Hypothetical Life by Walnut Reading

Children waiting for the day they feel good--Happy birthday. Happy birthday. Hello teacher, tell me, whats my lesson? Tears for Fears

I have heard that some Native American tribes possessed matriarchal social structure, where women make the tribes political decisions. Ive similarly heard that Sweden is largely female-dominated in the society and that most companies are headed by female CEOs. In other words, their secondary sexual behaviors favor female sexual selection. These are intriguing facts; but maybe they were rumors that I picked up from a History text and a news article. Perhaps the original question was not worth pursuing. In any case, I thought of the question when I saw the title of my page of notes for this paper, which were lyrics from Dead Disco by Metric: REMODEL EVERYTHING. I then cued up eight songs written by Emily Haines, Metrics front-woman. A particular songI cant recall whichinfluenced me to ponder American/Canadian society and female musicians. I wondered if there couldnt be more female musicians or respected outspoken women in America. And this segued into the question: In what tribes of the world do women enjoy suffrage and societal freedom equal to or greater than in the United States of America? In my school daze I taught myself to think and relate to reality with the use of computer technology, free association, curiosity and a public school education in the 1990s to 2007 in Massachusetts among lower middle class to lower upper class students and families. Since I have been very young, using a computer has been an exciting hobby. My dad was an early adopter, hot for it. Once at a time before kindergarten I found Disney princess pornography accidentally. It didnt interest me as a presexual creature but my dads alarmed reaction was intriguing. Around the same time I was infatuated with a simple platformer computer game and cried when a computer crash erased our data for good. I learned in elementary school from a play-writing program that featured blank text boxes, premade backgrounds, a timeline and computer-synthesized voices with anthropomorphized cartoonanimal actors. I played with the program and experimented with the language of conversation, listening to the computer speak the typed scripts. Through this tool, I imagine, I learned how to meta-cognate1 about language and social interactions. The uncensored, relatively untamed nature of computer technology allows for experimentation and cyber-experiential learning with its simulations. The human-computer interaction begs to be studied with this same spirit. When I took a Masters in Human Computer Interaction I realized that the main problem with the program was that it didn't challenge the students to create a better education for themselves using their computers. The curriculum was taught indirectly. The professors did not attempt to engage the students curiosity but instead only asked them to react to textbook methodology and heuristic advice. Reflecting upon my entire educational experience, and observing the experience of those around me, I started to teach myself. I studied the experience I had throughout my education, read others opinions, and thought on alternatives, similarly drawing upon my brother's experience of public school. My tools were my lifelong partners in crime: networked computers and books.
1

meta-cognate, v. to think about or reflect on ones actions while acting.

I.

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION

Do you use a shovel or does it use you? When you use a shovel, you must think through the shovel, through its network of functions. It can dig, cut, carry, shape, pat, etc. When you use a shovel often and gain experience with it, your brain builds that shovel into its structure in the form of a neural network. In the mind a range of connections form and, with experience, you can become more efficient with or resilient at the activity for which you use the shovel. At the same time, the shape and purpose of the shovel are inherent in its shape; it simply demands to be used in certain ways. With computer technology, programs are the tools of the operating systemstheyre contained within the circuitry, mouse, keyboard and screenand their designs and algorithms call on the user to use certain actions as well. Programmer people designed these tools in a certain way, imagining certain uses for them and shaping them so that they could be used that way. People investigating Human-Computer Interaction call this the procedural rhetoric of the tool. Procedural rhetoric defined succinctly is the persuasion of a tools functions derived from its range of actions. Trends in our culture are conditioned by the technologies we use. One condition is that time is worthless to computer technology; yes, they all have clocks, but they run on events (even when programmed to use timing). Their memory and attentions compared to ours are timeless, but because we are not timeless, we tend to impose our previous ideas of reality upon the new simulated reality, Douglas Rushkoff, Program or be Programmed Computer technology can be thought of as a tool that simulates a realitythat is, it creates a relative reality in which known ideas can be understood and unknown ideas explored. It is both entered physically by viewing, typing and clicking and mentally by accepting the reality and interacting with it. In other words, its like shoveling snow out of your driveway. Time becomes measured by events that progress in a goal or direction, and the shovel becomes an extension of the arms. The driveway seems to get longer, the mind focuses on muscles, the eyes focus on the texture of the snow and the hands feel the weight of the snow. The brain no longer has an accurate awareness of time. Time flies with powder and drags with slush. Playing with a computer operates similarly on the mind. However the tool of interaction, rather than the shovel, creates mathematical reality that one can experiment with at the logical and lingual2 range of the imagination. It is a safe version of realityyou arent going to throw out your back if you use the wrong form. Operations are conducted on the computer and youre by yourself, staring at a screen of polka-dotted pixels. Lambchop, a puppet voiced and acted by Shari Lewis once spoke in Congress. Through Lambchop, she explained her point of view and when the senators spoke they directed their questions directly to Lambchop. Those who program computer simulated programs are just like Shari Lewis with their own Lambchops; they hold control over what you interact with. We learn through the programmers conceit3, experientially. By experiencing a simulation of reality created by another person
2

One can think of language as a fluid system of logic. A definition or grammar operates and fits into a category, that can change and flow in meaning over time. 3 Conceit, noun an extended metaphor with a complex logic that governs a simulated experience. It is used here to describe the programs mediation of meaning for the creator who intends a certain use of the simulation by limiting the range of the computers and participants actions.

(the same as reading a book, right?) we give them a lot of power to shape what experiences we have. This is related and likely identical to giving control of our experiences to our educators, teachers, peers and parents. Either way, other people are dictating what you interact with and they decide whats important to understand and learn. The computer uses different parts of our brains neural networks: those for communication, discourse, sociality and identity, psychology, consciousness, etcmuch the same functions that we use to communicate with other humans. A Human-Computer Interaction theory posited by Clifford Nass and Byron Reeves, formerly employees of Microsoft, reveals that the human mind responds to computer simulation tools in the same way that it does with real people and places. The experiments showed that the subjects expressed politeness and cooperation and attributed personality characteristics to the computers such as aggressiveness, humor, expertise and even gender. The test subjects were experienced adult computer users and insisted in post-interviews that they did not react to the computer socially. The minds suspension of disbelief causes one to converse with a computer as one would a real person or to a place or phenomena. Large, moving objects for example are emphasized to the human mind. A computer device is a communication machine, a programmable liaison with its own personality, personal files and manner of working with information. It can be thought of as a ghost or a living object like R2-D2, thusit relays our will and communications as if it were a human teammate, a slave or a friend depending. Even without artificial intelligence, the computer possesses a kind of intelligence. Just because a human programmed the functions of a computer and built it does not make it any less real or worthy of consideration in the human mind. 4 "The internet is inherently social, (Rushkoff). Facebook, tumblr, twitter, myspace, google+, these companies did not invent social mediathough they did get the mass of people involved. They richly integrated television, music, and other media into social communication between millions of people and pioneered legal sharing. People used the internet in the 1990s to reach out to people all over the world and to join groups and even large communities. In my adolescence, I joined various forums, chat rooms, found my own websites, put up my own websites and submitted my own animations to the newgrounds.com animation community. As f4ceb00k arrived on the college scene and 4ppl3 sold computers to everyone, certain elements of networked social navigation and computer use became standard and locked-in because of social inertia. Competing alternatives to these systems were forgotten. I personally regret the loss of certain weird and delightful parts of the internet: anonymity, chat rooms, direct connections. It was the erasure of visual, physical, vocal information sensed by face-to-face interaction5. To me it was a globalized space where every individual got his say in his own terms, his own context, on his own computer. We can communicate without the traditional necessity of time, of day and night. At the same
4

Although we in America often treat animals, plants, etc. as second-class organisms just because they are not human, and so do not have the same kind of consciousness. So even asserting that the social interaction between humans and computers is positively organic does not mean that people will suddenly regard them as equal entities. In fact most American science fictions (Asimov) describe us as slave-masters to even futuristic, hyperadvanced, and recursively intelligent machines. 5 I can / Accept responsibility, for what I've done / But not for who I am. NOFX, Dont Call me White

time it makes us feel like we must communicate and design things to be as efficient and speedy as we can, so at times we dont pay enough attention or deliberate on our activities and end up being less efficient, high off the speed but with less depth to show for it,Douglas Rushkoffi These new social media companies began to convert common face-to-face interactions into an internet environment. This pulls up the threads of traditional communication with those physically promixal. In middle school I used the internet to speak with my friends at night through AOL instant messenger. We directly connected to each others IP and could send almost any type of file. We could stylize and format our text to create linguistic meaning6. Our chat transcripts were saved locally on our computers and could be actively referenced. I would chat about many topics simultaneously and in depth for hours with friends while surfing the web. From this style of communication I learned to say exactly what I felt and to take time before answering someonethat is the advantage over physical presence. In 2012, social existence in physical communities is mediated by digital connection7. If someone isnt savvy with these communication tools, this lack of ability constrains hys face-to-face social abilities as well. Few folks I want to chat with use AOL instant messenger and the only popular messenger service is Skype8. I am connected to close friends on facebook and twitter, but only in the context of their model of social environment. Alternative social networks are usually clunky and separate from what friends use. Additionally I often must connect with those I dont care about hearing from online because the faux pas of declining them digitally is often alienating. One can only easily connect to those in their town or school, or those they learn the name of. Most people in the world operate in the same constraint, because these are programs that everyone socializes in. The early internet was ebullient and wild but had its own issues. The most important function of social globalization is absent and underused in todays digital world. Communication was constrained because various parties were concerned about pedophilia, pornography, drug trafficking and organized crime. Often the logical fallacy, think of the children, rationalized and justified certain fears and desires. Fear and desire are understandableA fully globalized social atmosphere could easily create social upheaval and perhaps would change the global economic and political atmosphere. Companies, legislators and politicians may seem to have an invested interest in limiting this simulated freedom to keep their jobs. I think that the internet can be a freeing tool not just for individuals but for communities, businesses and civic process. It allows the owners of companies to directly interact with customers. It is not merely a social simulation. The computer, the internetworks can allow a social experiment to gain rapid response and feedback, in a categorical and mathematically represented way.

II.
6

VESTIGIAL ILLUSION, VESTIGIAL TRADITION

When Im talking to someone who is typing in All Caps and with red text and a black background I react to them very differently than if theyre using cursive font and black text on robins egg blue. And it especially illustrates a persons character for me to see what names they choose and what format they select. 7 This of course excludes those that cannot or do not want to afford internet technology. This includes our inner cities (the ghetto) and many other impoverished groups. Something like 60-80% of Americans have Internet access, but something like only 30-40% of the world population have access. 8 Which also is designed to prefer video communication and largely ignores the nuance of typed communication.

On the left side a parking attendant sleeps selling space and time they have grasped the concept of property Rob Crow How are our social communities simulated, and Why? If kids play Cops + Robbers or War Games, what indirect learning do they receive? Well, its not at all clear. But, in play, we learn how the right actions feelif I am playing at being an angelic Cop, and my perspective is that all Robbers are demons, then it feels right to catch the Robber and jail him. Of course, thats a heavy-handed way to see the interaction, and typically the kid isnt going to take his moral reasoning from a game of Cops + Robbers. At the same time, ours and other human cultures use belief in everyday life and storytelling to teach about common experiences and important concepts. We learn Shakespeare perhaps to learn about societys idea of love, Owen Meany perhaps to learn about social complexity and morality. Much of our traditional storytelling teaches manners and social skills to advance in a modern urban environment. So, who decides what is taught? Who decides what is important?Certainly not any one person or company or government but a whole system of social interaction. But, in the relief of computer technology against our previous methods of gaining knowledge and socializing a lot of questions have arisen in my mind about the important concepts and common experiences that others have provided for me. I ask myself, Is this really how reality is, or is it just a metaphorical story told as the truth? In other words, if we can simulate any reality on the computer, who is to say that our *real* reality is not just another simulation? The advent of computer tools brought with it also a boom in communication, a penetratingly interdependent communication system between *common* citizens (commoners, plebeians, bourgeoisie?) of the world. This has strengthened and exponentially spread the exchanges between cultures. When I was young I would join chat rooms and speak with people from England or play video games with children in South America. I could talk to adults since my age was measured only by how I communicated with others. This is globalization (except with skype, etc, of course). We need to experiment with our illusions in a cosmopolitan world of conjoined culture. We must see in what ways we are wrong, or entranced by illusions. A global internet culture can allow this if we experiment with its possibilities. If you intend to exist in a globalized world and especially if you plan to do our business in it, you must be sensitive to it. It would be foolish to assume an imperialistic perspective that causes you to overlook your own weaknesses. Any given human society has adapted to its environment and is overwhelmingly complex in its interactions. In order to understand other societies our networks and communities must be interdisciplinary and draw upon many sources. The internet makes this type of interaction elementary. Social interaction cannot only be the indoctrination of tradition, but also the integration of revolution if it hopes to function in changing globalized circumstances. I cant say I have the definite answers. I am writing this to suggest that you experiment with illusions. Like true scientists, that we be skeptical even about the foundational scientific method, our daily lifes, down to the trivia of daily life, tooth brushing. Theres a phrase that I personally like, Our

daily routines often perpetuate most of our daily tyrannies. In high school, we had a lunch period during our fourth class. Each lunch period was twenty minutes long; we could bring our own lunch or pay for it. The school used mainly frozen foods from mass producers and cheap ingredients. Now, it could be argued that this system is to reduce the amount of socializing and to focus the school day on learning or to let the students out early. You could also argue that it is too short and encourages abnormal dietary habits. Either way, it is a hold-over from our WWII system. At the time we needed to conserve food to ship much of it to war. We preserved food to allow it to last over long journeys or storage. Why do we have summer vacation? before WWII, many students lived on farms and had to go home in the summer for the harvests. Why does vestigial tradition control our educational structure? The pain of past centuries lingers in our animations, our automations and our traditions. After his administrations presidency, Eisenhower expounded on the permanent armaments industry created during WWII, an institution that he understood inside and out first as General then as President. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations, (Eisenhower). That was in 1961. Today in 2012, our military security is at an all-time highthat is, higher than in WWII or during the Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand invasions of the 70s. The documentary by This American Life, Why We Fightii points out some interesting knowledge about our defense industries. A certain war plane manufacturer has a different part of each plane made in every U.S. American state, so that every representative has it in his best interests to protect the security industry. But instead of creating students who are curious and understanding, who try to achieve consensus and develop useful discussion, it often facilitates apathy, alienation, confusion, and conformity in the labor-bound kiddies and even in even the most dynamic students, even the most intelligent or original. Our economy is tied into war and politics, and our education falls prey to sustaining this system and teaching a national identity that agrees with its representative industry. I could spend a whole paper trying to disconnect the dotsthe ideas that the media, companies and public education, the publicized side of the scientific community, politicians or government officials describe as the truth are simulated recreations, relative realities. Thats not the object of this paper, though I have tried to do this in my previous researchiii. The point is that these illusions are ours. We may live up to them and fulfill them or cast them aside and innovate outside their sphere of influence. Illusions and metaphors can be played around with, experimented with. Some think this is how it is, or think they cant change anything in government. They believe published science pursues truth and knowledge instead of theory and research grants, or that mass-published content is the content that makes the most money. Some believe American wars are for political ideals or that our political system practices those ideals or that we deserve to take from the Earth and other peoples whatever we want. I mean, thats fine, its an in-group justice for just-us, a safe way of thinking. People seem complicit and complacent in trusting others illusions in order to carry on

HeyI think we can change things! Network technology as a tool has made it possible for any human to program his social existence for himself. Its can be a democratic device, allowing people to spontaneously form organization where needed, to conduct and comment on our communities, to share ideas and music and whatever with friends or enemies who may be on the other side of the goddamn world. Its a unique language, fluid, resilient and self-organizing, which can allow a revision of culture new energy and power is given to those who can speak it. It may also grant total power to a technocracy, a new group of people thinking they deserve the right to make decisions for us all.9 But that is the power of simulation technology, experimentation and revisionwe can always scrap models that dont work and try something new. Our government is supposed to derive its power from our consent and participation, but civics classes arent even taught anymore. People in my generation seem as apathetic about politics and its effects as they can possibly be. The tyranny of the rich reigns. Normal people, seem to focus on friends and family, on getting by comfortably. This is peculiar because in America, the divorce rate is 50% and friends typically split apart after high school. The rest of American life seems clouded, formless or towering and intractable. I know very few people who trust that voting is worthwhile or actually vote. How do we teach apathetic citizens? How do they make sense of this carnival of illusions? How can we give them agency, levelheadedness, or more importantly, help them trust in the communities they live in as well as themselves? Most importantly, how can we raise a society of people that can make decisions together and take responsibility for their freedom?

III.

EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE

Tycoons, businessmen, actors and millionaires run for president. We live in a society where money, competition, cunning, and power, even ruthlessness is equated with opportunity, justice, morality and individual freedom. We are who we are. We shouldnt be ashamed, cover up, or deceive ourselves. Breaking illusions is a power that can give you agency to change whats directly around you. Strong communities dont need to heed the federal government, especially if it is not representing all of the communitys constituents. Thats okay. It is. My teacher in my English composition in eighth grade, she said that one cannot experiment with the grammar rules without understanding why they are used. I think this is true for American life as well. Our teachers and administrators should experiment with their own power; one school board in America cannot know the needs of every location in America. They do not have the same needs, no matter how deep our sense of American ethnicity runseven that is a story, an illusion we keep to feel like a country together. How do you know any given problem is not merely a symptom of an encompassing problem? Emily Haines sang, REMODEL EVERYTHING, but no One Person can do this. Certainly not with one President or one Senate, nor one School Board ruling over everyone. Our celebrity culture, including public politics, is a patchwork of allegiances and interpretations stitched together under one banner.

Its important to realize that any new system, no matter how sparkling and idealistic, can be intractable and oppressive once it becomes locked in. Any system should be able to dynamically revise itself and give voice to all perspectives, because if nothing else we know that everything changes, everything flows. No one perspective should have the right to dictate everyones life absolutely, no matter how intelligent, confident, charming.

Some people listen to lyrics, some to instruments, some listen to what others listen to, some force on others their tastes.

At least 60% of Americans have access to computer technology, information technology, and the tools of simulated reality. In this reality, any experiment is possible within the realm of human imaginationjust like mathematics, art, etc, interdisciplinary especially. Experimentation on the individual level, or the neighborhood level, the community level is SO important. They say a person can only socially conceptualize around 200 people. Because we have computer technology, one can sample all sorts of different sources to create a good foundation and reduce provincialism. But theres the danger of not understanding people deeply enough if we simply chat online. What can one person really grasp and affect? Dynamic, understanding, knowledge-seeking individualshow do they arise? Are they born or do they learn to act? What if we are in groups of 20, who meet together in groups of 200? A group of 20 can easily establish social dynamics and rapport. 200 individuals can work out issues and pursue objectives while paying attention to their ecosystems and neighbors. Active citizens make sure their interests and ethics are addressed. The community and the individual lose out when one keeps their thoughts to themselves. You must make sure that if someone deigns to represent you, you can talk to them when you need to. Perhaps there could be electorates based on neighborhoods or blocks, or digital forum communities. One of the main problems with education as I see it is apathy and lack of interest in communication from both students and teachers. Its prevalence stems from Generational disconnect; again a vestige of WWII. It is prevalent because students and teachers dont often treat each other as equals. They come from different backgrounds, have different histories, and have Things to teach each other about their own social environments and personal perceptions. This is fertile ground for mutual dependence. When the older generation becomes too condescending, looking through students and indoctrinating them for tests rather than learning about them; or if the younger generation disregards the experience and wisdom of the older generation, this can cause alienation and conformist deference. This is exacerbated in a globalized climate where all information and instruction told through language is interpreted through globalized network of information and designation of ideas. If teachers wish to connect with students, they must learn alongside them and become facilitators of student success. Authoritarian commanders of certain material might realize that the student understand something different when material is forced upon them. Internet and computer consciousness are favored by the ability to self-moderate and to connect disparate ideas, as well as to breed empathy and honest criticism. Teachers might do well to teach experientially and learn about their students actively to save time and shape the learning experience to be efficient and resilient. Students might learn actively through the interface of their teachers, the simulations of the ghost computers, and their own independent experimentationactually let people learn what they want to. There are two things educators might consider instilling in their students if they intend to follow the educational traditions, I called them vestigial or left over, which still hold a history of importance and weight if understood in context. One is How to Think critically about anothers thinking (meta-

cognition/empathy). Two is How to Revolt against predefined conceptions and world-views (freedom/criticism). The beauty of the internet is, we can choose beyond physical and social cues which ideas to agree with. What a computer provides one with is another world, a perceptually relative10 simulated reality. Computers connect people to other people with different mindsets all over the world or all over their neighborhood and enable them to interact without physical presence. What we choose to represent controls how we communicate: if we talk in text versus pictures, we will say different things and represent our thoughts in different ways. If we dare to interact with others in a global world, we must learn to understand people of any culture, and to make our differences into an understanding of connections and interdependence of ecosystems, gargantuan or microscopic, but hopefully by adjusting social parameters and contorting tradition educators can make our social communities more meaningful and functional to us. We need to remember that meaning is relative in a global world. DISCLAIMER: Please recognize that this is a reaction against my own illusions, that my rebellion against this illusion/reality is a manipulation if taken as truth, but what Im saying is almost as much of an illusion or myth, so it must only be taken as it strikes you. Pick and choose and experiment with the ideas, but reality in this paper is only in my experience. One must draw from his environment and experience to make any solid claims, though he doeth well to back it up with thinking from around the world and through its fiery core, into its watery coves and outside its spacey stratosphere. It is only in my experience that any of this is the truth and only in my imagination a true grounds for experimentation in society. But as my anarcho-democratic idealist professor, Bill Puka says, Ethics is idealism. I want to think about how our country can be better to experiment with what I can do and find solutions to what I perceive as problems. I want to secondarily push you and your ideas and help you to resolve dissonances, pains and sufferings that you may well share with me. But, I am dead as I write this so dont give me credit because its only you that can do anything to make this a critical memory or an active practice.

10

Perceptual Relativity, proper noun. defined by Stanley Elmon Dickie as the experience of understanding others that have had different experiences and so perceive the world relative to those experiences, which were perhaps dissimilar from ones own experience and therefore are different from ones own perception.

iv

Appendix I Psychology of Ethical Society:

the communication challenges that authoritarianism, conformity, fMRI research, politeness, negativity and team-making pose for ethical society.

Because there are hundreds of billions of people in the world, there are hundreds of billions of complications for an ethical society. There are 200 psychological double-binds per 200 people, 20 hurdles per 20 people, 5 per 5. There are the roadblocks of apathy, jealousy, drug use, fictive ethnicity, disagreement, biased logics, emotional investment, etc. Authoritarianism causes some to conform, some to believe anything and others dwell on their alienation in negative brooding. The English, our social ancestors, in their quaint, polite, quiet desperation. Teams created by donkeys and elephants Investigated here are negativity, politeness, and team-work, authoritarianism, conformity and fMRIs related to human-computer interaction theory. One way around this is dealing with the philosophy on a personal level, and applying it to ones immediate social group. Computer simulation technologies could improve the chances of that social group being more various, but our main social organization tools (such as Facebook) tend to root us to geographical location and protect against global influence. The Media Equation published by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nash concluded that people respond to media simulations (television, computers, phones) as they would either to another person or to places and phenomena in the physical world depending on the cues they receive from the simulation. People seemed to respond the same to television as they did complex media technology like computers. People would assign it a personality, pay attention to it, and even assess its personality. They claims that what seems to people to be true is more influential than objective reality; people are

more concerned with the interpretation of cues or messages they receive rather than the intentions and underlying messages behind them. Haven't you offered up some part of your Self to someone (or something), and taken on a "narrative" in return? Haven't we entrusted some part of our personality to some greater System or Order? And if so, has not that System at some stage demanded of us some kind of "insanity"? Is the narrative you now possess really and truly your own? Are your dreams really your own dreams? Might not they be someone else's visions that could sooner or later turn into nightmares? Authoritarianism The issue with authoritarianism is that some people will be ruthless and controlling. People will stubbornly stand up for ideologies and prejudices because they have learned this is right and believe there is time wasted in arguing about it. Maybe they cannot or prefer not to empathize with other points of view, and would prefer that their method of action is chosen over others, and they may want to implicate others in these judgments. This is a problem for anarchism which hopes for voluntary cooperation, and law creation because of usefulness and mutual choice. There is also a conflict with the anarchist ideal of justice, which would make sure that each individual holds equal mutual respect balanced with liberty. People cant always know what others want and often if they do they will conform unless they have a strong objection, and sometimes even if they do. How can people leverage authoritarianism when thinking about creating anarchist organization? One important thing to note about authoritarian tendencies is that they are often linked with feelings of pride or shame at not being assertive. They can also help speed up processes that some might lose interest in if they drag on for too long, they can organize people well, motivate them out of apathy and laziness. They may be more accountable for their actions because everyone will remember listening to them. They are clear and decisive. They just need a balancing force, realize that this is part of their personality. It is perhaps part of their nature to act authoritarian; perhaps their social role will shift depending on what people they are in a community with. Something in education that may help with the temperance of authoritarianism is service learning; it appeals to the students pride. It may also encourage humility, because the people they go to help need them to be authoritarian and take charge of some aspect of their carebe it conversation or feeding. More studies that have a say on the perils of anarchism: The War Game study, where people were in charge of a fake army and told they are the general; no matter what they did, they were told how many soliders they lost. They were never allowed to win in the game. One of the kids flipped and got angry, scapegoating one race of his plastic pieces: the valley people. The hill people he saw as his only hope to win. This doesnt necessary have implications on anarchism but it is easy to see that people can create a narrative and act on it, especially if they are given the power of being leader. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, because it is just the illusion of power. The Zimbardo study, where there were assigned guards and prisoners. Their personalities changed when given a role, though this was an experimental design that could be associated with the

fabrication of plays and characters and roleplaying. People took away from it that people will conform to certain roles easily and act outside their typical personalities, and that the authoritarian mindset is crippling to egalitarian possiblities. However there were problems with the study such as sampling bias of students with the same socio-economic status, intellect and region. Conformity The issue with conformity is that people will not assert themselves easily. It is easier for them in life to agree with others. Perhaps it doesnt bother them or they would feel alienated if they tried to go against what others want. People will be kind to the point where they deceive themselves and override things that bother them or let go things they wanted to pursue, a nightmare of kindness. People will also conform to meanings of words: for example the typical conception of anarchism is that it encourages every man for himself, which is untrue because the main tenants emphasize the social relationship as the foundation for anarchism. The problem for anarchism that conformity poses relates to politeness as well as team-dynamics and negativity. The conformist wishes people to be happy, and has himself ascribed his happiness to conformity with what makes others happy. When a few are dissatisfied, they may empathize but in their nature they prefer not to uproot something. Uprooted society is always uncomfortable and creates alienation and unhappiness. The conformist may feel sympathy for pride and convalescence for shame or embarrassment, wanting to help smooth over problems. How can people leverage conformity when thinking about creating anarchist organization? Conformity can be linked to feelings of insecurity, but also to consensus-seeking and understanding. Some people are happy when other people are happy. This is also a normal trait and occurs depending on the social context. It would create a very paranoid society if everyone was only happy when they thought their own interests were being met, or if they thought everyone else totally understood their desires and granted it to them interdependently. Its too hard to tell in the first place. Something that may assist in educating the conformist folks would be Model UN, giving them the role of someone who can make decisions on behalf of a whole country. Service learning would be useful here too, especially in Soldiers Homes for veterans that are full of disillusioned, alienated exveterans with physical deformities, etc. They might be assertive in different situations that are not the classroom, so a mix of activities mentally physical could produce a more balanced citizenry. Additional issues: According to the Neurobiological Correlation of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation study, the social setting of an individual alters their perception of the world. The patients rotated objects to decide if they were similar; they were presented with four peoples responses and half of them gave wrong answers. The second round of this, the actors were replaced by computers. The results were that the occipital and parietal lobes were activated during conformity and the amygdala and caudate during nonconformist stress. The amygdala is the seat of aggression in animals and so might be considered what many imperialist cultures see as backwards or primitive. What the experiment showed was people react to their perception of things rather than truth of things. What they eat, hear, look at, observe, talk about, and experience alters their perception and creates variables that are quite complex. Their judgments reflect their perceptions. Perceptions are

influenced by categorization and social class, and even active willful choice (selective hearing). This is a challenge to anarchism perhaps because people will not check their perceptions or reevaluate them. This could change if she encounters a negative stimulus that bothers her or if she is struck in a very positive stimulus that impresses her. What else presents a problem for anarchism is group dynamics of conformity. (1) A group of individuals is more likely to make a better decision than any one person alone. (2) Superiority of a group disappears when individuals can influence each other. (3) Individuals may capitulate to a group when its uncomfortable to stand alone. Additionally the Ash experiment of conformity and post-interviews showed that the patients rationalized their conformity and misattributed reasons for it. There is an element of self-deception, shame, etc. However this could be countered with the idea that it was because they felt they were answering an authority and felt bad for lying to the researchers, their polite conformity could have been perceived as harming the mutual hopes for human resistance to pointless conformity. Another thing, the topic at hand was pretty meaningless, agreeing on the length of lines is pretty trivial. Biases which might have affected this study were the branding of answers for questions wrong. When youre in a group of people outside a lab, there arent often wrong answers. It takes some individual to see that some peoples ignorant answers may still be related to the right answer and it takes authoritarian personalities and tact and politeness and teamwork to work these things out and to make sure weak voices are drawn out or secretly listened to. fMRIs Its too hard to tell in the first place. According to Bill Puka, the man who invented fMRIs says himself after decades of self-monitoring and investigation of the print outs that his machine makes, that they are not statistically significant and that the readings made from them are confused. The research done that uses the technology to investigate its claims is based on speculation. So many parts of the brain act in simultaneous effect, and the mechanics of dumping signals and reuptaking them are vague and may confuse and bias a lot of data. Additionally, the machine The problem with fMRI is that people believe what they perceive to be true. These perceptions are crafted by others opinions, and so include the problems of authoritarianism and conformity. This is alarming because many of our psychological and human understandings of ourselves may be based on false customs. The fact that I dont know enough about the machine to distinguish the truth of the story is compromising to anarchism. He seems to have the credibility to make the claim, but how can I know? I may just be conforming to his authoritarianism of information. Who and what to believe? If I keep an open mind and believe everything I hear about psychology, I may be misled. If I dismiss what I hear, I may be misled by my own confidence. At the same time, there is the coercive power of authority in having an authority in anything, especially where you cant evaluate the validity face-to-face with the person making the claim, which can create a fake consensus. Perhaps the fMRI psychologist knows the machine isnt that valid but is just using it in a way he decided to interpret it, and the construction seems to work out for him. When I receive his paper on whatever study he conducted, how am I know to know how he is interpreting his results or why without knowing him personally and personally asking him about all of his work. In person, would I be able to

discern this any better? To avoid being exploited, would everyone have to drink truth serum all the time? Intermission We can anticipate problems with anarchism, since at heart it is unregulated. We should be critical of pure anarchism (as it hopes to be) and temper it with built-in failure, adding democratic bumpers to ensure ethical egalitarianism. For example, the democratic constraints at Occupy Wall St really helped the anarchistic process to flourish. There were stack-leaders whom acted semiauthoritarian: they regulated the order in which people talked, and reminded people of the topic at hand, and made sure things were decided in a timely matter. The people acted semi-conformist: they allowed others to have their turn to speak and complete their thoughts before responding and they repeated what the others said with the Peoples Mic, they only decided on matters people could come to a consensus on, effectively riding the wave of conformity. If folks realize their psychological limitations, they can use them to advantage by understanding how they work. Politeness Being polite is an automatic response in most interpersonal interactions. Often, when people ask a question about themselves, most people will give a positive response even if it may be a dishonest answer, to avoid hurting the other persons feelings. Were taught to be polite from an early age; that we should share everything and that we should avoid hurting others feelings. I dont really recall people following this rule into middle school, but its seems important for people the age of Reeves and Nash, or perhaps it was important in their childhoods. In any case, their study asserted that when the same question is asked by someone or something else, the evaluation of the first was more negative or more detailed. Not answering to someones positively-expressed opinion puts you at odds with them and its considered impolite. People are even polite to computers that ask about their own performance or helpfulness compared to an external evaluation on a different computer or with pencil and paper. The implications of politeness for anarchism are that people are conditioned not to ruffle others feathers so that they get along. They wont mention it if they feel alienated, but perhaps theyll form in-groups based on alienation. In our anarchism class, the group that walked, the group that felt alienated from book-learning about anarchism, quietly separated and politely tried asking the rest of the class to consider experiential learning and active participation to learn about anarchism. When that didnt work, they also politely dispersed, never to separate themselves from the class again, even if they kept some of the same feelings about how the class should be run. It may have taken an authoritarian anarchism teacher to seize the opportunity the outer group presented, to show the rest of the class that even authoritarian structures can be dynamic and assist in catalyzing anarchism. People are more comfortable being honest and impolite when they know people personally. Getting to know the names and personalities of even a small group takes time and it forms a delicate balance if allowed to run its course, and is assisted by mutual respect. Negativity

Evaluations of good and bad are important but are not the same; negative experiences tend to dominate. In other words, people tend to dwell on the negative more than the positive, (Reeves and Nash). People will react more strongly to differences and cognitive dissonances, and will tend to pursue lines of experience that agree with them more strongly. Google algorithms change their results based on what the searcher is looking for. If people look up things that give them a negative experience, what they find when they search for information will cause them more often to diverge with others than find interconnections. This is a quite automatic reaction, Additionally, negative images retroactively inhibit memory for material that precedes them, while they proactively enhance memory for material that follows them, (Newhagen & Reeves, 1992). Half the patients were shown negative images and half were not; both groups saw a 20 minute news report and an additional 10 minute video. They were instructed to pay attention because they would be tested afterwards. 6-7 weeks later, a follow up survey was sent to measure recall of the news video. Those who viewed the negative images better remembered the second half of the newscast. This study also showed that media experiences are reacted to in the same way as natural experiences. This can be difficult for anarchism. People will listen to those that make them think or dwell upon an idea. When Bill OReiley speaks, he uses these tactics, he makes an emotional appeal to convince people out of their logic, or a false-syllogismic logic to convince from ethical thinking and a bad temper to defeat the emotional appeals of others (if he argued ethics, he would not be so angry?). In my college years, it has been pretty common for me to brood over different negative social experiences for far longer than the positive ones, due to jealously, shame or guilt, errors and trivia. It typically results in pursuing some truth behind it, in order to reach a catharsis; and mainly this is a personal motivation. What do we do about them? Well we can focus on common problems, on common experiences, and put them at the other side of the table. When people try to gain independent catharsis, they tend to diverge and perhaps to make a joke of the other side, or to dismiss it somehow or disable it. A human on the other side would be dehumanized to dismiss or disable, or simply joke about their misgivingsit would be wise to dehumanize and deconstruct only actions, which are just memories anyways, and point their energy toward cooperative solutions or decentralization. Some potential biases of this study are that the subjects were instructed to pay attention to the media. This is an additional social reaction affecting the data, because the folks running the experiment had the weight of authority. The patients might easily only take negative issue with things based on what they thought the experimenters wanted from them, to deeply investigate the reality of the television news stories. This is related to anarchism because there is a single authority, an expert that isnt explaining the ideas behind the experiment to the people or testing it on people who are aware of the idea of negativity. I seem to avoid or forget negative experiences when I cant seem to find catharsis in them. The form and function of poetry, and storytelling and honest discussion is to put problems opposite all people. If you find fault with a person, it creates irresolvable dissonance. If you find fault with ideas and consider peoples feelings, this small feign at tact can provide more convincing, offhand dissonance that is not punishing and not impossibly criticalthey may appreciate and see ways that their point of view point can connect with others points of viewpoints. People are able to do so more easily if they directly know the people involved. Again, a smaller community block significantly improves

the chances of anarchistic organizations to crystallize. To treat an example from a discussion of Anarchy with Bill Pukas class Anarchism: an ethical society; we were discussing the idea of evolution. An argument arose that involved evolutionary theory and applied it to social/anthropological theory. Bill reminded us that no argument that tries to apply evolutionary theory to anything but populations, defined by entire species and implicated to timespans of geological eons, is invalid as science because no one can really know, not to mention the entire argument being purely metaphorical, a story to lay our opinions and imaginings across. People will keep on believing the folk understanding of evolution though, because stories stick, they seem true because people identify their experiences with stories. The stories and metaphors we use should be chosen carefully not to betray an opinion which may be easily misinterpreted but instead inspire a negativity that causes the patient to consider the experience they had with the story and apply it to their thinking. Teammates I shouldve known better than to cheat a friend And waste a chance that Id been given George Michael Members of a team think they are more similar to each other than people on the outside. For a group to become a team the members must identify with each other and exhibit some degree of interdependence on each otheridentification and interdependence. Patients in this experiment were assigned to one of two conditions. In one a blue sticker was put on the computer and a blue wristband on the human using the computer, in the other the person used the computer with no intentional identifying mark. They participated in a Desert Survival game in which the player ranks importance of items to bring into the desert; first they would do it alone, then with a computer that had either the same color or no color. The computer would make suggestions to the player. They found that patients that worked with the computer as their teammate were more likely to change their behavior and conform to the group ideal. This can be an issue for anarchism, because it means that even scripted text that makes suggestions for an experiment can be personalized and interpreted even when the communication isnt active, but simulated by computer and accessed by memory. Further, this identification calls upon the person to change his judgments according to that source, to create interdependence in decision-making. Team making could also be beneficial to anarchism because people in direct contact and their goals tied together, even through a computer, will try to achieve common goals. This is similar to the idea of medieval guilds, which are similar to guilds in popular internet massively multiplayer games or even fraternities on campus; even very different people reach a mutual understanding by mutual agreement to be bonded by mutual honor, loyalty and honesty. At the same time the new problem arises: in-group/out-group formation. The team formed may have internal alliegance and strong inter-understanding, but they will oppose themselves to dissimilar groups. If these small guilds or teams are proximal or deal often with an opposing team, perhaps they wont be honest with each other or theyll cheat each other or be disloyal or unwilling to compromise. And even putting everyone on the same team, like in the same nationality, doesnt really work because then people will say that your disagreement with them means that you have no allegiance to the

country/team. The team is too large to work out as it stands. Does a split or fracture mean the people will never get along? No, perhaps they will just carry out the things they are personally interested in. A potential bias of this experiment could be being ignorant of the difference between helpful suggestions and dropped suggestions. It doesnt have a metric for testing if the people change their answers to the list because the computer makes good suggestions, they are focused on if they are acting as a team and perhaps fulfilling their own prophecies. Also, perhaps the researchers feel like they are in a team together and perhaps theyre covering up parts of their research of interpreting their findings in terms of what the in-group deems salient and in mutual identification, perhaps they are changing their published results in terms of some private understanding. It may be a generalization because teams come in vastly different costumes aside from colored indicators of relationship. Human to human interaction is built on many different understandings, alliances and connections that are typically emotional, functional, or traditional. Mediated by the computer, it may well be that the computer acts as a separate surrogate that is reacted to in its own context, but there isnt a lot of give and take, as far as the reaction range potential between humans. The Kicker of Elves These studies all showed some challenge or tool for the creation of an ethical society. The conclusions of the experiments were drawn about events that occurred even though the experiments themselves are simulated reality. The Zimbardo experiment was basically a screen-written play, and the students knew they were in an experiment from the beginning, but they got into taking the experiment as seriously as if they were in real life. One of the guards This actually presents an important problem for ethical society: people respond to simulated reality the same way they might react to real life, based on their perceptions.
i

Douglas Rushkoff is a prolific new media and socio-political writer. He has written a handful of accessible books about Internet and American society and function: Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commandments for a Digital Age, Life Incorporated: How the World Became A Corporation and How to take it Back, Open Source Democracy: Political Structures Need to Change. ii This American Life Why We Fight transcript *here] iii Consciousness and Technology in Applied Remix Philosophy, Cybershamanism, Participatory Play Design and Experiential Learning Simulations upon request.
iv

Appendix Links + Bibiolography >Ash, Zimbardo >Reeves + Nass, The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places >http://pubpages.unh.edu/~ckb/SELFMON2.html >http://www.humanityonline.com/Docs/the%20media%20equation.pdf >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Media_Equation >http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.89.1217 >http://www.agentabuse.org/bartneck.pdf