“Computers enable fantasies”: On the continued relevance of Weizenbaum’s warnings – article on the LibrarianShipWreck blog, referenced in John Naughton’s Memex 1.1 blog. “1983 was a long time ago for computers, yet for some figures who were paying attention, figures like Weizenbaum, it was already possible to see the direction that the eager embrace of computers was putting societies on—and though such figures spoke out in hopes that the direction would be changed, it is likely that many of them would not be too surprised with the messes we find ourselves in at present.… What largely transformed Weizenbaum into an outspoken critic of AI and computers was his revelation that even once the processes were explained many people still bought into the 'illusion.' And what’s more that even many people who understood the inner workings of computers quite well could still get swept away as well. Weizenbaum observed that ELIZA demonstrated 'if nothing else, how easy it is to create and maintain the illusion of understanding, hence perhaps of judgement deserving of credibility' an observation he followed up by noting 'A certain danger lurks there.'... A moment where his frustration with others in the computing field was particularly on display was in a lengthy review [of] Edward Feigenbaum and Pamela McCorduck’s book The Fifth Generation: Artificial Intelligence and Japan’s Computer Challenge to the World..... [It] encapsulates several key components of Weizenbaum’s overall critical stance towards computing. These included: a skepticism towards the promises being made by “computer enthusiasts” about what computers could do (or were about to be able to do), a rejection of the idea that a certain version of the computerized future was inevitable (and being driven by the computer itself), and a call for a real sense of responsibility. Weizenbaum rejected the idea that computers were an autonomous force, he was keenly aware that what was driving computers were people and institutions, and the particular values of those people and institutions.”
What’s your story? Seduced by Story: The Use and Abuse of Narrative by Peter Brooks – review by Terry Eagleton in London Review of Books, referenced in John Naughton's Memex 1.1 blog. “Forty years ago, Peter Brooks produced a pathbreaking study, Reading for the Plot, which was part of the so-called narrative turn in literary criticism. Narratology, as it became known, spread swiftly to other disciplines: law, psychology, philosophy, religion, anthropology and so on. But a problem arose when it began to seep into the general culture – or, as Brooks puts it, into ‘the orbit of political cant and corporate branding’. Not since the work of Freud, whose concepts of neurosis, the Oedipal and the unconscious quickly became common currency, has a piece of high theory so readily entered everyday language. The narratologists had given birth to a monster: George W. Bush announced that ‘each person has got their own story that is so unique’; ‘We are all virtuoso novelists,’ the philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote. What Brooks glumly calls ‘the narrative takeover of reality’ was complete.... Brooks wants to retain the narrativity thesis while encouraging people to be more alert and analytical about which stories are life-threatening and which are not. He clings to the concept because he can’t see an alternative source of value. ‘We have fictions,’ he writes, ‘in order not to die of the forlornness of our condition in the world ... the reason of fictions [must be asserted] against the darkness.’ If all that stands between us and the darkness is Huck Finn and Emma Woodhouse, our condition must be dire indeed. Brooks is the latest in a line of critics from Coleridge to I.A. Richards for whom art, given what they see as a sterile political landscape, is an ersatz form of insight and fulfilment. Reading Henry James isn’t likely to put paid to QAnon, but like a good deed in a naughty world it shines a frail light on our unsavoury situation. No doubt it’s tough to be a middle-class liberal in today’s United States, but feeling forlorn should be understood in historical terms, not passed off as a universal plight. It doesn’t seem quite the right way to describe Iranian women protesters or striking railway workers. The book speaks of the need for storytelling as protection from the chaos of reality, but for whom is reality chaotic? For disillusioned intellectuals, but probably not for merchant bankers and military planners. It may be a rough old place, but that’s different. Virginia Woolf seems to have seen the world as chaotic, but one doubts the same was true of her servants. In any case, you could just as easily see reality as stiflingly rule-bound and constrictive, and fiction as a playful relief from this straitjacket.”
Think yourself better: 10 rules of philosophy to live by – article by Julian Baggini in The Guardian. “Here is what some of the greatest philosophers in history can tell us about how to think – and live – well. (1) Be sincere. 'A wrangler is one who aims only at victory, being indifferent whether the arguments which he employs support his own contention or that of his opponent.' Akapāda Gautama.... (2) Be charitable. 'People’s real reasons for reaching their practical conclusions are so often not the ones they give in their arguments.' Janet Radcliffe Richards. ...(3) Be humble. 'I’m not clever, I don’t find arguments easy to follow.' Philippa Foot.... (4) Keep it simple, but not simplistic. 'It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.' William of Ockham.... (5) Watch your language. 'What is necessary is to rectify names.' Kongzi.... (6) Be eclectic. 'I suspect I’ve always been an awful trespasser.' Onora O’Neill.... (7) Think for yourself, not by yourself. 'No culture has a monopoly on wisdom, no culture embodies all the great values, and therefore each culture has a great deal to learn from others, through dialogue.' Bhikhu Parekh.... (8) Seek clarity not certainty. 'Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity.' Ludwig Wittgenstein.... (9) Pay attention. 'Attention is rewarded by a knowledge of reality.' Iris Murdoch.... (10) Follow the mean. 'Some vices miss what is right because they are deficient, others because they are excessive, in feelings or in actions, while virtue finds and chooses the mean.' Aristotle.”
What Women Want by Maxine Mei-Fung Chung: the depths of desire – review by Stephanie Merritt in The Guardian. “Sigmund Freud famously asked 'What does a woman want?' and the question has been posed repeatedly across every medium ever since. Now Maxine Mei-Fung Chung re-examines it in the context of 21st-century women’s lives in her new book, a distillation of 15 years’ work as a psychotherapist.... One of the criticisms frequently levelled at [Ruth] Taddeo’s [2019 hit Three Women] was that her subjects hardly represented a spectrum of female experience: all were white and predominantly straight; two of the three were Catholic. Chung, who is British-born Chinese and has won awards for her work supporting people from minority communities, redresses this imbalance in her choices; she uses seven case studies covering a range of ages, ethnicities and orientations, 'a collection of true, intersectional stories that examine women’s lives and their relationships with desire'. This is not exclusively sexual desire: Marianna is desperate for motherhood; Ruth wants to take back control of a body ravaged by eating disorders; Tia longs to accept and unite both sides of her dual racial heritage; Beverly wants to make sense of her son’s suicide.... Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the book is the way Chung portrays the therapist-patient relationship as a two-way connection, sometimes described as a 'dance'. ... Modern therapy is far more relational [than the popular view of a psychotherapist suggests], and nowhere is this clearer than in her conversations with Tia, who specifically sought a therapist of colour who could identify with her experiences, and Beverly, who needed her therapist to be a mother.... The conversations begun through the courage and determination of these women ... make a valuable contribution to a wider debate about how women are permitted to own and express their desires in a patriarchal culture that still prefers us quiet and non-disruptive. 'One of the great gifts in beginning these conversation [writes Chung] is that they transcend the question from what do women want? to the premise that women want. Period.'”
Controversial books and social media – cartoon by Tom Gauld in The Guardian. “[Neutral] Read the controversial book. [Troubled] Read a review of the controversial book. [Irritated] Read an online critique of the review of the book. [Angry]. Read the headline of the online critique of the review of the book. [Very angry] Read a tweet about the headline of the critique of the review of the book. [Apoplectic] Hasn't read a word but not letting that get in the way of a good rant.”
‘Scanners are complicated’: why Gen Z faces workplace ‘tech shame’ – article by Alaina Demopoulos in The Guardian. “Garrett Bemiller, a 25-year-old New Yorker, has spent his entire life online. He grew up in front of screens, swiping from one app to the next. But there’s one skill set Bemiller admits he’s less comfortable with: the humble office printer. 'Things like scanners and copy machines are complicated,' says Bemiller, who works as a publicist. The first time he had to copy something in the office didn’t exactly go well. 'It kept coming out as a blank page, and took me a couple times to realize that I had to place the paper upside-down in the machine for it to work.'... Gen Z workers .. grew up using apps to get work done and are used to the ease that comes with Apple operating systems. Their formative tech years were spent using software that exists to be user-friendly. But desktop computing is decidedly less intuitive. Things like files, folders, scanning, printing, and using external hardware are hallmarks of office life. ... The tech company HP coined the phrase 'tech shame', to define how overwhelmed young people felt using basic office tools.”
