Monthly Archives: November 2010

“Autistic Social Software” :: Supernova 2004

Just like their creators, computers are notorious for being pretty socially inept. Yet, with sociable media, computers take on a social role or become a mediators between people engaged in social interaction. Their position in social life does not inherently make technology any more sociable; their functions are intimately entwined with what people enable them to do. Thus, the onus is on the programmers to empower technology to operate in social life.

From “Autistic Social Software” :: Supernova 2004

This is a link to a crib from a talk given in 2004 by Danah Boyd. In it, she frames a relationship between the social networks of that time – Friendster, Orkut, Tribe – and the social stuntedness, perhaps even disorders, of the people who create them. Basically, it proposes that these networks are built the way that they are because ordering social interaction is the only way the creators of such can have it.

This is one of the things that struck me about the film The Social Network. Even if one assumes it was largely fictionalized, it was clear in many instances that the filmmakers went out of their way to point out Mark Zuckerburg’s likely Asperger’s Syndrome. For instance, his cringing and look of sheer terror when Sean Parker goes to give him a celebratory hug. Also, his extremely singleminded, programatic, and ordered approach to acceptance in social clubs. His motivation not for friendship but as a means to a specific end.

I think there is something to this for sure. I think the general approach towards most social networks not understanding the very case by case specific and nuanced approach most of us have towards privacy in our daily life is a key indicator. It’s an idea that has been resonating with me for days since it was presented to me by my friend Garrick. It’s also something that will be at the forefront of my having online interactions going forward.

Sensible Defaults

My friend Jamie responded to my Final Choices post from last week with a very thoughtful addendum. One I failed to cover but certainly agree with. It’s a very close relative to the idea and reasons behind making final choices. He calls this idea “Sensible Defaults”. He explains it thusly:

While Patrick is spot on about final choices, I would add that it also goes for things you buy on a more frequent basis as well. For instance, I never think about what pencil I’m going to buy and use. I know I use Uniball Kuru Toga pencils. (Thanks to Patrick for turning me on to these as well.) If I lose, break, or for some other reason find myself needing to buy a pencil, I don’t go to Staples and gawk for an hour at the wall of mechanical pencils. I hop on the Amazon app on my iPhone while I’m waiting in line at Starbucks and order a couple to show up at my door step in two days.

I too, have many sensible defaults (including the Kuru Toga). And while final choices usually apply to items one purchases, sensible defaults can apply in a much wider range of circumstances. For instance, for writing on the Mac, TextEdit is a sensible default for me. It is the first thing I reach for when the need arrises to write anything when I sit down at my computer. I don’t even have to think about it. Launching it is essentially a reflex action. Anything else generally has to make a strong use case for me to choose it for the task at hand over TextEdit.

I also think of my friend Michael who is so steadfast in which restaurants he frequents, on which days and times, and what menu items he orders, the staff often just starts preparing it when they see him enter and it is delivered to his table with no words between he and the server exchanged. No need to even waste the time or mental energy of making an order. One may find this extreme, but if you know what you want, why waste unnecessary motions.

Of course, there are the more famous adherents of sensible defaults. Steve Jobs rarely has to think about what he is going to wear. Anyone who has seen any photos or videos of him taken in the last 10 years knows what he is going to be wearing – A black mock turtleneck, Levis 501 jeans, New Balance sneakers. By having such a sensible default, he never has to stand in his closet looking for the right thing for the right occasion. What he has chosen will work for practically any occasion he may find himself in.

Sensible defaults can reduce friction and provide simplicity anywhere one can think to apply them. They are the bedrock of minimalist practice and a quiet mind.

Final Choices

When you make buying choices, does the longevity and lasting impact of what you are buying enter into the equation? Obviously, some things don’t lend themselves to this (food for example) but many things do. I find that the longevity of some items and the alleviation of future choice are key motivating factors for me.

My desired goal is this. Anywhere I can make a buying choice that I, with proper care and maintenance, will never have to make again for the rest of my life, I do. In those cases, I’m willing to pay far more for an item if I know it will last a lifetime and, even more importantly to me, I will never have to spend the mental energy making a choice again. Especially because making final choices often requires far more time and research then making regular ones. In fact, I would argue that the more final the choice, the longer it should take to make it. Also, what you spend on the front end usually repays exponentially, and in many more ways, on the back end.

For me, such final choices are huge wins because the less choice I have to make and because I am well satisfied with what I have, the happier I am. I believe that want, desire, longing and need are at the root of suffering. I also believe that such things, while part of the human condition, can be alleviated. One of the ways to alleviate these is to put long thought and consideration into the things that matter to you and making the one choice you will be satisfied with and never have to want for that item again.