Skip navigation
BLOG  |  OCTOBER, 2009

The Post-Screen Web

October 16, 2009 at 3:00 pm
by Chris


I just finished reading an insightful post by John Hagel, which he titled Stupidity and the Internet as a response to Nicholas Carr's much-discussed Atlantic piece, Is Google Making Us Stupid? I like the way that Hagel re-frames the discussion based upon form rather than effect. His idea seems to be that "the internet" (I'm going to use "the web" instead) can't be assessed in simple either/or terms of stupifying or edifying, but aught to be considered based upon its currently evolving form. Here's a quote:

The debate also largely took the Internet, and specifically the World Wide Web, in its current form as a given.  This is a dangerous assumption given the speed of change in the underlying technology foundations of the Internet. 

As one small example, we are seeing rapid evolution of both social network platforms and physical presence tools that will lead to a much more complex interweaving of physical and virtual environments. Sensors and imaging tools will give us much greater visibility into the world around us.

This point is pretty important, I think. I mentioned the "fractalization" of the web in Part 1 of my Future of the Web article, which speaks to his point about the increasing complexity and interwovenness of the web. In Part 2, I also thought about the shaping of the web by mobile and "web-enhanced" devices. These two concepts are going to have an extremely significant effect upon how the web is shaped and used in the very near future.

Then Hagel goes on to say something fascinating:

Tacit knowledge – that which cannot be readily expressed in published content of any length, whether snippets or books – has always been our most valuable knowledge. You can read all the books you want on brain surgery, but that alone will never qualify you to perform brain surgery. At an even simpler level, no book can teach you how to ride a bicycle.

The ultimate impact of the Internet on our intelligence will hinge on its ability to support the creation and sharing of tacit knowledge. Again, we are at the earliest stages of tapping into this potential.

This is where my skepticism tends to kick in. I often lament the real experiences I'm not having when I'm spending the majority of my time in front of a screen. Granted, I think what Hagel has in mind is that the potential to create and share tacit knowledge over the internet is contingent upon a post-screen web. In other words, a web that can be experienced and shaped away from the desk or handheld device. While such a web would enable tacit knowledge, it will also narrow the divide between the real and the virtual to such a degree that discerning between the two will be a matter of perspective or opinion. This could be frightening, or... something else.


Comments
Pak-Kei | October 16, 2009 5:57 PM

The rise of snippets is a strong signal that our books desperately needs compression.

I had not yet consumed a bookshelf of books for my whole life, but for the most of what I had read, I came to the conclusion that most books are 80% fillers, 20% actual content. When college students can shorten a 500-page book into 50 pages of notes, or Carr's articles to a few concise points, there is a problem.

I'm not criticizing the authors, but in short it lies with the general problematic trend that writers feel a strong urge to display their talents in great lengths, often in excess. A lot of people who write long (e.g. me, right now), does it for displaying authority, attracting attention and fear of being misunderstood. Books had become long and even bloated, since the boom of the printing press. Before the printing press, our languages, both East and West, were concise and accurate.

As our lifestyle had diverted from sitting around doing nothing but reading to sitting around but reading the web, watching TV and replying Facebook messages, it is, for the first time since the printing press, our languages once again demand compression, i.e. the shortening of our writings to concise content.

While snippets of information can get us to the core of the knowledge immediately, a further search can take us to a book in its long form, if we choose to indulge in it.

In short, the Web gives us the choice to get the knowledge we need, without the chains of a long-winded writer.

One thing Carr is right, however, is that the Internet gives us A.D.D.
Chris Butler | October 17, 2009 2:01 PM

Pak-Kei,

You're probably right that some long-form writers may be more motivated by the sound of their own voice to the point that what they write is longer than necessary. But this is the minority. Sometimes, an idea or story simply needs more words to explain or tell properly. Snippets of information won't cut it for that sort of thing. So it's not so much a matter of reader choice as it is a necessity of purpose.

Thanks for reading,

Chris
Alex | October 21, 2009 11:20 AM

Do you really think the web is heading for a screenless future? I can't really imagine this. Do you mean retinal implants? Holographic projections? Like the movie Surrogates but people would be living in a virtual world?
Chris Butler | October 21, 2009 11:27 AM

Alex,

I'm really not sure. What I was saying in the post is that the ability to share tacit knowledge over the web would seem to require liberation from the screen. How else could we share real experience-based knowledge, particularly the kind that comes from repeated physical practice, when we're sitting in front of a screen? I'm sure there are some conceivable exceptions to this, for instance, I've had plenty of video chat conversations with friends and family, and I can imagine using video chat technology to teach someone something, like proper exercise form or the like. But for this to really catch on, I think the web experience would have to be much more immersive.

Chris