Malcolm Gladwell: Who Needs Google?

http://bit.ly/dEJhEj - Malcolm Gladwell pours cold water on the promises of search technology, suggesting that new technologies are solving problems that don't really exist.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• bigthink
• malcolm
• gladwell
• google

[DjSaltyDog]

brought to you by bing. lol

[danielt63]

Malcolm Gladwell needs to get out in the real world. Many, if not all software developers depend heavily on search technology to help them find solutions to problems. I'm sure there are other practical (non-cutting edge) endeavors that rely heavily on them as well.

[Floxflow]

@danielt63 Ditto. And you are absolutely right. Better search engines provide value and (hopefully) connect humanity to a greater extent. But a search engine isn't a guarantee for being truthfully informed or making right judgements. We must never forget that human beings are fallible, even if a search engine isn't.

[danielt63]

@Floxflow I have enjoyed this conversation, and I think there is a lot we do agree about regarding this subject. I just think that you, and Mr. Gladwell, tried to take the argument too far. Your rhetorical questions about Win7 vs Win95 and such make an excellent point that I can agree with. I think the mistake made was trying to extend that analogy to better search engines. In the latter case, they provide value precisely because they connect humanity in a way that having a better iPod doesn't.

[Floxflow]

@danielt63 :-). My respond was too much. A search engine is a good tool agreed! And accessibility is good too without question. I have two points.1. Our effort and goals are in some instances based on wrong assumptions, and broad accessible science or information doesn't cure that human trait. 2. Is more information platforms the same as better information? Does your windows 7 OS make you smarter than when you had win95? Does ipod make Elvis or Bach sound better than a mini disc? I'm out of time

[danielt63]

@Floxflow I think that you have forgotten what you are arguing against. In the above, you agree that search engines are useful for increasing human knowledge, and that they can be improved upon to make them more useful (by improving the algorithms.)

Yes, the answers provided by the engine may be erroneous, but that is applicable to *all* forms of knowledge transmission. I hope you aren't going to advocate that people ignore other people's effort in a field of study before trying to broaden it.

[Floxflow]

@Floxflow ->(continued reply to daniel63). Not necessarily. Look at the space shuttle, the most complex flying machine ever built. Disaster. Look at LHC at Cern, biggest failed science experiment in human history(so far). Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Take politics, does the gigantic amount of data and information help inform the people make the right decisions to prevent the housing bubble (and all the rest of it)? I dramatize, but it proves Malcolmes point I think. As for searching, your right.

[Floxflow]

@Floxflow ->(continued reply to daniel63). My point is that computers and software are stupid, so we shouldn't rely on answers from them. A search engine is help full I agree! But the learning and making decisions will always be intrinsic to humans.The dissemination of new knowledge is advanced with a search engine, but only if you ask the right question. Has IT reduced the cost of public, or private administration? No.It is a cybernetic question. Does the affluence of data make us better? ->

[Floxflow]

@danielt63 Well a scientist still have to read and understand the information and based on that understanding make an informed decision. But the information/theory might be entirely wrong, and a scientists decision to pursue a solution therefore erroneous. The application of intelligence is more important than ever, therefore. A search engine does not guarantee truth, it provide reply to a query. The algorithm behind it is also based on human decisions, and might therefore be biased. continues->

[danielt63]

@Floxflow Maybe knowing my argument will help. (1) Google makes it easer for an individual to learn something he doesn't know. (2) It is easier for an individual to add to our group knowledge if he has greater personal knowledge. Therefore, learning is easier with improved accessibility to knowledge.

Gladwell posed a specific example, a scientist trying to cure cancer. I submit that the scientist is more likely to find a cure if he can easily find out about failed attempts. Don't you agree?

[Floxflow]

@danielt63 Thanks for your reply. I think we have to be careful in our admiration of electronic tools. They help us greatly in speeding up tasks and improving results. But if I understand correctly you say that learning is easier with the improved accessibility of information electronics provide, right? If that is your premise you are wrong. It is the accessibility of information that's improved not how humans learn. In fact the proliferation of (portable) devises reduce learning ability. BR

[danielt63]

@Floxflow Your last sentence is so good, it deserves repeating "A computer does not make you smarter, learning does." My point is that learning is vastly easier by the very tools that Gladwell is deriding. I will say though that upon re-watching this video, he doesn't seem to be dissing search technology, rather he seems to be saying that it doesn't need to be improved. However, even there I have to disagree.