I just watched portions to make a decent transcript. It took too long to do more than post it tonight, but let’s return to this conversation tomorrow. (extantproject - would you be willing to use or link to your real name? We encourage it generally on the forum, and for a substantive conversation like this it has a lot of value.)
–
The question extantproject summarized referred back to something earlier in the talk from about 23:10
[Gary Wolf] Here’s a really common thing that I hear, that we suffer from a kind of stockholm syndrome, forming positive attachments to systems that are fundamentally abusive. There’s a whole range of skeptical and pained reaction that the quantified self provokes in people. There’s an awareness that tracking tools are pressing in on us. That’s felt as a kind of kidnapping or hostage taking, and the quantified self is seen as a pathological response to that where people are overwhelmed, and they’ve gone gadget crazy and they just can’t take it anymore,and so they say, “I submit. I love you.”
Here’s another idea: The advanced users are turning the tools of manipulation to their own advantage, creating zones of empowerment within the Orwellian nightmare of surveillance and manipulation That’s an idea that’s sometimes expressed by people who participate in the Quantified Self. OK, there’s this world of data tracking but I’m going to take it and do something with that’s meaningful to me. What’s interesting is that explanation just the same as the first explanation with the valence reversed. In the first case the person is just a pathetic dupe of the surveillance regime and in the second case they are the triumphant subverter of the regime, but in both cases the picture is that there is world of external surveillance and we as individuals have to respond to it.
Now as a participant observer and journalist by mentality, I’m obligated to find both these explanations true. They are both clear and genuine responses to something that is going on and they have to be taken into account. I’ve noticed in arguments for and against the quantified self, people are responding to a challenge from these systems, a challenge that can be seen as demoralizing or inspiring, but it is still a challenge.
[color=#000080][Question at 52:50] You used a Stockholm analogy, I would have used instead a comparison to 2nd and 3rd wave feminism in the eighties, when Madonna was becoming popular and Camille Paglia came out with a new notion: it wasn’t that men were exploiting women and objectifying them, it was women were taking advantage of their own exploration in order to profit from it themselves, and that there was something ennobling about Madonna’s behavior that wasn’t ennobling about Marilyn Monroe’s, a generation earlier. The result was that we had an institutional rationalization that allowed us to continue to see naked women on TV. In the same way, is there a way in which this notion of the quantified self is a way to provide an institutional rational to continue to allow interested entities like corporations and governments and research organizations to poke into our activities, and what we’re doing, but pretend its an empowering thing instead of a disempowering thing?
If I can come up with a reason to give Crest and Colgate a lot of information about what is going on inside my mouth with a wifi enabled electric toothbrush, well if they’re going to give me back some information about my tooth brushing behavior than I’ve learned something. But I’ve given them a lot of information that they can use to more effectively market their products. So, is this notion of the Quantified Self a way to provide cover for the continuing loss of privacy and movement of power from individuals to organizational centers the same way Camille Paglia was a way to continue to allow us to enjoy exploiting women except this time with an institutional rational.[/color]