a curious Yankee in Europe's court

A video in the Sunday magazine of the New York Times is a visual poem in praise of the “power game” now in women’s tennis. It’s breathtaking to see.

Watch here (“The Beauty of the Power Game” directed by Dewey Nicks, Aug 25, 2010).

Those of us who spend a lot of time plugged into one thing or another electronically are getting a lot of advice and warnings these days. The New York Times, as an example, dedicates an ongoing series of articles to “Your Brain on Computers.”

This week Matt Richtel reports on some scientists’ concerns that all the handy digital devices we are attached to may push us a few synapses too far for our own good (“Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime”Aug 24, 2010).

Richtel writes about the reported downside to electronic multi-tasking — iPod music, online surfing and television watching all at the same time, for instance. It overtaxes our brain and may interfere with longterm memory function and creativity, he quotes some critics saying.

The article is an interesting read, especially as Richtel also includes conversation snippets with some of the overtaxed users themselves. It got me thinking about myself and my own many hours online daily. It’s a reflection I’ve had before, especially after reading reports of scientists saying that new media habits are transforming how the human brain itself works (see Nicholas Carr’s much discussed 2008 article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”).

All the bad news may be true. But if new media really is transforming how our brains work, it seems to me that a too conclusive assessment of these changes now is premature. It’s analogous to timing the potential top speed of a race horse when it’s midstream in crossing a low, rushing river. We’re still at the very very very beginning stage of being plugged in humans. It will be some time before it’s possible to know the major effects, don’t you think?

For example, yes, it’s probably true that these new electronically-connected, cognitive behaviors are turning down or off some longstanding brain functions. On the other hand, they’re almost certainly turning on some entirely new skills or functions.

As a end-user of all these warnings (grateful as I am), I experience the situation as incredibly complex. And sometimes researchers who over-simplify risk focusing so narrowly they neglect important possibilities. Designating myself as a lab rat in this regard, I want to report a few changes for the better in my own behavior in the past year.

One, last year I began practicing mindfulness meditation as a way to tamp down the racing brain effect and/or anxiety that can typically accompany hours of time online.

Two, a few months ago I — quite uncharacteristically — suddenly decided to begin walking every day, and I also enrolled in twice-weekly classes at a nearby Pilates studio. I amazed myself by such laudable physical behavior, and amazed myself even more by sticking to the new regimen (and even enjoying it!).

And three, I find myself often visualizing a change in my daily schedule that sees me plopped comfortably on the sofa in an hour-long break in which I am clutching that old invention — a book — and reading it hyperlink free (this doesn’t include my already-present habit of reading at bedtime). This is still in the process of being implemented fully — and I also see a Kindle appearing soon in my future — but it feels to me as a new behavior that’s going to stick.

All of these new offline, off-phone, off-iPod behaviors felt as if they popped up out of nowhere. But as any good psychologist will tell us, popping up out of nowhere is more or less a myth in human behavior. So some groundwork for these changes was going on somewhere in my over-plugged in, overstressed psyche before I ever settled down on my meditation mat or laced up my walking shoes. Could the catalyst be related to relieving an overstressed state of mind?

Is there a relation here between being a fairly heavy user of new media and these admirable new offline activities of mine? Who knows? But the question, in my opinion, is well worth asking.

The sentiment, “It’s the economy, stupid,” apparently also holds prime position in the hearts of Europeans when money troubles hit, according to the results of a European Union survey just released this week (“Spring 2010 Eurobarometer: EU citizens favour stronger European economic governance” Aug 26, 2010).

Survey results show that 75 percent of Europeans favor more coordination of economic and financial policies among countries belonging to the EU, the 2010 Spring Eurobarometer reports. The survey, conducted earlier this year at the height of the European debt crisis included more than 26,000 people in 27 EU member states.

“The clear majority for enhanced European economic governance shows that people see the EU as a decisive part of the solution to the crisis,” said Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, who is also in charge of Communication. “Our spring survey – conducted at the height of the crisis – reflects the difficult times and challenges that Europeans faced during the past months…

See full report here.

The most extraordinary and admirable Tony Judt passed away early this month. This week The Globalist editors paid tribute to Judt by re-printing an article he wrote for them in 2006 on Europe (“In Memoriam: Tony Judt on the Future of Decadent Europe”  Aug 24, 2010).

Excerpt:

If anything, the rush of many contemporary commentators and public figures, particularly in the United States, to ignore the political origins of the welfare state reflects poorly on their understanding of Europe’s difficult past…

Read the full piece here. (The video above is a brief presentation of Judt and his work).

In a blog post Sunday in the New York Times, philosopher Susan Blackmore explains why human beings copying each other in all kinds of ways is a very good thing (“The Third Replicator” Aug 22, 2010). In fact, she argues, it is essential to our development and progress.

In the post, Blackmore discusses memes (rhymes with cream). She also coins a new term “temes” (technological memes). Both terms are all about the act of imitating.

Excerpt:

“Whatever the reason, our ancestors began to copy sounds, skills and habits from one to another. They passed on lighting fires, making stone tools, wearing clothes, decorating their bodies and all sorts of skills to do with living together as hunters and gatherers. The critical point here is, of course, that they copied…”

Read the full post here.

Last night over dinner with friends, one of them expressed her bewilderment about what the purpose of data journalism is precisely. And, she lamented, doesn’t it just make things worse by overwhelming us with information that most of us won’t ever read or watch?

A couple of us pitched right in and tried our best to explain and defend this fast growing development in new media, one that Wikileaks has thrust into star position in the news cycle recently.  We didn’t make much headway, I’m sorry to say. So I was especially happy today to find an article online that offers a bunch of help for the next time such a dinner table debate ensues.

It’s a terrific interview that Nieman Journalism Lab did — video and transcript — with the editor of the Data Blog for the Guardian (“How The Guardian is pioneering data journalism with free tools” by Jonathan Stray, Aug 5, 2010). The interview is thorough and in depth — with a lot of show and tell. And if it doesn’t supply you just about all you might want to know about the potential uses and service of data journalism, I’d be surprised.

Excerpt:

The technology involved is surprisingly simple, and mostly free. The Guardian uses public, read-only Google Spreadsheets to share the data they’ve collected, which require no special tools for viewing and can be downloaded in just about any desired format. Visualizations are mostly via Many Eyes and Timetric, both free.

Surprisingly for many like my friend last night, the raw data the newspaper is posting online is getting some impressive traffic, according to the Guardian editor:

“… a million hits a month during the recent election coverage.”

Read and watch the full Nieman interview here.

Whenever I read a P.D. James mystery novel, at some point I always find myself thinking about James herself. I begin to wonder especially how many of James’ personal perspectives are expressed in her most famous character Adam Dalgliesh.

It’s not always an admiring curiosity I’m feeling because I find the poet-policeman himself (don’t shoot me, Dalgliesh lovers) somewhat prim and grayish in personality, even as the plots themselves – and especially the other characters — are particularly engaging.

Today, James is celebrating her 90th birthday. For the occasion, she sat for a video interview with the Guardian. And what a special treat it is for James fans to hear the Baroness herself talk about her life and her work (“PD James: ‘Some people find conventions liberating’” interviewed by Sarah Crown, Aug 3, 2010). Thank you, Guardian!

In the brief interview, the overlap between the author personally and her star creation Dalgliesh are discussed, along with other interesting questions. I especially applauded James’ comments about how women are treated (abused) in present day crime fiction.

Most important, of course, is there another Dalgliesh book on the way? James answers that too — sort of.