Is the Internet Closing Minds?

A recent NPR podcast asked people to debate the question, "Is The Internet Closing Our Minds Politically?". It was fascinating, mostly because there were some very different beliefs about information behavior online. The basis was whether or not "we [are] running the risk of getting trapped in information bubbles, where all we read and see falls in line with our political views?"

And while I find both sides have some interesting points, it it worth examining some of the information behavior and access assumptions underlying the two arguments. I understand that I am part of an elite minority with my education and background, but I don't think it is elitist view to say that I don't believe everyone has equal access to information nor equal knowledge about how to seek out information. Perhaps having a degree in information management makes me biased about information behavior, but the internet for many people has certainly changed the dissemination and acquisition of information. The saying "If its on the Internet, it must be true" is usually said sarcastically, but too often it is a key part of decision making. People find information from a source, and based on prior experience, biases and beliefs (or what is said in social circles), the source is given more or less validity. People decide "oh, I know this source is trustworthy" or "oh, this source is a joke". And the more they trust the source, the easier it becomes to assume the source has verified its information (which in an ideal world would be what all news agencies do).

One key thing that I value about being a researcher in a business environment is that it is really, really important that I understand my information sources. While doing economic or industry research, most of the time there are conflicting sources for data I need, whether its employment numbers in a state or the number of operations in a certain industry. If I find a secondary source that analyses primary data, I need to know what data they were including and how they crunched those numbers. I have seen it bleed into other areas of my life, making me all the more curious about where people get their information and what assumptions are based upon.

When sites on the internet such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter engage is social filtering behavior (tailoring search results to each user), that can change what information we are exposed to when we search online. The argument was made that this can be beneficial - crowdsourcing results through your social circle might expose you to new ideas. But is that really the case? Do many people actually surround their digital selves with people who have opposing viewpoints? Isn't one of the more powerful parts of online interactions is that people with similar outlooks and beliefs can more easily congregate, regardless of where they are in the physical world? I'm not sure people need help seeking out others who view the world like they do.

People need help finding information that expands their knowledge, not constrains or limits it. And that is a lot harder to do than filter out and customize results.

Anonymity, Privacy and The Debate on National Online IDs

I think the National Internet ID conversation that has been recently taking place is quite an important and interesting piece to be discussed. I've been approaching a research piece on it from a risk-perspective, but part of that is a risk to privacy and anonymity. In an article by Helen Nissenbaum on anonymity, I thought she had a good point - that anonymity is really about being "out of reach" from consequences. Anonymity can be abused and used as a negative thing (think criminal activities) but many times it is critical for certain systems to work (as mentioned, voting and peer-review).

In the draft of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" released in June 2010, their vision of the future sounds pretty good. "Individuals and organizations utilize secure, efficient, easy to use and interoperable identity solutions to access online services in a manner that promotes confidence, privacy, choice, and innovation." (pg. 12) Some interpret the strategy to mean that Americans could begin to have unique online identities used to access password-protected websites. That's an interesting and slightly worrying thought. While "confidence, privacy, choice and innovation" sound good, what does that mean in a practical sense?

Would having some sort of online identification be a threat to anonymity and a violation of privacy? Already there is so little privacy on the internet - maybe if the government regulates more, there would be less abuse of breaches in privacy and security. But I am a bit leery of the idea of allowing a government to so in-depth access or observation to the behavior of citizens. Nothing sounds so tyrannical as being observed at every moment or having to curtail one's speech for fear of reprival. And I'm not sure that an Online ID would be the most conducive tool for an open and free democratic society. But on the other hand, I like parts of the idea in theory - but things look so good on paper sometimes when in reality they just are a really bad idea.

Airplanes, Seattle, and Visualizing It All

This quarter I started a really fascinating independent study project with a Foster School of Business professor, Dr. Richard Nolan. I get to do some research for him on people, places, and time - all related to the aeronautic-powerhouse Boeing and its role in the Seattle/Puget Sound Area.

Specifics aside, I've really enjoyed learning about three specific things.

1) The idea of the "industry commons"
This is an idea that seems to in part come from the medieval practice of sharing a common space for the good of a community. Sharing resources and ideas in a collective space is a way for an industry to innovate and strengthen itself. There is the idea that the movement of tacit knowledge happens more readily in geographically bound spaces through more informal transfers - in short, similar people are drawn together in one place and share their knowledge with each other in non-professional settings such as in a bicycling lunch group. When an industry has certain geographic concentrations, there is a tendency to see others of the industry (individuals and companies) drawn to that location.

2) Visualization of non-linear information
This has been my biggest challenge. I have done a lot of research over the past 8 years or so, and yet this is the first time I have to "visualize" my findings. I can create lists and draw conclusions no problem - but finding a way to visually represent the data is quite a daunting task. I've taking classes with design elements, but this is actually having to create meaningful visuals. Today I discovered MindNode which will hopefully help me out as I map out pretty complex relationships between people, places, organizations, and time. Hopefully they'll turn into something interesting and clear at the end, because right now they're kind of confusing. The first draft is always the hardest, they say, and then the following iterations should hopefully become easier to improve.

3) Airplane and Seattle knowledge
This has been a side bonus of the project - I've been reading lots and lots for this, and I find myself discovering very interesting little facts and tidbits about Seattle and its history. I love it - I've been out here almost every year of my life before finally moving here in 2009, and this city continues to enchant me. Learning about the richness of its people and places has been wonderful.

The other thing is that I get to learn about airplanes - I retain less of the information but it's still a cool subject. I've always loved traveling, and now it is quite cool to know more about the giant beasts that get me from one place to another through seemingly impossible conditions.

PS: Don't research airplanes if you're nervous about them already.

The Beauty of Data Visualization (David McCandless TED talk)

I have to do a quick post about this TED talk from earlier this year. David McCandless talks about "The Beauty of Data Visualization". And it's beautiful. I've been digging around the newest website, "Information is Beautiful" having a lovely time examining all the truly lovely visualizations they've created.

I really do believe that pictures/visuals really are the next sets of vocabulary for communicating data. We have spent a lot of time in using words to describe data (and believe me, I love words), but there's so much power in a picture. And the visualization of data can give you an immediate grasping of context (accurate only if done right, of course) that words just can't quite capture.

For example, McCandless et al. produced a "Billion Dollar-o-Gram" in 2009 to give some context to those billions being thrown around. Go look at that for a second, and then come back after finding the cost to "Wall Street Revenue 2009", "Cost of Obesity Related Diseases", "Eradicate AIDS worldwide", and then "Worldwide cost of financial crisis".

McCandless talks about how the sometimes quoted "absolute figures" don't give you a whole picture - the relative presentation of data through visualization can give you a better view of the landscape. Visualization creates an information map for people to explore, and helps expose the hidden patterns among the data.

One comment he makes was interesting - he challenges the saying "data is the new oil" with a slight modification: "data is the new soil". It is this rich resource, and there is so much of it. We just have to figure out how to ask the right questions of it to get the answers.

"Let the dataset change your mindset" - the use of visualization is definitely a part of making sound decisions that can be backed up by data.

Projects & Relative Problems

This seems very true some days:

(Picture from http://ninapaley.com/mimiandeunice/)

Whether at work or in one's personal life, it seems to be that by default we want to prioritize our own problems, and view them as more important and difficult than those faced by others. Our needs are at the center of how we see everything else. We can look back later and put a crisis or breakdown in perspective, but in the moment it's hard to have insight like that. But when it comes to the workplace, it can be costly to an organization for an individual to take this stance. In trying to mitigate projects and the inevitable conflicts that arise, this mentality is a particularly difficult challenge for someone like a business analyst or project manager.

Say, for example, I'm trying to get two different department heads to communicate with each other, and communicate to me, about priorities, problems they need fixed, and what their requirements are for a certain project. But if they can't come up with supporting data/information about why their needs are more important, all that happens is a back and forth of "My needs are more important than theirs because... because" and reasonings that have no data to back them up. If I can't get this information, I can't validate any decisions I make in terms of the project direction, nor can I make much (if any) progress.

Anyone in an organization that is tasked with coming up with requirements or needs must be able to not only articulate those needs, but have validating data to back up the reasoning behind those needs. We can't become personally attached to "having-our-way" when there's no data to back up why our way is "better", or why your problem is the most critical. We have to be able to tell someone or many someones why we choose to do something, and what value that decision adds to the project.

Getting that data can be tricky, full of politics and personal feelings, and sometimes it simply isn't going to happen. Information is not a straightforward topic, and it is really the people that make it a challenge and "interesting" in both good ways and bad. But it is worth the effort when you can stand in front of a group and present a solid project with an information foundation you can rely upon.