Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Cult of the aggregate
| |
| Pretty sure it is a tech thing
| |
| Desire to crunch data
| |
| But data is unstructured, incoherent and imperfect
| |
| It is noise
| |
| Imagine sitting in a crowded theatres in the intermission, recording all the Hubbub and extracting a singles canonical meaning from it
| |
| Extracting signal from noise is the same
| |
| But if we don't do it the hubbub is just noise
| |
| We say “we have cognitive biases and they inform our reactions” well no shit
| |
| To extract signal from noise is to filter, limit compress and selectively amplify on the predication that there is a signal.
| |
| It is to deliberately bias
| |
| Bias is what creates meaning.
| |
|
| |
|
| There is local meaning - maybe - based on local interactions and echo chambers but these are informal, incomplete, and impossible to delimit
| |
|
| |
| So central figures extrapolated from random noise: growth. The intention behind expressed electoral preference. Average wages. Why the stock market went up. *That* the stock market went to day - these are spectral figures. They are ghosts, gods, monsters and devils. They are no more real than religions, just because they are the product of “science" and "techne"
| |
|
| |
| We have some convenient proxies: in an election, a manifesto. Did every voter read the party's manifesto? No? Did everyone who did subscribe to every line in it? Almost certainly no. Did *anyone* subscribe to every line. By no means certain. So can we legimately under uniform support for manifesto? Only by dint of the convention that those who vote support a manifesto. But even that convention is a spectre.
| |
|
| |
| But yet we draw battle lines and attack basis our own invented signals. Trans activists right for the rights of fragile vulnerable androgynous teen-age elfen dolphins as if all trans-identifying people are like that. Gender critical activists fight against middle-aged male sex-offenders operating under cover, if all trans people are like that.
| |
|
| |
| Yet such a patently ludicrous argument animates the public square. This is no more real than vampires fighting werewolves. Why do we take it anymore seriously.
| |
|
| |
| Hence the delamination: the online world is a world of extruded ghoulish signals aggregated from the unfiltered noise of discourse. The offline world — can we call it the offworld? — is a world of bilateral conversations, one on one. A world of shades, nuance, detail, richness, complexity's and — for the most part — civility.
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|