In his book, The Inmates are Running the Asylum, Alan Cooper illuminates many of the problems with computers and technology these days - in particular that too many of the people making the important decisions don't really have the end user's best interests in mind or heart. Think about this again when you get to the end of this article.
I have a MSc in Computer Science from Simon Fraser University, and part of the the credit to obtaining that degree was that I created the curriculum for SFU's first course in User Interface Design, and I taught the first two semesters of this 3 year undergraduate course. By the way, the course turned out to be very popular, and I am told it still is. The point is, anyone who has anything to do with user interface design or human experience issues should read this book.
However, I am not thinking about computer user interface issues at the moment, although I often still do, rather I am thinking about human-human user interface issues.
When I was about 10 years old my mother was diagnosed as a Paranoid Schizophrenic, although in retrospect I suspect she more more affected with Schizoaffective Disorder. To get right to the point I spent almost 30 years dealing with someone who was difficult, sometimes impossible to reason with. Over time I learned to manage my own emotions and reasoning than futilely try to manage hers, although I did learn to have some success with managing her, except in the last few years where that became impossible.
One of things I observed over and over again was that often she would say something that seemed to have some real or rational basis, and I was seduced into believing that, and I would sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to give her the benefit of the doubt and try to operate on what she was saying had some validity. Most times I would simply discover I was tricked into yet another wild goose chase. To be clear, there were many times she said things that were completely valid, but my point is that too often I accepted statements from her as valid that I should have known better not to.
A few years ago the community I was living in had a woman whose mental health issues seemed very similar to my mother's. However, having 30 years of experience with that I was not so inclined to accept the validity of her statements without considerable skepticism. However, many people in the community who has no such experience as mine fell into the same pattern that I use to fall into - trying to give her the benefit of the doubt no matter how outlandish her statements were. Sadly there were even some who recognized her weakness and used this further their political goals by supporting her in public forums, making her a spokesperson for their latent agenda. In the end her downfall was that she simply went too far, and when people stopped arguing with her, you knew no-one was giving her the benefit of the doubt any more.
I find this quality, many of us share, to tolerate unreasonable statements very interesting. Sadly, even when what someone says is clearly unreasonable, there are those who will choose to agree with it when it suits their special interests. This is even more fascinating when there is general agreement that someone is 'Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs' yet people continue to give them the benefit of the doubt and/or endorse them.
Now if I were a trained psychologist, which I am not, I might have some special insight on how you can take this quality of human nature to tolerated irrational and extreme statements, and become an expert in that field.
Now if I were a powerful and wealthy special interest group, which I am not, I might set about creating a 'think tank' and hiring some PhD psychologists with those very special skills and compensate them for finding ways to use their special knowledge and insight towards my own propaganda purposes.
The end result of this might be political campaigns where the rhetoric seems more similar to someone, or someones, with Schizoaffective Disorder or Paranoid schizophrenia - and this would be totally acceptable by other politicians, by the media and journalists, and by the public at large because by-and-by we all seem so tolerant of people making irrational statements - especially if it is not generally agreed they are Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
What is the advantage of this approach to campaigning? Well - if you have extreme ideological views, or if you have an agenda that is not in the best interests of a majority of people, realistically you do not have a hope in hell of getting a majority of people to agree with you on everything - but, because people are so tolerant to irrational statements and views, they are likely to move in your general direction; and that is good enough for now. Next year, just rinse and repeat the process and you can pull even more people in the direction you want them to go. Remember who won the race between the turtle and the hare?
Now you may be thinking "that Eric Kolotyluk is some sort of evil twisted bastard for even thinking up such an diabolical Machiavellian scheme" - but I suggest the thing you should be thinking is - "if Eric Kolotyluk can think up this sort of evil twisted diabolical Machiavellian scheme, then who else can think this up, and how much money and power do they have at stake in the game?"
I have a MSc in Computer Science from Simon Fraser University, and part of the the credit to obtaining that degree was that I created the curriculum for SFU's first course in User Interface Design, and I taught the first two semesters of this 3 year undergraduate course. By the way, the course turned out to be very popular, and I am told it still is. The point is, anyone who has anything to do with user interface design or human experience issues should read this book.
However, I am not thinking about computer user interface issues at the moment, although I often still do, rather I am thinking about human-human user interface issues.
When I was about 10 years old my mother was diagnosed as a Paranoid Schizophrenic, although in retrospect I suspect she more more affected with Schizoaffective Disorder. To get right to the point I spent almost 30 years dealing with someone who was difficult, sometimes impossible to reason with. Over time I learned to manage my own emotions and reasoning than futilely try to manage hers, although I did learn to have some success with managing her, except in the last few years where that became impossible.
One of things I observed over and over again was that often she would say something that seemed to have some real or rational basis, and I was seduced into believing that, and I would sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to give her the benefit of the doubt and try to operate on what she was saying had some validity. Most times I would simply discover I was tricked into yet another wild goose chase. To be clear, there were many times she said things that were completely valid, but my point is that too often I accepted statements from her as valid that I should have known better not to.
A few years ago the community I was living in had a woman whose mental health issues seemed very similar to my mother's. However, having 30 years of experience with that I was not so inclined to accept the validity of her statements without considerable skepticism. However, many people in the community who has no such experience as mine fell into the same pattern that I use to fall into - trying to give her the benefit of the doubt no matter how outlandish her statements were. Sadly there were even some who recognized her weakness and used this further their political goals by supporting her in public forums, making her a spokesperson for their latent agenda. In the end her downfall was that she simply went too far, and when people stopped arguing with her, you knew no-one was giving her the benefit of the doubt any more.
I find this quality, many of us share, to tolerate unreasonable statements very interesting. Sadly, even when what someone says is clearly unreasonable, there are those who will choose to agree with it when it suits their special interests. This is even more fascinating when there is general agreement that someone is 'Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs' yet people continue to give them the benefit of the doubt and/or endorse them.
Now if I were a trained psychologist, which I am not, I might have some special insight on how you can take this quality of human nature to tolerated irrational and extreme statements, and become an expert in that field.
Now if I were a powerful and wealthy special interest group, which I am not, I might set about creating a 'think tank' and hiring some PhD psychologists with those very special skills and compensate them for finding ways to use their special knowledge and insight towards my own propaganda purposes.
The end result of this might be political campaigns where the rhetoric seems more similar to someone, or someones, with Schizoaffective Disorder or Paranoid schizophrenia - and this would be totally acceptable by other politicians, by the media and journalists, and by the public at large because by-and-by we all seem so tolerant of people making irrational statements - especially if it is not generally agreed they are Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
What is the advantage of this approach to campaigning? Well - if you have extreme ideological views, or if you have an agenda that is not in the best interests of a majority of people, realistically you do not have a hope in hell of getting a majority of people to agree with you on everything - but, because people are so tolerant to irrational statements and views, they are likely to move in your general direction; and that is good enough for now. Next year, just rinse and repeat the process and you can pull even more people in the direction you want them to go. Remember who won the race between the turtle and the hare?
Now you may be thinking "that Eric Kolotyluk is some sort of evil twisted bastard for even thinking up such an diabolical Machiavellian scheme" - but I suggest the thing you should be thinking is - "if Eric Kolotyluk can think up this sort of evil twisted diabolical Machiavellian scheme, then who else can think this up, and how much money and power do they have at stake in the game?"
