One thing has become very clear to me this year and to be honest I don't know why it is taken this long for the lightbulb to go off or turn on as the case may be 😀.
That is that the very definition of the word "technology" has changed dramatically between the generations of peoples. Up until the mid-20th century it was represented almost exclusively by physical machinery which you could visually understand. It was a thing, a one function device usually. Whatever you bought from the store never received an update. It was perceived to be as perfect as it could be when it was brand-new. It might fall apart later but whatever the item was it was fully functional. The idea of a bug was something that you swatted in the air and nothing more.
As the decades moved forward things began to change, quite subtly and without anyone really saying anything about it. Technology went from being something physical, to something for the most part quite abstract and malleable. Anyone born in the 1990s just assumes this to be the everlasting original definition of the word. You buy a device and the first thing you have to do is updated it, because if it's not updated it will almost certainly have bugs in it. Doesn't matter whether it cost one dollar or $10,000, if it's new and hasn't been updated it's going to have a flaw in it. Along with the ongoing updates of everything, which if you haven't noticed seem to look at just the moment you need to accomplish something efficiently and quickly. That's when you get hit with the following digital curse words: "Please Wait. This update may take a little while." I was hit with one of these this morning as I was trying to prepare for the day. And this one took for ever!
Now both definitions and both parties who subscribe to their individual definition, don't understand the other side. The people born in the 1990s subscribe to the new definition for the most part whereas the other party born before that date subscribe to the old definition, and each is completely confused by the other. No matter which group you talk to even if they understand the others definition, you can see the mental effort necessary kind of shorts out there brain and that they would rather retreat back into the definition they understand.
Things can get really crazy when you're trying to figure out how to explain things over the phone where you have to instruct the person on the appropriate steps to take. It is almost like preparing for a battle:
- Step #1: Ascertain the other sides values and perceptions.
- Step #2: Double check with yourself that you thoroughly understand step #1
- Step #3 Casually engage the other side briefly to test in the real world environment. This usually exposes an abyss of understanding between the parties. There is much work to do.
I think that one of the issues this exposes is that at least in North America we are not taught to consider other ways of thinking, much less ways of actually perceiving and processing information. When we are faced with a situation where these differences are exposed we make the mistake of trying to translate the other person's perceptions into our own and that doesn't work or at the best, it works poorly. -- You can't turn arose into a dandelion no matter how much you try.
The only way I have found to proceed in these situations involves verily long conversations allowing both sides to be exposed to the other in ways that feel nonthreatening. After a few rendezvous's usually there is a bridge built just barely sufficient enough to be useful for a small set of tasks.
Imagine if we did this much earlier in a person's life or did it as a whole society. Think of the grief and misunderstandings that could be averted. Simply by allowing room for the unknowing. Realizing that for everything you know and perceive there is always more and it will always be different.
Aside from survival, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasons societies and cultures became towns and states originally. To avoid seeing the other side. Well the good news is I don't think that's an option anymore with the world getting ever more interconnected.
I wonder how strange it will look in 100 years when the then modern society looks back at the 20th and 21st centuries. For them they will have one big advantage (I hope) in that if our records survive and we don't change to some bizarre format. The new society will have pristine and detailed records.
Oh I would love to be around then. And I would be as curious as I am today. Which brings up another point but I think I'll make it another article… If you could live 300 years, how would you change in that time? (Presuming of course you were in good health)
Take care Patrick
No comments:
Post a Comment