TED Talk 4

Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world

Clay Shirky is a writer, lecturer, and consultant on the effects socially and economically of Internet technologies. He is mostly known for his writing, such as his columns and writings in several newspapers. He addresses how technological and social networks shape culture, and how culture shapes our networks. In a book by Chris Anderson, he is called, "a prominent thinker on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies." In his own words: "I study the effects of the internet on society." Clay Shirky is obviously very knowledgeable about technology and its effects.

That knowledge is very apparent after watching his TED talk about cognitive surplus. Clay Shirky defines "cognitive surplus" as the, "ability of the world's population to contribute and volunteer on large and global projects." He gave two main examples of this principle. The first was a website called Ushahidi, which was the result of an Egyptian lawyer's blog about the effects of a heated presidential election. There were too many comments on her blog, so two programmers created a site that combined all the reports and put them onto a map. This tool has now gone global, and has been used for many other purposes, such as tracking snow and the earthquake in Haiti. The other example was Lolcats. Even though it seems like a stupid invention, it is still an invention. The creator has put something out there, and can now build off that and improve off of it. Both of these need two basic ideas: human generosity, and modern tools. He gave a stunning statistic that the world has one trillion free hours to commit to world projects. Even still, it would not be possible without digital technology and the media landscape that is now available in the 21st century. He addresses the fact that we want to get the serious substance, such as Ushahidi, without getting the throwaway substance, like Lolcats; however, media surplus never works that way. The freedom to experiment means the freedom to experiment, and that gives anyone a chance. We as humans like to create, and we like to share. That comes from ancient motivation. The common thread for both of these creations is their source: generosity. If people were not willing to communicate and share ideas, nothing would be possible like this. Then Clay Shirky talks about how even though cognitive surplus is becoming more of a trend in this century, that it is interesting what social science has found about how intrinsic motivation is the greatest driving force. He gives an example about how when daycares put a fine on the parents for late pickup, more of them came late. This is because they got the message that the whole debt to the teachers was repaid in that fine. Before the fine, they had a more generous culture, because the parents felt more guilt and cultural concern that they didn't when they paid a fine. Social constraints were more of a motivation than contractual restraints. Then Shirky goes on to explain the difference between Lolcats and Ushahidi. Lolcats is communal, meaning that it is created by the participants for each other, to make their own lives better. In contrast, Ushahidi is civic, meaning that it is created by participants, but enjoyed by society as a whole. It makes the entire society a better place. The point Clay Shirky was trying to make was that while cracking each other up, we can also use cognitive surplus to change the world with its civic value.

This TED talk was very hard for me to watch. It was very in depth, and it took me a couple times of watching it to get at the point he was trying to make. Now I understand his reasoning, and I agree with it, for the most part. I can see that he is very knowledgable about technology and its effects, and so I took most of what he said very seriously. I really believe in the idea of cognitive surplus, and in the power of the world population working together on one project. Many minds work together better than just one or a few. It brought to mind the example that was used about whether a dictionary produced by Microsoft or one produced by many ordinary people collaborating would become more used and influential. A few years later, it turned out that the one made by many people together became a very popular and used resource: Wikipedia. I feel like it is more beneficial to have more ideas, more minds, and more resources. I think that cognitive surplus is very true, and it definitely is becoming a much bigger idea in this era. It is becoming a great tool. However, I also feel that it could be used for bad. Just like any type of technology, there are pros and cons, and people can use it for good or bad. It could be used for an unworthy cause, which, like Clay Shirky addressed, is just a part of having the freedom to experiment. It was a little hard for me to believe that there are a trillion hours of free time in the world, because I know that people do not all have the tools to contribute, or they need to use that time for a different, maybe even a more important, cause. Later on in the talk, when he talked about the daycare center, I feel like the data was definitely accurate, but I also think that there would have been different results if they had tested with a more emotional motivation. Maybe if one of the teachers of the kids started crying, or if they wouldn't talk to the parents or something more emotionally tied, that there would have been very interesting results. Even though it is not contractual restraint, it is still extrinsic motivation. It would be interesting to test the results on other consequences. I definitely believe the statistics that he relayed about the daycare though. It ties back to Dan Pink and A Whole New Mind, with the intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, and how much better results occur with intrinsic motivation, because people do it because the want to. It reminds me of the example that the two scientists did with the monkeys and the people with the different puzzles. When the people were paid for the puzzles, they did much better in the short term, but once that monetary bribe was taken away, they did not care. They were not compelled to do it on their own, unlike the people who never got paid. The same is true with grades, and kids who are compelled internally to learn and get good grades, and the kids who do it to get the bribe from their parents or whatever. It is interesting that in the world today, we have so much information and studies done about motivation, and we more clearly understand what drives people, yet we do not apply it to our society, for the most part. According to this principle, pretty much every job, except for nonprofit, is done for the money. I just think about what the world would be like if we all did our jobs because we wanted to, and we loved it. It would be such a better place! I think that is the point that both Dan Pink and Clay Shirky are trying to make. The problem is that everyone has to make a living and get money, so people would have to get money one way or another. These issues in society are challenging. They all have pros and cons. It is hard to change the whole flow of society after we have already gotten so deep into a specific pattern. But anything is possible.

Throughout his TED talk, Clay Shirky used a variety of techniques that really enhanced his presentation. For one, he used the screen a lot. He used many visuals that illustrated what he was talking about, but made it easier for the audience to view. That way, he was using audio and visual learning at the same time. Some of the visuals he used were the Lolcats, Ushahidi, and the graphs for the daycare centers. For me, at least, it really helped me visualize more what he was talking about. The statistics about the daycares would not have been nearly as impactful if I wasn't able to see the actual graph. Along with the visuals he used on the screen, he used a lot of examples in general. For almost every point he made, he had an example for it. He used the examples of Ushahidi, Lolcats, the daycare centers, specific statistics (like the number of hours of free time in the world), and even when he talked about how it is impossible to have the serious without the throwaway, he talked about how with the printing press, we had lighthearted novels before scientific journals. These really helped make the whole subject more understandable and valid. I do not think I would have understood half of what he said if it were not for all of the examples and visuals he used. On the same lines with examples, he used a lot of stories. Like Dan Pink stated in A Whole New Mind, we all relate to stories, and we remember them much better. Clay Shirky started his TED talk out with a story! He talked about the lady in Egypt who started the blog, and how it turned into this marvelous open source and it was a main supply of media for the people. Plus, the daycare story made the very good point about intrinsic motivation. Another noticeable strategy he used was the advanced vocabulary and terms in his whole talk. Even though it made it harder to follow the first time around, it made it more meaningful and real the next time. It made me really believe that he knew about this stuff, and that he was not just making it up. It really helped relay his knowledge to the audience. Even aside from all the specific techniques he used, his talk in general was very easy to follow, because it was in a logical sequence.