Post-Truth

Every year, the Oxford dictionary picks a “word of the year” that they believe should be recognized. This year, it was the term “post-truth”.

It’s official definition? It’s an adjective, “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
Given what has happened in the past year, it’s no surprise that this word was chosen, given the rise in politics that have adapted more to the soundbite tactics of Twitter than to factual news articles, and given the eminence of “fake news” during this election cycle. It’s also no surprise that the rise in “post-truth”-ism is directly facilitated by the rise in social media and digital technology—like I had mentioned in an earlier blog post, social media fragments the distribution of information, meaning that anyone could report their own news and not necessarily have it edited and fact-checked by a news corporation. Some bits of information may “seem” as if they’re news—mostly because they have a thousand Facebook shares, or because they bear a legitimate-sounding headline.

According to an article on BBC, AC Grayling, a renowned philosopher, acknowledged the vast changes in the dissemination of news, saying that “’All you need now is an iPhone. Everyone can publish their opinion - and if you disagree with me, it's an attack on me and not my ideas.” An Al-Jazeera article also pointed out that there was little flexibility or true communication in social media, saying that “It deprives people of human contact and the accompanying intimacy and exchange of opinions, which could lead to changing a wrong impression or correcting an inaccurate belief.”
“Post-truth” politics and journalism is a phenomenon that doesn’t affect just journalists—it touches all of us, and that same BBC article has accused the “post-truth” state of news as causing damage to “the whole fabric of democracy”.

What’s curious to me is that politics—or American politics, at least, has always been shaped around the tenet of “truth” and honesty. We have “Honest Abe” as a winning campaign slogan; we pass down the story of how George Washington admitted to chopping down his father’s favorite cherry tree. What do we do now, now that “post-truth” is becoming the hallmark of American politics?

For me, “post-truth” has an ominous tone. Throughout my life, I’ve always heard a certain few “post“ words over and over again. Post-9/11. Post-WWII. Postmodern. Each time I’ve heard those words, it’s always also brought on a ponderous sense of finality, as if it was impossible to return to that “pre” world, as if was an event that had unraveled beyond the capability to return to its original state. I wonder if “post-truth” will have the same effect. Can we ever return or revert back to an honest world, and correct the inflammatory mistakes we’ve made? Or have we completely and irrevocably moved past the truth, and into the digital world of deceptive madness?

How important is truth to you, and do you believe that everyday media affects that?

4 Tools to Minimize Online Distractions: My Experience

A while back I listed the New Year’s resolution of trying to focus and single-task more, instead of striving for the elusive (and frankly, for me, rather unattainable) art of trying to multi-task and juggle multiple subjects at once with success. I took this pursuit to my internet use, and tried out a variety of apps, websites, and software that would help me buckle down and get my work done faster. I ended up trying out four main applications/websites—each of which had a different approach to try to get me to focus—and figured out which ones I personally worked best with.

1. TomatoTimer: based on the Pomodoro technique of working (a simple time-blocking concept in which one works for 25-minute bursts, followed by 5-minute breaks), TomatoTimer was a no-frills website that simply worked as a timer. While I liked the idea of working in 25-minute periods of time, initially, I discovered that I preferred much longer working periods and breaks—I usually don’t get very productive with something until I’m around 20 or so minutes in. In this case, I loved the idea of the Pomodoro technique, but I felt like it didn’t quite click with my working style.  
   
2. Stayfocused: This is a Chrome extension that you can build into your browser, and you can set a certain amount of time to spend on time/attention-wasting sites (such as Facebook, Youtube, etc.). After your time’s up, you are blocked from those sites. That extension worked wonderfully for me at the beginning, as it allowed me to choose which sites to block, but still, I felt like I could always “cheat” and increase the “allowed time” when the timer was going.  
3. ColdTurkey: This is sort of the reverse of Stayfocused. Instead of allowing you a set time on time-wasting sites, this Windows software locks you out of certain websites for a set amount of time. This worked better for me than Stayfocused in terms of getting on track, and when I tried it out I ended up getting a ton of work done. It was definitely super-compatible with my learning and working style, and allowed the flexibility of being able to access the internet after a period of worktime. 
4. Freedom: the strictest of distraction-free tools, Freedom basically shuts the internet down for a predetermined period during the day (the irony in the name is, of course, appreciated). Though I was able to get a *ton* of work done when I used this, I can definitely see where it gets to be too restrictive—after all, what if I’m working on a blog and need to do research? What if I’m working on a weekly brief and can’t access Google Drive? If you want absolute, internet-free focus, this is the software for you, and in my past uses of it (before this year) it’s gotten me through its fair share of research papers and college essays. Just be forewarned—once you set the time, you can’t access the internet – unless you completely restart your computer.

Though all apps helped me to a varying degree, Cold Turkey worked the best for me, as it allowed me strict restrictions but also gave me the flexibility to choose which websites to block. Not all productivity tools are for everyone—it was surprising how the Pomodoro technique, so widely lauded by online productivity gurus, didn’t quite work for me. However, throughout this process, I was able to get my work done faster so I could sleep better, and spend more time interacting with friends, so I’m definitely not opposed to trying out more distraction-free apps in the future—and keeping the ones I liked this time around.

Do you guys believe in these productivity tools? If so, which ones do you like?

Technology and the Work/Life Balance

Recently, TIME published an article on how five countries around the world are trying to improve the work/life balance of their employees by introducing certain strict regulations. One of the countries was France, whose workers and businessmen just gained the right to disconnect and refuse to answer their emails out of office hours. Those regulations closely mirror those of German companies, who starting as early as 2014 created a cultural norm of not answering emails when one is away on vacation.

I, for one, think this is a great idea. In this age of technology and 24/7 connectedness, there can at times be this underlying expectation to always be "on call". Somehow, being able to get an incoming message at any hour of the day translates to bosses expecting quicker response times and action out of workers, even if it means responding to emails at midnight and making sales deals while away on vacation. For me, I'd always loved the idea of being able to be connected, professionally, at any time and at any place, but this appreciation of connection has also come with an underlying fear that productivity and response times will only become a race to the bottom, with work taking over our lives and without an iota of quiet, unfettered free time to ourselves. I mean, we're already seeing hints of that happening, from Amazon workers who are expected to reply to emails in the middle of the night to Silicon valley employees whose livelihoods are embroiled in the hubs of ever-connected tech companies and startups. If we can't step away from our work, then will we achieve a well-balanced life? Is balance even possible to begin with?

There is definitely a greater potential for self-improvement and quicker response with the advent of technology. Look, there is a merit to working hard and being willing to stay connected to "get ahead". But--and I say this as a self-professed rabid semi-perfectionist who has worked at all hours of the night--I think that in workers in this time period should definitely not have to be swept up in dizzying, high-speed expectations of constantly being connected to company obligations and work responsibilities via email and smartphones. To me, being expected to be connected at all times and *constantly* answer company e-mails outside of work equates to an insidious type of overtime--something that is productive when done intermittently, but definitely not healthy as a lifestyle.

I admire the steps that Germany and France have taken to acknowledge the effect of technology on company expectations and curb those expectations by introducing regulations, and I hope that our country also takes those matters into consideration as well.

January Resolutions: Finding Time to Unplug

I, for one, love the idea of making New Year’s resolutions. I love creating elaborate, sprawling lists on New Year’s day, where I make several vows to be a better, more productive version of myself. It’s always the shiny promise of a new year that invigorates me and inspires me to start over and do better.

This year, one of my resolutions is twofold; unplugging and single-tasking.

For a while, I always thought that multitasking was better. I marveled at the ability to juggle multiple tasks at once, to chat on the phone and simultaneously do homework while filling out a form that was needed for school.

But over the years, my attempts at multitasking have cost me both my efficiency and organization. Trying to juggle multiple things at once often leads to a scattered focus, and I ultimately fail to do any of the tasks to the best of my abilities. I’ve often found myself draining my attention on what’s in front of me by doing two things at once without even knowing it. During class, I’d continuously peek at my email inbox. While doing math homework, I’d often be distracted by funny videos or texts my friends sent me. While talking to parents, I’ve found myself glancing down at my phone, 

compromising my attention. This brain slowdown doesn’t just affect me -- research from the American Psychological Association shows that there is delay in the brain every time someone needs to switch between tasks or divide their attention between two tasks.  

This year, I want to cut back on technology and media in order to be more efficient and better at accomplishing what I want to do. I’ll take notes on paper on class, my computer firmly shut and put away. I’ll converse with people without longing for the comfort of a cell phone. I’ll start doing things one at a time. I might be slow at first, but at least I’ll get things done right that way.

What’s your relationship with multitasking? Do you think it’s a necessary skill or a means of distraction? 

READY PLAYER ONE and our Virtual Selves

Over Thanksgiving break, I read this book Ready Player One on a whim. It was a young adult futuristic novel that takes place in the year 2044. In a world driven by natural disasters, resource shortages, and overpopulation, there is a vast online virtual reality universe called OASIS that people—especially the main character Wade—spend all their time on in order to escape their bleak reality. The world is filled with everything from virtual reality videogames to virtual classrooms. However, people who engage in the virtual reality world are all obsessed with one common mission—the quest of finding the virtual “keys” in that world somewhere that would eventually lead to the late OASIS founder’s fortune, a fortune that he left behind for the first person that would solve his riddles and find all three of his “keys”, in order to claim both his fortune and control of OASIS. The game pits unlikely hero Wade against corporations battling to find the keys and take control of OASIS with entry fees and limited access.

Though I mostly considered Ready Player One to be a fast-paced, thrilling adventure book, I also found it to contain revelations about our current and future society. We’ve become increasingly virtual since personal computers and cell phones were made. As time progresses and technology gets even more elaborate, would we choose to abandon reality in favor of virtual worlds? In the novel, the main character Wade has lost his parents from an early age, and lives with extended family that he hates, so it makes sense that he would spend all his time involved in his online quest. But what about other people who live in close-knit families and communities? Would they choose to separate themselves from the “real” people around them to pursue the experiences and people that the encounter online?

Another topic that is addressed in this novel is regarding the differences in the ways we present ourselves online versus the ways we present ourselves in real life. In the reality world, Wade augments his features, making his avatar slightly slimmer and less acne-prone. One of his best friends on OASIS is this avatar named Aech. Aech is a white male, and yet Wade finds out later in the book that the person behind Aech is actually a black female who made her avatar white and male because she thought being a white guy would make her more successful and give her more opportunities. It’s no secret that when we can create virtual versions of ourselves even in today’s society—in games, social forums, etc.—we often augment the “good” parts of ourselves, like Wade, or change our appearance entirely, like Aech, in order to communicate across to others a better version of ourselves. Though we might be able to project our “ideal” selves, it does potentially hurt the genuineness of our communication—we might become entirely different people on the Internet, and people would make friends with not our true selves but the selves we project. 

How Digital Maps Save Lives

Growing up in a digital age, the days of traveling by paper map seem far in the past. I still remember being a part of the experience—looking over my dad’s shoulder on road trips as he painstakingly marked exits and destinations with a pencil, helping read the map for him while he navigated unknown roads. But still, paper maps had their limits. They couldn’t mark detours, road changes, accidents, or disasters.

It’s a marvel how much cartography has evolved into the sophisticated, comprehensive digital maps of today. Far beyond merely giving me easy access to GPS capabilities or warning me about traffic, digital mapping can provide information on little-known places and, when disaster strikes, digital mapping can save lives.

In earthquake-prone areas, computer scientists have collaborated with humanitarian aid workers and locals to construct a comprehensive digital map during times of relative peace; when disaster hits, the map alters. Collapsed buildings and blocked roads are taken into account, and places where humans are trapped, or in need of rescue or supplies are marked on the updated map. This method was used by Kathmandu Living Labs, founded by Nepalese-American computer scientist Dr. Nama Budhathoki, after their 7.8 magnitude earthquake of April 2015. However, this concept of “crisis mapping” goes back even further, back when Patrick Meier, in the wake of the 2010 catastrophic Haiti earthquake, decided to compile everything from the internet—tweets, Facebook posts, images—to construct a “disaster map” of the area. Crowdsourcing the information allowed locals to inform Meier and his team of the areas in most critical need of rescue or supplies, which then helped enormously in directing humanitarian aid efforts. Meier marked big red dots on the digital map to indicate pharmacies that were still operating, or that needed help. After the Haiti earthquake, Meier has tried to bring digital mapping a step further, and his next project is using drone technology to put together an even more seamless and comprehensive 3-D model of areas prone to disaster.

Meier's map of pharmacies during the Haiti earthquake (source)

To me, this seems like an example of a way in which social media and digital technology has enormously benefited communities, especially in times of disaster. Digital technology opens up channels of connectivity and allows for quick, adaptive humanitarian responses that would not have been able to be accomplished if maps were still confined to paper. Still, digital mapping overall is a relatively new technology, and its wide-reaching capabilities can potentially cause privacy infringements. But is that a small risk that is outweighed by the life-saving power of maps? Or should that be a bigger concern?   

Fake News: How Digital Media Deceived the Election

The night of November 8^th, I sat numb with shock in front of my computer until 2 AM, frantically refreshing search pages as news kept breaking—and I know that I wasn’t the only one. Last week’s presidential election results surprised many, setting off a frenzy of investigation within our media and news sources. Before, it was taken somewhat for granted that polls were accurate predictors; that our media would paint a portrait of the candidates and accurately report the news surrounding each of them. Now, it seems that everything has been called into question, and glaring inaccuracies in our media sources have been uncovered—in particular the series of “fake news” that have been discovered on Facebook and in Google search results.

Such fake news include (but are not limited to) headlines proclaiming that Pope Francis endorsed Trump, or that famous public figures such as Denzel Washington or Tom Brady also endorsed the Republican candidate. They give fabricated reports of specific instances of racial violence that could spark hatred and fear (for example, that two white men were set on fire by Black Lives Matter members—whereas in reality the perpetrator was never affiliated with BLM). On election night, one of the top Google search results that popped up (when one googled election results) reported that Trump was winning the popular vote, whereas in reality Clinton was winning the popular vote while Trump pulled ahead in electoral votes. On the flip side, Facebook has also been accused of heavy liberal bias early on this year in the primaries. 

On the surface, it seems almost ironic. Technological advances in social media that (in theory) are supposed to increase accessibility to news and keep the American people as informed as possible. So why is there more miscommunication and discord between the media and the people than ever?

I think there’s a couple of interlocking reasons for this. See, because people rely more and more on social media to get their news, the distribution of media has shifted from news and broadcast corporations to the internet. By shifting distribution to the internet, anything can be considered “news”—meaning that quality control can suffer. News that are filtered, accurately fact-checked, and routinely distributed can be overshadowed Internet news and social media websites. “News” on the internet can be anything—from fabricated articles to scathing satire to pure sensationalist op-eds. Since news are no longer tightly controlled and vetted for quality, articles could be incredibly biased or even blatantly untrue, but still could be viewed as credibly “news” just because they were viewed a million times on Facebook.

It’s not just the unregulated media playing a role in trumpeting false information and breeding miscommunication, though. Oftentimes, the staggering amount of news made accessible means that we can pick and choose which kind of news we want to hear, meaning that we create an “echo chamber” in which we conflate opinions on our circles as national opinion. (PEW research says that liberals and conservatives are more likely to interact among themselves and share news that supports their opinion). Confirmation bias is still prevalent.

Regardless whether the surge of fake news influenced the election outcome, its increased circulation can erode trust we have in each other and harm the communication of facts and information. So how do we avoid this? How can we tell what's real news and what's not? 

1. Double-check the headline. If you see a questionable headline, google it. If the same news shows up across multiple reputable platforms (such as ABC, CNN, WSJ, etc.), then it's most likely to be real. 

2. Take a good look at the source. Are they a credible website? Have they published fair and accurate media over the past few years? Also, a lot of fake news websites tend to spoof real news sources to trick their readers (abc.com.co is a fake news source, while abc.com is real)

3. Beware of the echo chamber. When I see that something on Facebook has 30K likes, or 400 shares, I instinctively consider it real news. But just because something is circulating widely on the internet doesn't mean it's accurate. 

What do you guys think? To what extent do you trust digital news today?