both All My Children and One Life to Live were averaging a 1.9 rating among women 25-54. By 2011 the two shows were averaging 1.3 and 1.4 ratings respectively in that key viewer group. The drop is even steeper for other demographics. Meanwhile, by April 2009, Zynga was reaching 40 million monthly active players on Facebook, according to comScore. These days, the game has over 47 million players each month while the more recent hit, CityVille, attracts a staggering 88 million active participants.

A good four-minute video by Steven Johnson titled Where Good Ideas Come From that’s relevant to my previous post on how the Internet affects our thinking:

People love to play games. They’re fun, of course, but they also teach us valuable real-world skills. Chess teaches pattern-matching and strategy, Dungeons & Dragons teaches exploration and collaboration, Olympic sports teach physical coordination, and others such as soccer and Halo teach many types of skills simultaneously. In all cases, games provide safe environments for learning as well as clear criteria for success. It’s better to learn to run fast when you’re on a field because you want to win a game, and not when you’re running from a sabre-toothed tiger because you don’t want to get eaten. Games create artificial environments and structure incentives in ways that make us better equipped to prosper in reality.

As technology allows us to measure things that were previously unknowable, we will design new games that improve our ability to live in this increasingly complex world.

Jesse Schell gave an excellent talk at the 2010 DICE Summit:
(I’ll quote/paraphrase the applicable parts of both talks, so feel free to keep reading and watch them later.)

Schell observes that many of the unexpectedly wildly popular games from the past couple of years (such as Farmville and Guitar Hero) “are all busting through to reality.” He predicts that increasingly inexpensive data sensors will become ubiquitous, and will record where we go as well as the things we buy, read, eat, drink and talk about. This data will enable corporations and governments to reward our behaviors with game-like ‘points’, when really those points are just a way to trick us into paying more attention to advertisements, and we will consent to this because we will be able to redeem those points for discounts and tax incentives. Schell concludes:

The sensors that we’re going to have on us and all around us and everywhere are going to be tracking and watching what we’re doing forever, [...] and you get to thinking about how, wow, is it possible maybe that, since all this stuff is being watched and measured and judged, that maybe, I should change my behavior a little bit and be a little better than I would have been? And so it could be that these systems are just all crass commercialization and it’s terrible, but it’s possible that they’ll inspire us to be better people if the game systems are designed right.

Jane McGonigal recently gave a compelling talk at TED that approaches similar ideas about how gaming can save the world:

McGonigal observes that games, and especially immersive massively multiplayer online role-playing games such as World of Warcraft, always offer quests that are perfectly tailored so as to be both challenging and possible. She offers four useful descriptive terms for these activities:

1. urgent optimism – gamers tackle obstacles without hesitation, and they expect to succeed
2. social fabric – games require trust and collaboration, and as a result the players develop strong relationships
3. blissful productivity – gamers work hard when playing because they enjoy it
4. epic meaning – game narratives make it easy for the players to see the big picture

These are part of a larger argument that gamers can save the world if they play games that are designed to have positive effects outside of the magic circles of the games. McGonigal cites an example from Herodotus in which the ancient Lydians survived a famine by distracting themselves from hunger with dice games, and she makes an argument that we can similarly use contemporary games to solve contemporary problems. That example breaks down, however, because we don’t need games that distract us from our problems like the Lydians did – we need games that enable/encourage us to face our problems and overcome them.

She goes on to describe an example of a game she worked on at the Institute For The Future called World Without Oil, which was “an online game in which you tried to survive an oil shortage.” The game provides online content to the players that presents a fictional oil crisis as real, and the game is intended to get people thinking about that problem and how they might solve it. But just as the first example is missing the direct applicability of the game to the real world, this one is missing the application of the data from the real world to the game, and both directions of influence are important.

When the ubiquitous sensors described by Schell are combined with McGonigal’s vision of games designed explicitly to save the world, the content surrounding the games (that presents real-world crises as ‘quests’) will no longer be fictional, and can instead be based on real-world data. The games will provide frameworks for understanding and leveraging all of this new data about the world. They will motivate us to act for the greater good through both monetary rewards such as tax incentives and social rewards that play to our instinctive desire for the esteem of our peers. Some games might make the model of the real world immersive, so that we as players can ignore distractions and concentrate; others might be similar to the digital tree that grows inside the dashboard of the Ford Fusion Hybrid, and will provide subtle yet constant feedback for our behavior.

We live in a world in which ‘all models are wrong but some models are useful,’ and as that world becomes increasingly interconnected and complex, the games will provide us with the data collection tools and data processing shortcuts that enable us to act intelligently. In this future we will design game-like incentives that teach and encourage us to make wise long-term decisions, so that we can outrun that tiger and save this planet. Which is important, because we only get one shot at each.

—

Note: the remainder of this post contains spoilers of the novel Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card.

—

In the book, Card’s characters play war games that they do not know are actually quite real. The protagonist Ender, who is just a child, excels at the games because he thinks they are games. He uses ruthless tactics to win, unaware that he is actually committing those atrocities in the real world. Ender, unburdened by the extreme pressure resulting from real-world consequences, believes that he is merely playing a game and is thus able to save humanity from an alien threat.

Of course the games of our future need not be so ethically questionable, but the point – that games can simplify the world to enhance our focus and remove our hesitation if we are less sure that they are actually real – is still important.

—

Sup dawg, we heard you like games, so we wrapped a game around your game so you can save the world while you save the world.

Paul Adams, a member of the user experience team at Google and the user research lead for social, recently gave the below presentation at the Voices That Matter: Web Design Conference:

It’s worth reading through the entire thing, but there were a few groups of slides I found particularly clear/insightful/interesting (you can jump to a particular slide from the bottom toolbar) –

• social contexts: 15, 58, 71, 83, 181, 212
• evolution of the web: 19
• status updates: 145, 179
• memory and information: 150, 152
• influence: 158, 159, 171, 172
• privacy: 193, 198, 199, 204

There are lots of other useful ideas in there, but there’s one in particular on which I want to expand. Adams discusses the categorization of our relationships into strong ties and weak ties, saying that, “Strong ties are the people you care about most. Your best friends. Your family. People often refer to strong ties as their “circle of trust.’ [...] Weak ties are people you know, but don’t care much about. Your friends’ friends. Some people you met recently. Typically, we communicate with weak ties infrequently.” Adams then goes on to define a new type of relationship online, the temporary tie, for “people that you have no recognized relationship with, but that you temporarily interact with,” such as strangers in public online social spaces.

He also discusses the cognitive limitations of the human brain that make us unable to stay up-to-date with more than 150 weak ties at a time (see Dunbar’s number). Given that we now have social tools for keeping track of many more people than that – Facebook ‘friendship’ seems to be for “everyone I know and don’t actively dislike”* – I wanted one additional term to help me think about the portion of my 859 Facebook friends with whom I wasn’t keeping up at all and had some sort of tie that was weaker than a weak tie.

Latent ties seems to work nicely here, for those people with whom I’m not at all in touch but also have not forgotten, and who could potentially become a bigger part of my life and replace one of my weak ties. This is a new type of tie – it used to be possible to have no way to contact someone I once knew but hadn’t heard from in years, and these new tools will prevent this from ever again being the case. I think it’s especially important to design for these latent relationships on Facebook/other websites where there are social stigmas around friending and unfriending that make it difficult for the user to keep her ‘friends list’ as an accurate representation of only her current strong and/or weak ties.

* Who was it that first said this? Please let me know if you have a source for that quote.

Several weeks ago I presented my project Where Do You Go at the NY Quantified Self Meetup Group‘s seventh Show & Tell at ITP. Evan Creem recorded and edited together videos of the presentations, and mine is below:

If you’re interested in self-quantification in general, The NYT Magazine recently ran a good article titled The Data-Driven Life. About a month ago I received my Fitbit, one of the devices mentioned in the article, and you can see the public data I have collected so far here. I’ve been using it primarily to get a sense of how much I actually walk and how little I actually sleep – two things about which it’s slightly too tedious to make daily notes but which still might be interesting to examine in the aggregate.