The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data

by Michael Patrick Lynch

"An intelligent book that struggles honestly with important Is the net turning us into passive knowers? Is it degrading our ability to reason? What can we do about this?" ―David Weinberger, Los Angeles Review of Books We used to say "seeing is believing"; now, googling is believing. With 24/7 access to nearly all of the world’s information at our fingertips, we no longer trek to the library or the encyclopedia shelf in search of answers. We just open our browsers, type in a few keywords and wait for the information to come to us. Now firmly established as a pioneering work of modern philosophy, The Internet of Us has helped revolutionize our understanding of what it means to be human in the digital age. Indeed, demonstrating that knowledge based on reason plays an essential role in society and that there is more to “knowing” than just acquiring information, leading philosopher Michael P. Lynch shows how our digital way of life makes us value some ways of processing information over others, and thus risks distorting the greatest traits of mankind. Charting a path from Plato’s cave to Google Glass, the result is a necessary guide on how to navigate the philosophical quagmire that is the "Internet of Things."

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Technology, Psychology, Science, Cultural, Internet

256 pages, Paperback

First published March 21, 2016

Reviews

[مجید اسطیری · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب خیلی خوبی بود. نگاه یک فلسفه خوانده به جهان تازه ای که اینترنت دارد برای ما رقم میزند
میخواهم این بار در این یادداشت به جای کلی گویی یا تعریف کردن خلاصه ای از نکات کتاب، درباره سه تا از چندین مفهومی که این کتاب آنها را تعریف میکند و بارها به آنها ارجاع میدهد حرف بزنم:

1. گوگل دانی
فرآیندی است که طی آن زندگی ما روز به روز به دانستن از طریق موتورهای جستجوگر وابسته تر میشود. چرا؟ چون میخواهیم سریع تر به جواب برسیم. وقتی «سرعت» این اندازه اهمیت پیدا کند ناگزیر دوست خواهیم داشت اطلاعات را صحیح فرض کنیم چون پالایش و مقایسه اطلاعات برای سنجش صدق و کذب آنها خودش یک فرآیند زمان بر است. پس نتیجه میشود حمل بر «صحت» کردن اطلاعات دریافتی از گوگل و نتیجه این دو تا میشود «ضرورت» یک موتور جستجوگر در زندگی ما

2. سراسربین شبکه ای
آیا زندان فیلم «گزارش اقلیت» را یادتان هست؟ فقط یک زندان بان علیل برای مراقبت از تمام زندانی های محبوس در محفظه های شیشه ای کفایت میکند. جالب است بدانید طرح چنین زندانی بیش از 200 سال پیش توسط جرمی بنتام فیلسوف پیشنهاد شده بود و زندان استیت ویل که در زیر عکسش را میبینید بر اساس همین ایده ساخته شده است. نویسنده هم میگوید ما در اینترنت موقعیتی شبیه زندانیانی چنین زندانی داریم چون خیلی بیش از آن که بخواهیم از خودمان اطلاعات به جای میگذاریم


3. آبشار اطلاعاتی
این مفهوم را همه مان احتمالا تجربه کرده ایم. مخصوصا در شبکه های اجتماعی به محض وقوع یک رویداد همه دوست دارند درباره اش اظهار نظر کنند. این پدیده خودش متاثر از یک واقعیت جامعه شناختی به نام «رفتار گله ای» است و نتیجه اش سخت شدن دسترسی به اطلاعات دقیق، صادقانه و به دور از تعصبات است.

[Leila Gharavi · Rating 5 out of 5]

اینترنت ما، بهترین عنوان برای این کتاب است؛ نوشتاری که به مسائل متعددی نظیر ارتباط فهم، دانش، روابط اجتماعی و حتی دموکراسی در عصری که انواع مختلف داده، به‌لطف اینترنت، وارده شبکه‌ای عظیم و در دسترس شده، می‌پردازد. تصویری که کتاب به من داد، به‌رغم پراکندگی موضوعات مورد بحث، تصویری جامع و به‌هم پیوسته بود که این امر تنها از عهده‌ی یک نویسنده‌ی توانا بر می‌آید. صد البته که حامد قدیری نیز با ترجمه‌ی شیوای خود، بر دل‌نشینی مطالعه‌ی این کتاب افزوده.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

***1/2

More about epistemology than technology per se. Rather politically correct, but par for the course for mainstream 'academic-lite' books. Some interesting remarks on epistemology, but if you're interested in that, better to pick up 'Epistemology: A Beginner's Guide' (which is much better than the Very Short Introduction entry of the same). For the technology, read 'Data and Goliath' by Schneier.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of the societal issues I struggle with, our seeming dependence on the internet and social media are usually at the forefront of my thoughts. As I walk through the crowded station on my way to work every morning, dodging people walking with their heads down in their phones, or wondering as I occasionally look over the shoulder of someone staring intently at their phone what is so enrapturing (spoiler alert: it is more often than not Pokemon Go or pictures of themselves), it is something that is difficult to avoid thinking about.
Michael Patrick Lynch’s “The Internet of Us” however touches less on internet addiction but rather how we interact with the technologies that are seemingly an inseparable part of our lives. In particular, he examines the influence of big data corporations such as google and how they have profoundly changed what we consider knowledge. In a world where access to “knowledge” is literally at our fingertips at a moment’s notice, Lynch questions the increasingly entrenched idea that this is actually knowledge at all.
Citing philosophers from Locke to Plato, Lynch makes the argument for knowledge being more than simply accepting that an answer from a source we assume to be reliable, such as wikipedia or our social group. We assume this must be correct because the former and the latter are presumably large groups that have in effect “crowdsourced” a problem and arrived at a solution. Lynch presents the argument however that our groups, via a shared experience, tend to be biased toward answers that reflect that experience.
While they may in fact arrive at the “correct” answer, if it is not an answer you have arrived at through asking questions, reflection, and experience, it is not “knowledge” in the true sense. To not be simply receptive to information without asking “why?” is crucial for establishing the legitimacy of facts.
Or as Lynch eloquently writes:

"In order to solve the information coordination problem we can’t just live up to our own standards. We need to be willing to explain ourselves to one another in terms we can both understand. It is not enough to be receptive downloaders and reflective, responsible believers. We also need to be reasonable.
Reasonableness isn’t a matter of being polite. It has a public point. Exchanging reasons matters because it is a useful way of laying out evidence of credibility. It is why we often demand that people give us arguments for their views, reasons that they can upload onto our shared public workspace. We use these reasons, for good or ill, as trust-tags. And the converse holds as well. If I want you to trust me, I will find it useful to give you some publicly appreciable evidence for thinking of me as credible."

Lynch also makes some fascinating arguments about the danger of big data and how it strips autonomy from the individual.
As someone who has had more than a few maddening arguments with people about why companies collecting your data is unhealthy and undemocratic (I am often told that if I’m not doing anything illegal who cares if someone is collecting information about what I eat or buy), Lynch lays out the case for exactly why this is.
In effect, while we think that trading some privacy for convenience does minimal harm, it is in cuts at the very essence of who we are as free thinking beings.
Lynch explains how this affects us in ways that we are often unaware of:

"Totally autonomous decisions are no doubt extremely rare; indeed, philosophers have long questioned whether they are possible at all. But it is clear that we value autonomy of decision, even if we can only approximate the ideal. That’s because autonomy of decision is part of what it is to be a fully mature person. And that, I believe, tells us something about why privacy matters. It matters, at least in part, because information privacy is linked to autonomy, and thereby an important feature of personhood itself.
There are two ways to infringe on a person’s autonomy of decision. The most obvious way is by overruling the decision, either by direct compulsion (I point a gun at your head) or by indirectly controlling your values and commitments (I brainwash you). A subtler way of infringing on your autonomy is to undermine it. Suppose a doctor makes the decision to give you a drug without asking your permission. Nobody has made you decide to do something. But your autonomy has been undermined nonetheless, and for an obvious reason: your decision has been foreclosed. You are not in a position to make the decision. It has been made for you.
But privacy invasions generally don’t harm autonomy in this way. They don’t overrule privacy. They undermine it. Suppose, to take a more old-fashioned example, that I break into your house and read your diary over and over again, every day. Suppose further that I make copies for my friends. Even if, again, you never learn of this, I am harming you in a new way by undermining your capacity to control your private information. Whether you know it or not, that capacity is diminished. You may think you have the autonomy to decide whether to share your diary or not. But in fact, you are not in a position to make the decision; I’ve made that decision for you. Your autonomy of decision has been undermined."

In short, there is a short leap from being willing to trust in large companies to intrude in and manipulate every moment of your day, to being receptive to a government doing the same.

"A government that sees its citizens private information as subject to tracking and collection has implicitly adopted a stance toward those citizens inconsistent with the respect due to their inherent dignity as autonomous individuals. It has begun to see them not as persons but as objects to be understood and controlled. That attitude is inconsistent with the demands of democracy itself."

In this sense, defending your autonomy is the bedrock of democratic societies. When that erodes, the democracy erodes with it.
When google, facebook, or others argue that privacy (in essence your autonomy as a human being with a right to withhold information about yourself) is not a legitimate concern in a networked world, it is perhaps instructive to remember Lynch’s argument:

"These reflections also give the lie to the idea that privacy of information is a modern creation. It is not. The source of privacy’s value is deeper, lying at the intersection of autonomy and personhood itself. That is why privacy still matters. We are wise not to forget that, even as we trade it away. Knowledge may be transparent, but power rarely is."

[Atila Iamarino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma boa reflexão sobre a era de informação que está se desenrolando. O que acontece quando a maior parte da informação que recebemos vem via internet.

Michael Lynch é um professor de filosofia da University of Connecticut, especializado em como formamos um conceito de verdade. Especialidade mais do que indicada para comentar o assunto. Comprei o livro por conta de uma opinião que ele publicou no blog do NY Times chamada "Googling is Believing", que recomendo demais. Lá ele expõe um dos conceitos mais importantes do livro: como podemos escolher o resultado do Google que mais ressoa com o que pensamos, podemos formar versões bem diferentes de verdades pessoais. Ao ponto que não discordamos mais sobre valores ou fatos, mais sim sobre as fontes que consultamos.

O livro começa com uma discussão sobre como estamos consumindo informação, uma linha melhor explicada em livros como Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds for the Better e The 4th Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality (este último citado como fonte). Aí caímos no que considero a parte mais nobre do livro, Google Knowing e como formamos uma versão da verdade pessoal baseada em uma leitura superficial da informação.

Ele faz o argumento massacrante (para mim) de que estamos formando versões fragmentadas e parciais da realidade, muito mais baseadas na emoção. Como sempre formamos, mas dessa vez muito mais nutrida de informação (parcialmente) falsa. E como o convencimento em tempos modernos depende muito mais de propaganda do que de fatos em si.

O livro tem muito mais, explica como entendemos, como a informação circula, como formamos uma realidade em nossa cabeça com base na nossa interpretação do mundo e como nossa informação pessoal está sendo compartilhada. Boas explicações, mas que já encontrei em outros livros. E termina com uma discussão sobre o futuro de como nos informamos.

Enfim, trechos parcialmente cobertos em outros livros, mas com um miolo sobre como entendemos e formamos opiniões que com certeza vou reler. Entre as discussões mais relevantes sobre a modernidade que encontrei.

[Tazar Oo · Rating 3 out of 5]

ဧၿပီ ၂၀၁၃၊ ေဘာ္စတြန္မာရသြန္ ဗံုးေပါက္အၿပီး ေနာက္တစ္ေန႔၊ လူမႈကြန္ရက္ေပၚမွာ ဒဏ္ရာရအမ်ဳိးသမီးတစ္ကိုကို ေပြ႕ထားတဲ့ ရွပ္အက်ၤ ီအနီန���႔ လူတစ္ေယာက္ပံုေတြ ျပြတ္သိပ္ေအာင္ တက္လာတယ္။ ပံုက တကယ္လည္း စိတ္ထိခိုက္စရာပါပဲ၊ ၿပီးေတာ့ တင္ထားတဲ့ပို႔စ္ေတြေၾကာင့္ ပိုလို႔ေတာင္ စိတ္ထိခုိက္စရာ ျဖစ္ရတယ္။ ပို႔စ္ေတြထဲမွာ ဒီအမ်ဳိးသားက မာရသြန္ၿပီးတဲ့အခါ အမ်ဳိးသမီးကို လက္ထပ္ခြင့္ေတာင္းဖို႔ စီစဥ္ထားတာ၊ ဒီလိုနဲ႔ ဗံုးေပါက္သြားခဲ့တာ။ လူေတြသိန္းနဲ႔ခ်ီၿပီး ဒီပို႔စ္ကို ျပန္တင္ၾကတယ္၊ ျပန္တင္တဲ့အခါတိုင္းလည္း ကိုယ္ပိုင္ မွတ္ခ်က္ေလးေတြ ကိုယ္စီနဲ႔။

ဒါေပမဲ့ ဒီဇာတ္လမ္းက အမွန္မဟုတ္ဘူး။ ဒီအမ်ဳိးသားက အမ်ဳိးသမီးကို လက္ထပ္ခြင့္ေတာင္းဖို႔ စီစဥ္ထားခဲ့တယ္ဆိုတာ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ အသိအကၽြမ္းေတာင္ မဟုတ္ဘူး။ "ပင္မေရစီး" မီဒီယာေတြမွာ က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႔ျပန္႔ ေဖာ္ျပေနၾကသလို အာဏာပိုင္ေတြက ေဘာ္စတြန္ၿမိဳ႕မွာ ဆဲလ္ဖုန္း၀န္ေဆာင္မႈကို ရည္ရြယ္ခ်က္ရွိရွိ ပိတ္ပစ္လိုက္တယ္ဆိုတဲ့ သတင္းကလည္း အမွန္မဟုတ္ဘူး။ (ထရက္ဖွစ္မ်ားလြန္းလို႔ ျပည့္ၾကပ္ၿပီး စစ္စတမ္က်သြားတာပဲ) ဒီ ေကာလာဟလေတြဟာ တြစ္တာရဲ႕ အလ်င္ႏႈန္းနဲ႔ က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႔ျပန္႔ ကူးစက္လည္ပတ္ေနတယ္။

ဒီလိုေကာလာဟလေတြဟာ "သတင္းအခ်က္ၿပိဳျခင္း" (Information Cascades) လို႔ နာမည္ေပးၿပီး က်ယ္က်ယ္ျပန္႔ျပန္႔ေဆြးေႏြးေနခဲ့တဲ့ ျဖစ္စဥ္ရဲ႕ အေကာင္းဆံုးဥပမာပဲ။ အထူးသျဖင့္ အင္တာနက္နဲ႔ လူမႈကြန္ရက္ေတြဟာ ဒီျဖစ္စဥ္ကို အညွာမခုိင္ဘူး။ သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္ၿပိဳျခင္း ျဖစ္စဥ္ဟာ လူေတြက ပို႔စ္တစ္ခုကို တင္လိုက္ၿပီး၊ တျခားလူေတြက ဆက္ၿပီး သူတို႔ရဲ႕အျမင္နဲ႔ အဲဒီပို႔စ္ကို ထပ္တင္တဲ့အခါမွာ စတယ္။ ပထမဆံုးေဖာ္ျပတဲ့ အယူအဆဟာ ပံုစံကြက္တစ္ခုထဲ ၀င္သြားၿပီဆိုရင္ေတာ့၊ အဲဒီတစ္ခ်က္တည္းက ေနာက္ဆက္တြဲအျမင္ေတြကို ၀ိတ္နဲ႔ဖိခ်၊ ဒါမွမဟုတ္ လမ္းေၾကာင္းေျပာင္းေပးလိုက္ေတာ့တာပဲ။ ေနာက္တြဲေနရာက ရွိတဲ့လူေတြဟာ ကိုယ္ပိုင္ေတြ႕ရွိခ်က္ေတြကို အသံုးခ်မယ့္အစား လူအုပ္ႀကီးေနာက္ လိုက္ေတာ့တာပဲ။ လူအမ်ားႀကီးက အျမင္တစ္ခုကို ေရွ႕မွာ သံၿပိဳင္ေထာက္ခံေနၾကတယ္ဆိုတဲ့ အခ်က္သက္သက္နဲ႔တင္ (အဲဒီအျမင္ဟာလည္း ခင္ဗ်ားလူမႈ၀န္းက်င္မွာ အထိုက္အေလ်ာက္ယုတၱိရွိေနခဲ့ရင္) ခင္ဗ်ားလည္း အဲဒီအျမင္ေနာက္ကို လိုက္မိဖို႔ ေတာ္ေတာ္ေလးျဖစ္ႏိုင္ေျခပိုရွိတယ္၊ အနည္းဆံုးေတာ့ အဲဒီအျမင္ဘက္ကို ခင္ဗ်ားလည္းပိုၿပီး အေလးသာမိႏိုင္တယ္။ ဒီျဖစ္စဥ္ကို ေလ့လာဖူးတဲ့၊ လူမႈသိပၸံပညာရွင္ေတြ (နဲ႔ ေၾကာ္ျငာအမႈေဆာင္ေတြ) က ဒီျဖစ္စဥ္ဟာ အင္တာနက္ေပၚမွာ သတင္းအခ်က္အလက္ လည္ပတ္ျခင္းသက္သက္ အတြက္သာ မဟုတ္ဘူး၊ သီခ်င္းေတြနဲ႔ ယူက်ဳဗီဒီယိုေတြကို လူႀကိဳက္မ်ားလာရျခင္းအတြက္လည္း ေမာင္းႏွင္အားျဖစ္တယ္လို႔ ဆိုတယ္။ ဗီဒီယိုတစ္ခုကို လူေတြပို Like ေလေလ၊ ဒီထက္ပိုတဲ့ Like ေတြရဖို႔ ပိုမ်ားေလေလပဲ။ ဒီလိုနည္းနဲ႔ပဲ ကၽြန္ေတာ္တို႔ဟာ "ဂန္းနစ္စတိုင္" နဲ႔ What Does the Fox Say? မွာ လမ္းဆံုးသြားၾကတယ္။

#John Locke Agrees with Mom

[Pooya Khandel · Rating 3 out of 5]

همانطور که در توصیف کتاب نوشته شده، مواجهه اجمالا فلسفی بود درباره ایترنت و تاثیراتی که بر فهم انسانی میگذاره. لازم میدونم از مترجم حامد قدیری عزیز تشکر کنم که ترجمه رو از ابتدا تا انتهای کتاب با دقت نظر ویژه‌ای دنبال کرده بود.
من خوشحال‌تر می‌شدم اگر در مورد فهم عمیق‌تر می‌شد اما ایده‌هایی که تو کتاب بررسی کرده بود جالب بود. چیزی که برام جالب نبود، حجم زیاد توضیحات در طول کتاب بود. به نظرم می‌تونست این ایده‌ها رو در این سطح با صورت خلاصه‌تر بیان کنه و همچنان به هدفش برسه. تا اواسط کتاب با اشتیاق بیشتری دنبال می‌کردم اما در ادامه بیشتر احساس تکرار نظرها و ایده‌های اصلی رو می‌دیدم و بنابراین کمی خسته شدم.

[Saeedeh Z‌are · Rating 4 out of 5]

من قبلا درباره اینترنت کتاب‌های مختلفی خونده بودم که عمدتا از منظر علوم شناختی و اجتماعی به این پدیده پرداخته بودند. اما این کتاب رویکرد کاملا فلسفی داره و از این حیث بسیار جذابه.

کتاب به دغدغه‌های مختلفی از جمله استقلال، آزادی، و فهم با گسترش اینترنت و اینترنت اشیا می‌پردازه و خیلی خوب و قابل فهم این دغدغه‌ها رو مطرح کرده.

ترجمه‌ حامد قدیری هم عالی و بی‌نقص بود.

[Alex Wiseman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Skims the surface

This book was interesting and sparked many deeper thoughts and understandings, but it was written with a more general audience in mind. So, there are a lot of instances where the author skims the surface of a major point or idea. It seems like he wants to dive deeper, but hesitates instead. Good discussion about what big data tells us versus how that is interpreted or is understood. I would recommend it for a general and heavily philosophical discussion of big data, but that's as far as I'd go.

[Lindy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Other people have said everything in this book before and they have said it better. The analysis is incredibly shallow and the examples given are basic.

One gets the impression that this book was written to fill the last week of a freshmen-level course when students go, "So how does all this philosophy stuff actually have anything to do with my life anyway?"

[Ebi · Rating 5 out of 5]

مثلاً حالتی را تصور کنید که از فرط علاقه به خودرو، معتقد باشیم که الّا و لابدّ باید با خودرو جابه‌جا شد و یادمان برود که راه‌ها و شیوه‌های دیگری، مثل پیاده‌روی، هستند که اتفاقا مزیت‌هایی نسبت به خودرو دارند.
صفحه ۳۴۹

کیست که در دنیای امروز بدون اینترنت گذران می‌کند و ادعا می‌تواند بکند که زندگی راحتی دارد؟ اینترنت در بسیاری زمینه‌ها به یاری ما آمده، دیگر نیازی نیست برای اینکه بفهمیم پایتخت بلغارستان کجاست به کتابخانه‌ی شهرمان برویم [اگر داریم] یا برای پرداخت قبض‌هایی که گاهی مبلغ ناچیزی دارند دقایق خود را در صف بانک‌ها تلف کنیم. اگر دلمان تنگ شد منتظر باد صبا نمی‌نشینیم و با یک تماس تصویری غبار دلتنگی از دل می‌زداییم [گیرم که به قدر زنده‌ماندن تا دیدار رودررو] و دیگر دیرزمانیست ارسال یک تصویر به دوستی که در کنارمان نشسته با یک پیام‌رسان اجتماعی، بسیار سریعتر از انتقال آن‌ها از طریق روش‌های قدیمی‌تر انتقال اینجور چیزهاست. تمام این‌ها و بیشمار چیز دیگر به مدد اینترنت محقق شده‌اند اما همه چیز این تکنولوژی در خدمت گسترش دامنه‌ی توانایی‌های ما انسان‌ها نیست.
اگر شما هم کاربر دغدغه‌مند اینترنت هستید، این کتاب برای شماست. کتابی که تلاش دارد نگاهی فلسفی بیندازد به تأثیرات مثبت و منفی اینترنت بر زندگی ما، حتی در بنیادی‌ترین بخش‌های انسان بودن‌مان که همانا درک ما از جهان پیرامون است. اینکه چگونه «گوگل کردن» و دانلود فکت‌ها ما را به انسان‌هایی پذیرنده و منفعل تبدیل می‌کند. چگونه ما در زیر «آبشارهای اطلاعاتی» قرار می‌گیریم، موقعیتی که تبعیت نکردن از جمع دشوار می‌شود. چگونه «قطبی‌سازی گروهی» به شکل روزافزونی ما را به قبایلی مجزا و جدا از هم تبدیل می‌کند. چطور ما با داشتن «سوگیری تأییدی» در اینترنت نه به دنبال دلایل واقعی، بلکه به دنبال تأیید دانسته‌های پیشین خود هستیم. رابطه‌ی حریم خصوصی و استقلال ما در دنیای دیجیتال چگونه است؟ چطور می‌توانیم در این عصر که اینترنت روز به روز به ما نزدیک‌تر و بخشی از ما می‌شود دانندگانی قدرتمندتر و فهیم‌تر باشیم.
همان‌طور که نویسنده در نقل‌قول ابتدای این ریویو می‌گوید، حواسمان باشد که گوگل و اینترنت و فضای دیجیتال باعث نشود که فراموش کنیم انسان‌ها راه‌های دیگری هم برای فهم و کسب دانش و خلاقیت داشته‌اند.
رویکرد کتاب کاملا فلسفی است و برای همین مباحث بسیاری از فیلسوفان قدیم همچون افلاطون و ارسطو تا اندکی متأخرتر همچون هابز و دکارت و کانت و بسیاری فیلسوفان معاصر را در آن می‌بینیم. طبعاً مانند بسیاری از کتاب‌های فلسفی این کتاب نیز بیشتر از آنکه جوابی به پرسش‌هایتان بدهد بر حجم آنها می‌افزاید! شاید مانند سقراط همین که بدانیم که خیلی کم می‌دانیم خودش نوعی معرفت باشد!

•تأملات نابهنگام
تأملات نابهنگام مجموعه‌ایست که نظریه‌پردازان و متفکران حوزه‌های مختلف اجتماعی و فلسفی آلمان به درخواست مدرسه‌ی هنر برلین در آن به مسائل و مشکلات امروزه‌ی جوامع توسعه‌یافته و واکاوی آن‌ها می‌پردازند. مشکلات و مسائلی که در جامعه‌ی ما هم ظهور پیدا کرده‌اند. اسامی برخی از آن‌ها به شدت برایم جذاب است و منتظر خواندشان هستم.
نشر اسم علاوه بر آن متون، عناوینی را به این مجموعه اضافه کرده است که این کتاب یکی از آن‌هاست. که الحق انتخاب شایسته‌ای بود. ترجمه نیز به شدت دقیق و فراوان از پانویس‌های کمک‌کننده است که بد��ن آن‌ها قطعاً کُمیت‌ام در جاهایی می‌لنگید.

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a lot like Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room except from a much more philosophical point of view. In fact, I wouldn't recommend this for anyone who doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with philosophy. Mine is only as an amateur and I had to stretch to understand Lynch's references and some of the terminology and "idea shorthand".

Other than that, it's very similar to the other book I mentioned, arguing that in the era of the Internet, we know more facts but we understand relationships and how things work less than previous generations, particularly when it comes to real life experience. There is also discussion of privacy and autonomy that I could not get very excited about, although Lynch's points are worth pondering.

As with the other book, I don't find Lynch convincing either. I don't think it's true that we know more and understand less. Okay, yes, maybe the ratio of what we know to what we understand has shifted more in favor of knowing, but I would argue that what we understand has not shrunk in absolute terms. It's probably grown too, just not as much. And nowhere does Lynch compare the rate of growth in both ways. In any case, I find it strange to complain that we sacrifice understanding to knowing. For one thing, knowing facts is necessary to understanding, so there's a dependency there. And to use Lynch's example of how we just use massive amounts of data to recognize realities, maybe we "understand less" because we see that what we used to "understand" isn't actually as true as we thought it was?

The case I can think of where Lynch might be right in terms of how the Internet may cause us to know more and understand less is where we spend all our spare time experiencing the news, discussions, and cat videos that the Internet has to offer without taking time to think about what we've encountered. I've reached this point before, and maybe others keep going where I stopped regularly checking some of those sites that were eating my time (goodbye, cnn.com and howstuffworks.com). The funny thing is Lynch never uses that example. Also, it was certainly very possible before the Internet. I think this is the core complaint about television, and I have to be careful to take time to think about what I read instead of merely plowing through it. These book reviews are part of how I make sure to think about what I read.

As far as understanding less about the real world, I think Lynch has it wrong two ways: people don't understand less about the real world because of the Internet. People may be spending more time online and less doing other stuff, but they still have hobbies which don't directly involve the Internet. I think the existence of SO MANY specialized online communities for any kind of activity you can imagine (comics, windsurfing, the DIY movement, and home science experiments) and even more that you can't (bronies and we'll leave it at that) shows people are doing stuff and understanding plenty. The other way Lynch has it wrong is that he looks down on the Internet as a "fake world". And yet a LOT that goes on there IS just as real now. Keeping up with my cousins' posts on Facebook doesn't weaken my relationship with them, for example. I wouldn't have kept up with them any better otherwise, and knowing some of what they've been up to helps me start conversations with them when we do get together.

Lynch's last core argument (and almost everyone else's) about why the Internet is bad is because so many people don't listen to "reason" online, and they're able to form support groups of like-minded others. Although people's opinions may becoming more extreme and entrenched because of the Internet, I think it was going on almost as much before. It just wasn't as visible, especially if you didn't get outside your own social groups once in a while. Lynch at least recognizes this could be the case. This particular complaint may be disappointment that the Internet has not caused man to reach his potential for reason the way everyone hoped.

[Charles Moore · Rating 4 out of 5]

I couldn't tell you how I found out about this book but I'm glad I did. I occasionally enjoy reading about the internet and knowledge and learning, from a little more philosophical point of view, without a lot of politics or self glorification. While Lynch once in a while gets his digs in about the government for the most part he is quite fair, I think, and points out a lot of potential problems with learning and understanding in our web-structured world. As a person who watches too many college kids only get a superficial education I worry a bit about where we as a country are going. Lynch is not negative, by the least bit, but is informative. He has plenty of sources all of which I know nothing about. (A Google-search problem.) I have bookmarked a couple of future readings for myself which is not something I have done in years.

"Why go to college when you have a library" where you can find all the knowledge you need to know. Why have a library when you have Google? You go to college "to find pilots who can guile us across the vast seas of knowledge. We need them to tell us what is already charged and what is left to chart still. Such guides shouldn't make us more receptive knowers; they should aim to make us more reflective, reasonable ones and, what's more, they should help us understand" (154).

Highly recommended particularly if you worry about the immense crush net companies of all stripes put on public education at all levels of government.

If you are one of those people who decry that students have it easy because of the internet, read this book! If you are educator-type whose education is very old school, like mine, Dr. Lynch should be able to calm your nerves about teaching in the internet era.

I like that he is very thorough in his thinking about why we are learning more and could easily, if not already, knowing more.
###

[Derek Lam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suppose it's a good read as a "conversation opener" on the related topics, with interesting examples and cases here and there that makes you wonder. But a bit light on providing substantial arguments for the books' main theses. E.g. while a lot of ink is spilt on explaining what "understanding" (contrast to "receptive knowing") is supposed to be, it would have been nice if the author can say a bit more what makes him think that people understand less -- what his criterion for making that judgment is. And also, surprisingly, the value of understanding, which is supposed to be a major point of the book, only got a very brief cameo in the last and short chapter. That said, I acknowledge that this isn't meant to be a serious academic work. Perhaps it's good for the kind of book it aims to be. It's just that, as someone who wants to have a deeper understanding of the issues, I wish the author had offered something more.

[Vincent · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree 100% and yet I am a bit indifferent to this book. Overall: very good, full of insights (albeit ones I think we've already heard), and certainly accessible and engaging, but I feel somehow shorted. This is my fault for having expectations that the author, who has never met me, did not meet. Rather, he did manage to present a cogent argument about the importance of, and true meaning of, understanding, an argument very important in these times of iStuff.

[Bluedisc · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book! It is pop-philosophy that anyone can read and appreciate. It has enough call backs to major philosophy that it is a great introductory book. A lot of the book is tied to the idea of having nueromedia (a thing that doesn't exist yet) and what that would mean for how we think. Apart from the rest of the book, my favorite point was that crowd sourcing is a form of outsourcing.

This is definitely worth a read, it is quick and thought provoking without being cumbersome.

[Amy McLay Paterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The treatment of the issues was a little more rudimentary than what I hoped (though the book is aimed at a general readership, rather than information professionals), but I appreciated the philosophical bent. There's a bit of the usual technological fearmongering, but not enough to make it tiresome or uninteresting.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book raises an important topic, one that merits a lot of discussion, but as other reviewers mention, is overly simplistic, especially for someone in tech. It's worth reading to contemplate a personal response to information overload, but I won't be recommending it to any friends.

[Alexanderkonst · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome book!!

[ahmad · Rating 4 out of 5]

اینترنت ما رساله ای هشداردهنده در مورد خطرات بالقوه و رو به رشد فناوری و تکنولوژی است که جهان ما را تهدید می کند. البته این اثر به مانند سایر آثار رمانتیکی نیست که از ریشه و بن تمام مواهب اینترنت را به فراموشی سپرده و به جنگ تمام عیار با تکنولوژی بپردازد بلکه با اشاره به مواهبی که اینترنت برای جهان ما به ارمغان آورده، خطراتی که اینترنت برای ما دارد نیز اشاراتی میکند. شیرازه ی اثر این است که اینترنت در حال نفوذ به ریشه ای ترین مفاهیم بشر است و اگر مواظب نباشیم حتی انسانیت انسان را نیز به خطر می اندازد. به عنوان مثال گوگل حتی بهتر از شما می داند که شما چه کسی هستید و علایقتان چیست و یا امازون بهتر از شما می داند که شما چه چیزی میخواهید خرید کنید. در چنین حالتی آیا انسانیت انسان درخطر نیست؟ اگر کسی بجز شما بداند که شما در حالاتی خاص چه عکس العملی انجام می دهید حتی اگر از این دانش استفاده نکند آیا باز هم شما می توانید خود را انسان بنامید؟
معضل دیگر آن است که اینترنت علاوه بر اینکه می تواند مشکلات زیادی را حل کند، مشکلات قدیمی را به شکلی جدید مطرح می کند. به عنوان مثال اینترنت می تواند سرعت انتقال دانش را افزایش دهد اما اگر این دانش در اختیار افراد به خصوصی باشد چه؟ اگر کل دانش در اختیار گوگل و امازون باشد و آنها مشخص کنند چه کسی چه چیزی بداند چه؟ همین امروز بسیاری از سرویس های اینترنتی تحریم هایی علیه بعضی کشورها اعمال می کنند و اجازه دسترسی به بعضی محتوای انلاین را به افراد مختلفی در جهان نمی دهند. امروزه اگرچه شهر علم و دانش به شدت بزرگ شده اند اما دروازه های این شهر به شدت کوچک شده و ورود به آنها بدون اجازه صاحبان دروازه ها تقریبا غیر ممکن اس ت.
یکی دیگر از معضلات عدم فهم است. در کتاب اشاره شده است که عده ای تصور میکنند با ورود به عصر کلان داده دیگر احتیاجی به نظریه های علمی نداریم. نظریه ها برای زمانی بودند که اطلاعات و داده های محدودی وجود داشتند اما امروزه تنها کافیست اجازه دهیم اعداد سخن بگویند. در اینجا نویسنده به دو مفهوم به نام های دانستن و فهمیدن اشاره می کند و می گوید که دانستن اشاره به داشتن داده هایی دارد که ما از جهان پیرامون دریافت می کنیم. اما فهمیدن اشاره به ارتباط دادن بین این داده ها اشاره می کند. در مورد این تفاوت پیش تر در نوشته ای به نام (کتاب ما را دانشمند نمی کند) بیشتر نوشته ام.
اما یکی از جذاب ترین معضلاتی که در کتاب در ذیل عنوان والمارتی کردن دانشگاه به آن اشاره شده بود تولید انبوه دانشگاه بود. پیشتر در نوشته ای چند وبسایت داخلی و خارجی برای یادگیری دروس به صورت آنلاین را معرفی کرده بودم. به این وبسایت ها موک گفته می شود. در کتاب به درستی این موک ها را دانشگاه های والمارتی نام نهاده است. تا پیش از این متوجه این نکته نشده بودم اما با خواندن این کتاب متوجه شدم که تا چه حد این موک ها می تواند خطرناک باشند. (البته نه به آن صورتی که احتمالا در ذهنتان شکل گرفت) خطر این وبسایت ها از آن جهت است که هیچ ایده ای خلاقانه ای برای بهبود عملکرد ندارند. صرفا تولید انبوه همان کلاس ها هستند در سطحی جهانی. همان دروس همان استاد اما اینبار به جای کلاس ها در خانه می نشینیم و احتمالا به درس هم گوش نمی دهیم. غافل از اینکه اینترنت آمده تا باعث بهبود شود نه اینکه همان ایده های قدیمی را در مقیاس کلان تکثیر کند.
همین مورد اخیر را می توان به سایر کسب و کارهای آنلاین گسترش داد. به عنوان مثال وبسایت های اینفلوئنسری را ببینید. این وبسایت ها زمانی قرار بود باعث بهبود شرایط کار شوند اما امروز میبینیم که بستری برای استثمار هرچه بیشتر متخصصان شده است. در کتاب، به تورک مکانیک آمازون اشاره کرده است که در آن با افزایش تعداد متخصصان هزینه برای انجام پروژه ها به شدت کاهش یافته. این وبسایت ها که زمانی قرار بود باعث بهبود شرایط کار و یافت ساده تر کار برای متخصصان شود به محلی برای نزاع بر سر دریافت پروژه تبدیل شده اند. به طوری که در آن افرادی از کشورهای کمتر توسعه یافته اما با تخصص بالا پروژه هایی را با رقم هایی به شدت پایین برای کارفرما انجام می دهند. اینجاست که اینترنت به بستری برای استثمار مدرن تبدیل می شود.
نام کتاب نیز بسیار هوشمندانه انتخاب شده است. The Internet of us اشاره ای به تکنولوژی اینترنت اشیا Internet of things دارد. نویسنده می خواهد بگوید هرچه اینترنت بیشتر به دنیای فیزیکی و آفلاین ما نفوذ می کند ما را بیشتر اینترنتی کرده و هویت اصلی را از ما میگیرد تا جایی که اینترنت به اینترنت ما تبدیل می شود. یعنی خود انسان دیگر هویتی فیزیکی در جهان مادی نخواهد داشت و صرفا بر مبنای هویت اینترنتی اش شناخته خواهد شد. به نظر من این کتاب می تواند تلنگری به دنیای اینترنت زده ی ما باشد که بیش از پیش بر روی مفاهیمی که امروز روی آنها اتفاق نظر داریم تامل کنیم مفاهیمی مانند اینترنت، تکنولوژی و... این مفاهیم به خودی خود ملاک و هدف و غایت نیستند بلکه هدف و غایت رفاه انسان است. اگر این تکنولوژی ها باعث کاهش رفاه انسان شوند چه فایده ای خواهند داشت؟ اگر باعث نابودی اصالت واقعی انسان شوند چرا باید به آنها بها داد؟ و در نهایت چگونه می توان به این تکنولوژی ها بها داد بدون از بین رفتن هویت نوع بشر؟
نقد: کتاب از دو قسمت تشکیل شده است که قسمت اول صرفا فلسفه بافی های بی سر و تهی است که می خواهد بگوید اینترنت نه آنقدر بد است که شر مطلق باشد و نه آنقدر خوب است که خیر مطلق باشد. این حرفی است که احتمالا همه ی ما بر روی آن اتفاق نظر داشته باشیم. اما قسمت دوم به سراغ مصادیق کاربردی تر می رود که نوشته را به شدت جذاب می کند. توصیه می کنم خوانندگان کتاب با خواندن نیمه ی اولِ کسل کننده ی کتاب از خواندن ادامه ی آن صرف نظر نکنند.

[Sam Woldringh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Expecting a short and simple treatise covering humanity's relation to the internet at a surface level, I was blown away by this well-argued epistemological tour-de-force. Obligatory reading for anyone who wants to know what it is to know in the age of the internet.

[Jeff Francis · Rating 3 out of 5]

For those of us who didn’t come of age with the Internet, there is a persistent, nagging question: Has the Internet truly changed us, as a people?… and if the answer is yes, is that change good, bad, or some combination of the two?

Because I consider these perhaps the most relevant questions of our time, I generally liked and admired Michael Patrick Lynch’s “The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data”… even if it wasn’t quite what I expected.

“The Internet of Us” is technically a philosophy book, i.e.: Lynch, a philosophy professor, posits a series of premises about the Internet and social media (some insightful, others fairly obvious) and then expands on those premises through verbose, ruminative treatises. In other words, Lynch makes an assertion about how the Internet has changed us, and then, in a philosophical sense, shows his work.

And that’s the thing: despite peppering the narrative with some cool references—e.g., Philip K. Dick, “The Matrix,” Borges’s “The Library of Babel”—the reading can be a slog. Said narrative seems to presuppose the reader’s knowledge of basic philosophy precepts (a proper assumption in some instances, I’d guess, but certainly not all).

So what’s to redeem the book from its difficult prose? It’s that even at its short length, Lynch still delivers enough passages that just. nail. it. Ones where he states so succinctly what many of us have used many more words to say vis-à-vis two-drinks-in rants... Take this one for instance:

“Interaction with the world brings with it an understanding of how and why things happen physically that no online experience can give. And it is why so many of us who use Facebook are still troubled by its siren song: it is a simulacrum of intimacy, a simulacrum mutual understanding, not the real thing” (p. 16)

If you’re like me, and have watched Facebook essentially absorb the lives of so many friends and family, you’ll agree that people should be forced to read those words.

Also, consider this one, where Lynch (again, a college professor), ponders why, exactly, he tells his students they can’t use their phones during tests:

“That raises a question: if the Internet is available to you at the blink of an eye—and available in a way that seems like memory—then what are we testing for when giving exams? What, in general, is the point of higher education in the age of big data?” (p.149)

So, decide for yourself. “The Internet of Us” is a finely written book, and well-thought-out… it just falls a tad short of being the really definitive sociological study of the Internet that has yet to be written.

[Amie Viller · Rating 3 out of 5]

TBH a lot of this book can just be reasoned. Maybe I had a very thorough education on the a internet and I'm more curious as to why and how humans actually come to understand, learn and know, but this book was just a repeat of a lot my High School Classes. To others it might be pretty enlightening to know where the future of the Internet is going and so far how that has affected us. To me, I feel like I've read a lot of articles on what will be the future of the Internet and how millenials use and exploit the internet and how it justifies our "knowledge". TBH growing along with the Internet I feel like the knowledge is at our finger tips but it is a whole other deal what we do with it and how we use as the book entails.
Read it if it really does call your attention, but if you have read and know about epistemology and the future of the Internet... just skip it.

[M Pereira · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is surprisingly philosophy heavy. Concepts like the extended mind and moral psychology come into mind. Epistemic justice and Fricker's 2006 work on ignorance really highlight the deeper issues underlying the new age of technology: internet of things, web 2.0 (social media) and its effect on politics and agency.

I highly recommend this. There are a lot of books out there these days asking 'what the hell has happened!' with social media and technology, but I think this one will stay on bookshelves with more relevance as the decades pass, while others are a faddish flash in the pan.

[Lucas Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surprisingly optimistic for its overall argument that too much information makes it harder to understand anything. This feels like a book written during the Obama administration. (it was published in 2016) It is well researched and intentioned. The writing is straight forward, and all of the worst case scenarios the author hints at have come true a hundredfold. It's not so much that it has aged poorly, it is just that it feels like it was an insightful book written much longer than six years ago.

[Mark Valentine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found reading Lynch's reflection on Big Data, Google, and the digital world helpful. It was another brick of understanding in the edifice of our age. I especially liked his repeated references to classic Philosophy to interpret our times (Plato) and I also liked his reflections on creativity (v. originality).

For me, at times its reading became redundant or simplistic, but overall, it was beneficial or helpful.

[Dacod · Rating 2 out of 5]

I hate to do the reviewer joke, but I know more and understand less after reading this book. While there are some interesting snippets, this is pretty much a C- thesis statement that helps you get a degree. This guy seems to forget that he is supposed to be discussing the internet half the time or more. It's more an examination of vague philosophical ideas than a thorough examination of the subject. boring.

[Hisanor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well written. Reminded me of some important things we tend to forget just by "google knowing". However I could not find any mind blowing new idea (philosophy maybe?) from this book and this was a little bit disappointing. To me it was just a nice explanation of the modern internet era and nothing more.

[Sean · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lynch raises important questions about how the internet is warping knowledge and discourse, but he meanders away from a strong start into some philosophical non sequiturs. This book would be best served as an introductory read for a Digital Media Theory course, followed by more provocative and creative works from the likes of Marshall McLuhan.

[Jacqui · Rating 2 out of 5]

Chaotic topic wandering and lack of depth.

However, a few passages stood out to me, and prompted me to go off on my own interesting philosophical tangents. Plus.

Data is v important and this book does reveal some broad strokes in the current tech world, I suppose.