In a post-Lawrence Lessig remix world, anything is up for grabs in the creation of new; however, checking out the recently launched Canvas site I simply feel dumb, old, and shocked that "these kids today" waste so much time making stuff like this:
And yet I'm completely fascinated that a website of remixing words and images can genuinely make me realize that the Generation Gap has shifted. It's here. It's happened. I'm now on the other side. <sigh>
As people streamed out of the theater, there were murmurs of "what an asshole," but why didn't anyone ask "Do you think he has Aspergers?" or "Perhaps he was so introverted that he's just misunderstood?"
Seriously, "the character of Mark Zuckerberg" is no different than any bright, ambitious, obsessive, entrepreneurial, conceptual web developer who's ever taken a shot at the internet lottery. Those guys are why Silicon Valley is The Core. With exception to the uber-Playboy ways of Larry Ellison and Sean Parker, these are men (and some ladies) who rarely see the sun because they're locked away under fluorescent lighting and glued to a screen. And what's amazing about these fellas is that for as clearly as they see the vision, as equally important are the programmers they hire with that angel investment—because that round of developers works just as hard. It is no myth that the campus culture of the Bay Area is to give employees free food, free gym, free haircuts so that they never leave ... this is the reality of every guy who wants to catch the 3,000lb marlin. And Zuckerberg landed the big fish of the decade.
Much like how "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" was the most somber TV show about a comedy program, Aaron Sorkin's screenplay for "The Social Network" is the least exciting movie about the energy of youth and the call of the digital age. The only redeeming thing about the movie is that the heart of "the Mark Zuckerberg character" is a man more interested in social impact than the money—it's only said in a line or two; however, that is probably why Facebook is the behemoth that it is ... because back in 1995 (the year Netscape went public) that was the promise of the web. And though The Facebook started with exclusivity, it is the equalization that also draws on the initial promises of what was being built back back before the MBAs showed up on their Razor scooters. Many of the dreams of what could be done were about a decade too soon, and so the creation of the Facebook application came about when the bandwidth could handle it and rode alongside to include more and more aspects that are part of our daily culture, such as video. Granted, Facebook will make a ton of money off the data; however, any smart company will and should be making money off the data because that is the reality of how everyone leaves traces and footsteps in the connected age. To think it should be another way, well, it's too late.
But back to the movie ... well-directed, well-acted, and even well-written (albeit dull) is a tale about nothing: bright guy with cranky personality may have stolen an initial idea, got sued, and lost his best friend; however, in reality he still has the same girlfriend that he's had since before he started Facebook. So is this is a tragedy? Because in the end, Zuckerberg is the winner in terms of Living the Dream. Besides, in the land of creativity "does everyone who makes a chair have to pay the guy who first thought of a chair?" Probably not if the chair has been transformed into the La-Z-boy recliner.
So, per my early photographic review based on simple poster hanging on a wall: "Advertised in the Subway—Guaranteed Crap"
Life is short, so cheat on your spouse.
That's a paraphrased (although not that paraphrased!) tagline from Ashley Madison, the online hook-up site for those hopelessly married.
The Google Ad copy offers a straight out promise that you'll get some action, "Have An Affair - Guaranteed - At Ashley Madison. Life Is Short." [Of course, I wish they would've properly used an em-dash around "guaranteed," plus not capped the word <sigh>; however, maybe this just speaks of the level of clientele?] The post-click page title is just as good: "AFFAIRS GUARANTEED - Cheating Partners Have An Affair Married Dating." I guess "cheating partners" and "married dating" are two of highly used search engine terms?
I think having affairs is probably a more realistic take on marriage; however, using a dating website is not. Doesn't that just up-the-ante of allowing cheating to become a dopamine fix that doesn't fix the real problem in the first place? (Think of shoe shopping on Zappos.com: look, try them on, return them.) Most people who cheat don't want a f*ck, they want a connection—the kind that releases all the brain chemicals. And interweb sexuality changes our brain structures so that we need more to feel a release as Norman Doidge outlines in a chapter on web porn in "The Brain that Changes Itself."
Again, I make no judgment on those who cheat as a multi-decade relationship is difficult to conceive; however, now that you know about this site—will you use it?
Neural Pathway: Ya Braniac
What if sexual fetishism is simply about having a poorly paved superhighway in your mind? Even though it's got unsatisfying potholes, you don't want to go another route because it's just not as quick—although perhaps it's more scenic.
Ever since reading Norman Doidge's fantastic book on neuroplasticity, I think about how we put grooves into our brains through repetitive action. Some may call this learning. However, there's a specific chapter about sex and internet porn. The pervasiveness of sexually explicit content to a generation that has grown up on computers has definitively wired their brains differently than Gen-X and above.
This makes me pause and consider the pros/cons of what's different.
On the plus side, per a "Sex in the City"-like discussion amongst some cougars I know, the young bucks spent a lifetime of watching sports reels, and thus are strategically talented ;-)
Negatively, those under 25 are so A.D.D. and used to wanting computer interaction constantly that 1-in-10 will even answer a text while makin' whoopie!
So this brings it back to fetishism because are these youngsters simply wired to answer, even in the moment of hot passion? Does not responding simply distract them completion? Looking back on my Semiotics notes (a class I took with the amazing artist Paul Ryan), fetishism forms as a frozen "impulse-image" between the "affection-image" and the "action-image." In other words, our human, psychological reaction to try and break our originary bonds (class, abuse, addiction, etc.) requires a need to get past the “Impulse-Image.” Think of the movie Dead Ringers and how the twins are the affected world of togetherness that is their orignary world. However, Action-Image in this movie would consist of actually breaking the togetherness of their affected world so that each could have sustainable relationships with others. Yet, the brothers cannot function to get past their affection (instead falling down a steep psychological slope of drugs and violent fetishism of mutilating women) they are caught and stuck in the Impulse-Image.
This means that a solid 10% of a generation of 24/7/365 wired kids are getting stuck in the impulse-image ... sadly, that image isn't naughty, it's just a screen of words and emoticons.
I'm not talking about creating car-bombs—although it clearly confirms that terrorists usually aren't the smartest kids in the room—rather I don't recommend making your own jury-rigged standing work station. Considering my dining table, ottomans, and countless bookshelves, it seemed there was nothing I couldn't do with wood, a drill, some screws, and L-brackets.
A standing desk has been a dream of mine since 1996! Ever since I worked with a super-nerdy tech guy (and that's saying a lot in my line of work!), it seemed to make sense. I hate not moving, and sitting all day always feels confining ... especially in a cubicle pen. So, though it took me 6 hours to finagle into tight corners, get 2" mending plates from no less than three hardware stores, adjust height to accommodate some sitting (on a stool) as that's slightly lower than standing, add shelves below for storage, the end results look great and most people who have been to my house will think the desk was always like this.
The amazing thing about my desired functional furniture is that it's not only getting fans, it's getting motorized with desks that adjust between standing and sitting at the push of button. Plus there's a science behind the madness.
Sadly, my non-adjustable desk requires me to stand in no shoes (not even flip-flops!), but I am so happy to not feel tethered to the computer in the same way. Try it! But I do recommend buying a desk—especially a motorized one—rather than the elegant ramshackle I concocted.
