Some Old Guy Can't Come Up With Any New Ideas; So He Says There Are No New Ideas & It's Twitter's Fault
from the is-this-crap-worth-publishing? dept
Quite a week for the luddites out there. First we get Rob Levine's silly screed about the internet killing off a bunch of industries that are actually thriving. And now we have the NY Times publishing absolute tripe from Neal Gabler, bizarrely and ridiculously claiming that the age of "big ideas" is over, and it's all the fault of Twitter and Facebook. It's incredible that the NY Times would publish such absolute garbage. Nowhere does Gabler actually support his thesis.It's yet another example of "back in the old days" mythological thinking, where someone, who only remembers the "highlights" of a bygone era, is upset that there's a lot of other stuff going on in the modern era as well. Gabler points to a bunch of "big thinkers" from the past -- Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Betty Friedan and others. And then insists that no one like that is showing up today -- or if they are, they're being ignored. This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. He points to Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt as "big thinkers" of today who are mostly ignored. Really?!? All three are pretty widely known, and I'd bet are pretty much equally known in the world as his initial list at similar points in their life and career. Gabler just seems to have an arbitrary standard of how well known certain "big thinkers" are.
The real crux of Gabler's argument appears to be that we're all doing too much of that tweeting and stuff, such that we no longer have time to think. And his scientific evidence to back this up is... oh look, absolutely nothing.
It is certainly no accident that the post-idea world has sprung up alongside the social networking world. Even though there are sites and blogs dedicated to ideas, Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, etc., the most popular sites on the Web, are basically information exchanges, designed to feed the insatiable information hunger, though this is hardly the kind of information that generates ideas. It is largely useless except insofar as it makes the possessor of the information feel, well, informed. Of course, one could argue that these sites are no different than conversation was for previous generations, and that conversation seldom generated big ideas either, and one would be right.Can't there just be a rule? If you ever trash Twitter because someone tweets about eating a sandwich for lunch, we all just agree that person is too clueless to listen to any more? That tired old line has been used so often and the only thing it shows is one's ignorance of Twitter.
BUT the analogy isn’t perfect. For one thing, social networking sites are the primary form of communication among young people, and they are supplanting print, which is where ideas have typically gestated. For another, social networking sites engender habits of mind that are inimical to the kind of deliberate discourse that gives rise to ideas. Instead of theories, hypotheses and grand arguments, we get instant 140-character tweets about eating a sandwich or watching a TV show. While social networking may enlarge one’s circle and even introduce one to strangers, this is not the same thing as enlarging one’s intellectual universe. Indeed, the gab of social networking tends to shrink one’s universe to oneself and one’s friends, while thoughts organized in words, whether online or on the page, enlarge one’s focus.
But more to the point, Gabler is reminiscing about a world that never existed. "Instead of theories, hypotheses and grand arguments, we get instant 140-character tweets about eating a sandwich or watching a TV show." And in what world did millions of people sit around and discuss theories, hypotheses and grand arguments? Sure there are some places where some people did that, and they still do. In fact, those "theories, hypotheses and grand arguments" appear to happen much more frequently, in much more detail and with a wider audience online these days. I often find out about them via the smart people I follow on Twitter.
And while social media may not have enlarged Gabler's intellectual universe, it has massively enlarged mine. Thanks to Twitter specifically, I've been able to meet tons of fascinatingly smart people I never would have met otherwise. Sure, not all of it is brilliant talk, but Gabler seems to make the same fundamental error that so many "back in my day" people make: which is to assume that because a tool can be used for random conversation that somehow cancels out intelligent conversation. I can talk about the sandwich I ate for lunch and I can discuss big intellectually stimulating ideas.
But Gabler seems to have this view that because some people discuss stuff he finds beneath him, they can't possibly also be discussing important stuff. He also seems to ignore that back in his mythical "good old days" people discussed equally as ridiculous things:
The collection itself is exhausting: what each of our friends is doing at that particular moment and then the next moment and the next one; who Jennifer Aniston is dating right now; which video is going viral on YouTube this hour; what Princess Letizia or Kate Middleton is wearing that day. In effect, we are living within the nimbus of an informational Gresham’s law in which trivial information pushes out significant information, but it is also an ideational Gresham’s law in which information, trivial or not, pushes out ideas.If Gabler thinks that there wasn't similar gossip and banal discussions back when he wasn't an old man screaming at kids on his lawn, he apparently wasn't paying very close attention to what the people around him were discussing. There are plenty of "big ideas" out there, contrary to Gabler's claim, but the only really stupid one I've seen lately is this one... from Gabler. With that I'm going back to reading some more interesting and thought provoking ideas... which I most likely found on Twitter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: communication, ideas, neal gabler, people, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nothing new here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new here
Oh god, and also the flipping Kardashians! Perhaps I should have them to the doctor. Or perhaps they're just entertaining themselves.
On the other hand, I had a pretty deep conversation with my 19 yr. old niece, a former cheerleader, about politics and education methods.
People aren't ON POINT all the time about everything. Otherwise we'd bore each other, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is the author of four books: An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (1989), Winchell: Gossip, Power and the Culture of Celebrity (1994), Life the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality (1998) and Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination (2006).
'nuff said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you whipersnappers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you whipersnappers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you whipersnappers.
Duke: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me.
Walt Kowalski: [sneering and aiming his gun] Get off my lawn!
"Everybody wonders why I continue working at this stage. I keep working because there's always new stories. ... And as long as people want me to tell them, I'll be there doing them."
—Eastwood, reflecting on his later career
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you whipersnappers.
That's it, I'm gonna ask one of those scientists and the ppl who fight hunger in Africa how they spend their free time. I bet they never talk about futile and funny stuff. Certainly the scientists think of hunger in Africa in their free time. And the guys fighting hunger in Africa thing about the Big Bang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't get bogged down arguing the facts. Even if the internet has killed off industries, it does not fricken matter.
The internet is merely an information distribution system. If industries cannot survive the transition to a new distribution system, they should be killed off!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? That's what I look for. If someone's Twitter feed is nothing but "My cat ate its sick today", I stop following that person.
The internet has a huge variety of content. Anything and everything you might (or might not) want can be found there. What you get from it is what you seek out.
The fact that he thinks it's all sandwich reports and TV show blabbing says a lot more about him than it does about the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
14 year old girls always think that their interests are vital.
If by 30 you haven't admitted that nearly all of everything is crap and your parents and their parents actually did have a grasp on what's important, then you're still a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 14 year old girls always think that their interests are vital.
- Something For Kate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 14 year old girls always think that their interests are vital.
(Ecclesiates 1:9)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 14 year old girls always think that their interests are vital.
I guess I'm a heathen - I thought that was Pink Floyd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 14 year old girls always think that their interests are vital.
Wait, does that apply to every generation? Like, have we been spiraling deeper and deeper into the pit of crap for millennia, with each new wave coming of age only to discover that the world is objectively crappier than it was thirty years before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's right
"Things ain't what they used to be and never were."
- Will Rogers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) 25% of tweets contain links. I don't know what percentage of traffic this site generates through twitter links, but for many tech focused sites, Twitter is a major source of page views. So, actually, Twitter is being used by many people to connect with the same sort of "big ideas" which use lots of "words" that he thinks are dying out.
He is scared of Twitter for some reason and using any ridiculous argument to justify his personal prejudice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phone conversations are now text messages. Private and sometimes useless banter is public and searchable.
The horror. How dare they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like
As the phrase goes these days: "Haters gonna hate". There are people who will refuse to adapt long into their own obscurity. They are just old or won't comprehend changes in technology for any one of many various reasons.
I think really that our best response is to keep on forging ahead (provided they aren't trying to make laws to maintain the past, which is never a smart move for anyone). They can either wake up and adapt or be left behind. Either or really doesn't matter to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I am suitably chastened...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, I am suitably chastened...
Me too. And cats, going to talk about cats too. But since I don't have a Twitter account, I'm gonna decrease my intelligence (and productive work time) the old fashioned way - by sitting around and yapping with my co-workers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How famous was Einstein?
If there was ever a chance that millions of people could come together and press forth ideas, hypothesis and theories, it is now. It sure couldn't have been done over the telegraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fallacy
No, man, NO. One would be horribly wrong to argue that. Conversation is where a GREAT number of big ideas are born. From the Parisian cafes of Sartre and Camus, to the English coffeehouses in the 17th century, to pubs, gelaterias, salons - where people met, ideas came about.
How could you want less conversation, and give your reason as being for the sake of more ideas??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Acid Test
If they say "No way, anyone can edit that stuff" I sigh and wonder if it is worth explaining to them that yes you can edit it but it is also peer reviewed by EVERYONE and if you still don't believe it you can always go back to the original citation, which if it doesn't exist you should do some fact checking before claiming it to be a fact.
If they say "It's a good starting point" I smile and think there is hope for us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Upperclass Twit of the Year
And Mr. Neal Gabler-Mollusc can be said to be this years outstanding twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upperclass Twit of the Year
Perhaps - as long as he doesn't run himself over with the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same ol'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Friday article
/troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-defeating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Self-defeating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gogol Bordello, "Ultimate":
There were never any good old days
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
By denying the value of communications tools such as Twitter, people can only devalue the overall communication and proverbally "curse tomorrow with sorrow" of diminished exchange of ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it's incredible that anyone would expect anything else out of that tabloid... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Ninety percent of everything is crap"
Sturgeon's Law
Personally I've always thought Mr. Sturgeon was being overly generous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNA got it
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DNA got it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Mind's Ability to Filter
If nothing else, the Age of the Internet/Information or whatever you want to call it, has given us the ability to quickly, mentally sort what is relevant, and what is noise.
Sure, there are thousands of tweets, wall postings, and blog entries every day, so much so that we couldn't possibly read them all. Our filter kicks in and we only see what we need to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tweets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the tone of the article this guy doesn't know how to find his way around the net and is stuck in one little area that just gets his goat and he doesn't know where to search to find that lost critter.
I would hazard the guess that he doesn't have a fence nor close line to pass the daily gossip. Maybe there is a town crier he can go pester for the news of the day.
Or maybe he missed the party lines with telephones where you could pick up the receiver and find out what was going on with your neighbors and the local busy body.
Every generation has their version of the 'new generation going to hell in a hand basket'. Looks like he's found his version of it. He can keep that version, I don't like it.
I've always had faith that the younger generation will find their own way, just as we did, and our father's generation before us.
I guess this yoyo thinks an Einstein should be born every year and we should just look out and he'll jump up and slap us in the face. Most of the folk that have strange ideas usually get slapped down from the likes of him before they ever get started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sturgeon's Law and Survivorship Bias
Survivorship bias (as applied to Sturgeon's Law): that which is recalled by later generations probably came from the 10%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5Kg was the final result, probably wrong, but nobody cared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relax...you're ALL wrong
At the same time, those who wax onanastically about Twitter and its simplistic 140 limit who reminded me of those who thought the beeper was the bee's knees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Neal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Neal.
"It may seem counterintuitive that at a time when we know more than we have ever known, we think about it less."
He's absolutely right.
The kids don't want detailed discussions about various issues/topics or the bigger picture. Do you know the acronym, "tldr?" It is very common on boards where someone links to a lengthy article/essay. It stands for "Too long. Didn't read."
I write a column for an online site and the editorial guidelines say the rule of thumb for length should be 200-400 words because you don't want to lose the "attention of your readers." How on earth can you flesh out an idea or issue in any meaningful way in 400 words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with Neal.
No. He's not.
The kids don't want detailed discussions about various issues/topics or the bigger picture
Nice generalization. Do you have some data to back that up?
Do you know the acronym, "tldr?" It is very common on boards where someone links to a lengthy article/essay. It stands for "Too long. Didn't read."
Yes. And it's a joke.
I write a column for an online site and the editorial guidelines say the rule of thumb for length should be 200-400 words because you don't want to lose the "attention of your readers." How on earth can you flesh out an idea or issue in any meaningful way in 400 words?
Maybe go work for a smarter run site? For what it's worth, when I post longer stories, they seem to get a lot more traffic and a lot more commentary. It's the short stories people ignore.
The idea that people don't think or don't read long thing is simply not true. It may be that *some* people don't, but I'd argue those same people didn't read *at all* years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree with Neal.
I don't know about that Mike.
There seem to be a few ACs who think any length of article you write is too long to actually read through and give any thought to before arguing with you about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree with Neal.
And yes, the kids issue is a generalization but a valid one. "Tldr" is not a joke. It's a snarky response to something that is too long to bother with. I don't have data, but I do have experience and the kids don't want to know beyond the info. Detailed, in depth discussion bores them. In fact, some boards I frequent that link to articles, very often they don't even read the articles. They just comment based on the headline that links to the article.
It's all anecdotal, but I've seen a lot of it.
And, you might ask, how do I know what age group these commenters are in? You can tell, just by what they say and the way they say it.
There are very few online sites that do long form journalism. Slate is one and The New Yorker, but they have a print edition. I can't think of any others. Slate was recently noted for the fact they did long form, in a milieu that favors short and sweet.
I don't follow the guidelines. My columns usually run around 1,000 words. And as to your site, you have a niche site that appeals to a certain audience who are interested in these issues. They want more in depth writing.
I agree with Gabler that even though we know more, we think about it less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with Neal.
Before the internet, most people didn't think much beyond what they were told on the TV, or by headlines, or by a friend in the pub. Trying to pin this on new tech is not insightful, and it is misleading.
"The kids don't want detailed discussions about various issues/topics or the bigger picture."
Nice generalisation. Doesn't sound like you're looking at the "big picture" there yourself.
"Do you know the acronym, "tldr?""
Yep. In my experience it's used mostly in jest when someone posts a darryl-like rant or pastes the whole article instead of linking. Also, people can be busy. If you want to point out something in a article, and just post a link to a 2000-word essay, many people won't read it for varying reasons.
Expecting people to read an in-depth article before continuing a conversation with you will get that kind of reaction, and this again is nothing new. If you get that response a lot, maybe you should start summarising or quoting the relevant information with a link to the whole article for those who can/wish to read it.
"the editorial guidelines say the rule of thumb for length should be 200-400 words because you don't want to lose the "attention of your readers.""
Out of interest, what kind of site is it? That sounds more like a content farm, or a site that likes to split articles into several sections to leech more ad revenue and they think that having more than 4 pages will put people off. It certainly sounds like an organisation more interested in ad hits than the quality of its content, even if they present their reasons as something different.
It's also a question of the subject. Sure, a short news article or technical often has no real business being much more than that, but scientific analysis or anything offering real insight? That's too short. Either you're writing for hyperactive 10 year olds, or you're working for people who don't understand that a good article can be both longer and compelling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I agree with Neal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter = Telephone
Just because teenage girls only ever talk about trivia on a telephone doesn't make the telephone a device that can only be used for trivial talk. The president of the USA still uses a telephone to call a head of another nation to discuss a mater... "is-this-crap-worth-publishing" is exactly right!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]