Loading ...Coming Full Circle: Humanity Is The New Technology
I’ve been listening to the complimentary audio version of Seth Godin’s new book called Tribes and have to say it’s fairly dead on. Except I’d frame it slightly differently. While we may in fact be returning to tribal-like behaviors and looking for “leaders” of these tribes in the process, what we’re really craving is more humanity itself. I see clues of this everywhere, from the direct engagement (people talking to other people) as enabled by Twitter, to Apple’s Genius bar which gives us live, breathing and fairly smart people to help us when a human touch is needed.
What’s going on? We were told that automation, and flying cars would be the future—is it possible that we’re heading toward a future that actually feels more like the past even though it may not look like it? As a self proclaimed veteran of the digital space (I’ve been in it since ‘97), we thought the future of the Web would feel more human as the rate of technology and production advanced. For example, pre-recorded “avatars” could make a Website feel more human. Or could it? In the end the user always knew that they were getting pre-recorded, post produced humanity. It was human-like but not really human.
Human To Human Interaction? 
Consider this. Yesterday evening and this morning I spent some time talking to a couple of employees from a brand agency called Lisa P Maxwell
Specifically, I had conversations with Steve and Aneisha. The conversations were enabled through as simple live chat and Web cam technology, but the entire site was built around the agency’s people and if they were available to talk to you—they would. The conversations I had with Steve and Aneisha were reminiscent of talking to someone you had just met on the bus. I found out that Aneisha lived in Grand Rapids Michigan (on weekends) and I shared that I go there all the time to visit in-laws. Steve and I exchanged some ideas about how to make the chat experience work even better. Ironically the agency is in Chicago, so I e-mailed Aneisha (directly from the interface) and we’re discussing arranging a co-office tour in the near future.
Now imagine these techniques used in service design. What if you could pick a live representative, someone who you think you’d feel comfortable talking with. Or it could even be a sales representative, someone to provide information in real time, swap links and next steps could be followed through with e-mails or possible automated ways to close the sale.
What I think is happening on the Web is very human. While we look toward trends like “cloud computing” it’s essential to understand what’s happening here. Sometimes, as human beings we don’t want human assistance, like for example if we’re checking out savings account or just need some cash from an ATM. In other instances, we are looking for a genuine human connection, and the Web spurred on by the advent of social networks is beginning to show signs of how this could possible be delivered. So in addition to human to computer interaction, we have human to human interaction enabled through technology.
So what’s new is old again. Maybe it’s tribal, maybe we’ve been starved for authentic human contact, or maybe the cycle is just coming full circle. People need people—it’s a basic human truth. And the Web is beginning to look more human every day.
Nice inquiry, as usual, David, but you are diving into some deep waters here. First, Seth says things that are only marginally deeper than the average mind so, to average minds, it sounds prophetic.
Now, who wants to be told that, and who wants to be the one to tell them? It’s like the emperor’s new clothes. Those who don’t know what’s really happening don’t know for a reason; and those who do know, also know for a reason and they “know” enough to not pull the shades up on sleeping people.
In a nutshell, look at social media as allowing for the billions of connections amongst people as we see in the brain. It’s like a growing brain becoming more efficient at creating multiple pathways for information to speedily reach areas where needed.
We are not regressing to “tribal”-like situations due to some need for human contact — it’s that our ability to comprehend what’s happening has reached its limit so we look to something that’s already happened to explain it… nothing new there. It’s more comforting to rehash the old tribal concept than it is to stand in the unknown and conduct a fearless inquiry.
Because this blog is not the best vessel for continuing this discussion, I’ll end by saying that *something* is happening, and there *are* people who comprehend it. But just assuming that is true, the humbling question then becomes, “…of what use could I be to such a person?”
It’s just much simpler to regress our thinking to tribal concepts and try to force ourselves back into ancient, and ultimately, super-unproductive roles. For, when you really think about it, nature phased out the majority of tribal culture for a reason — and a damn good one at that.
Cheers,
Sam
David, not to be a curmudgeon or a troll or some other under the bridge type creature, but is this really anything new?
it just seems to me that the technology has gotten better so we can do more with it, but with it or with out it we’ve been doing the same things with each other (technologically mediated or not) that we have been time and memorial.
It can even be argued that we actually spend more time truly alone than ever.
I love the LOC piece by Michael Wesch where he outlines his ethnography of YouTube where people are talking into the void from the privacy of their own room, only hoping someone is at the other end of the tube.
Indeed, it seems like we’ve gone full cricle, b/c we actually never left the starting point.
– dave
Sam,
Thanks for the thoughts. I really liked Tribes, but I’m not actually applying much of what was said in this particular post.
I am making an observation. Which is that people are craving live contact and technology is evolving into something that can actually begin to support that, which brings us closer to how some things were. Like good customer service. Small talk. Saying hello. Meeting new people. Making connections. Getting help. Sharing. Collaborating.
Not that it’s all utopian, it’s highly imperfect and messy, all the more like us humans. But what it isn’t is prefabricated and artificial. I’m saying there is something happening here. This is my way of trying to explain it.
David,
I couldn’t agree with you more about the human connection aspect. I took a look at the Lisa P. Maxwell site (a good friend of mine actually used to work there), and I think what they are doing is amazing.
However, I wonder how we are going to be able to uphold the standard of human connection and our desire, as consumers, to experience that firsthand. There still needs to be a certain number of people on the other side of the webcam when there are 100 people out there trying to connect with someone personally or “face to face” over the web. We still face the same problems we encountered before we started having 24/7 phone reps, an abundance of people trying to make a connection with someone over the phone when they couldn’t do it in person. Now we have been pushed to automated systems because the call volume is too high and there aren’t enough reps to service us—and of course it’s cheaper.
Social platforms have changed that because we have the ability to communicate with millions of people at once. Sometimes we don’t need to make a direct connection because someone has done for us. Our dialogue is right there for everyone to see. So I guess my question is how will face to face communication on the web be different? How will companies manage the hundreds of visitors that start coming to chat with them all at once, especially when we are watching their every move on a webcam? Furthermore, how can we as companies, deliver on our promise of REAL human connection and continue to grow without depleting all of our resources?
Thanks again for your great insight!
Nicole
“it just seems to me that the technology has gotten better so we can do more with it, ”
Dave, I’m making a similar point. Especially when I compare pre-recorded avatars to real live ones. I never take your thoughts as trolling but I can’t help but see this as a movement. We’ve come to believe that brands like Apple can produce “surprise and delight” through well designed hardware and software. As it turns out, the human touch in unexpected ways does the same.
Nothing new? Agreed. Yet what might be new is lour level of expectations if we begin to see more human participation from companies.
Nicole, you bring up a great point. CAN IT SCALE? I don’t know. But my question is, how much does it need to? The internet as a medium thrives in the niche and is fragmented. It’s possible for an organization to offer up customer service like this in small doses or for specialized services.
But again, think Apple’s Genius bar. And just recently a fellow CMer told me that everyone thought Jobs was crazy when they first heard about his retails strategy.
The web has always been about communication in one form or another. Human to human, human to machine, machine to machine, even business to business. The web is never about one form of communication, it’s about enabling all of these types of communication to occur seamlessly all at once.
The only people that haven’t quite gotten the human aspect of it is marketers, but we’re getting there. The rest of us get it, that’s why we use email, IM, Skype, social networks, etc. If we wanted to talk to a machine we would all love the menus of customer service lines, but we all hate them.
Ultimately it all HAS to come back to people because machines can’t fulfill the need for human to human interaction.
Nice post, gives me something to think about on the drive home
Always thought provoking. This human interaction with technology via Twitter has enabled me to listen to tribes pre-release and learn ablut blogs before they’re even posted. What’s faster? Telepathy?
My question to David is where is there more information that demystifies the “cloud computing” trend that in effect closes the people-technology loop?
Greg,
For cloud computing this is a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
But keep in mind that the “milestones” around the circle are meant to show movements that alter our behavior. So as more people move to the cloud, there will be more less data on hardware. Another behavioral change. We’re already doing it with services like Flickr, but Google apps is still very young.
Devlin, good point about “we’ve always gotten it” well some of us.
Dear David,
I very much enjoyed reading and thinking about your post.
Yes, I think the booming success of web 2.0 is all about bringing the human connection back into computing.
It’s fantastic to email friends, share photos, make videos, blog, and twitter with people.
Our human nature deeply craves connection with other humans, and so, naturally, tribes will form, even on the Internet.
It all seems so natural to me.
And that’s the brilliance of Seth Godin…he puts the obvious into words and frameworks that ring true.
God Bless,
Gary
For most people 24 hours in a day is too many. Kill 7 for sleeping. Lose another for bodily functions. Burn another in a car. 15 hours to make something happen. To feel alive. To feel connected at a level beyond the transactional.
So we go on line. First we read. Then we watched. Now we post chat blog.
Unless we are in gaming mode its a relatively lonely experience … though we are generally motivated to get out there to meet new people, make new friends, share similar interests.
We’ve got the basic human need. We aspire to a deeper connection. We have time to kill. On-line allows us to screen out those who do not share common interests. On-line allows us the safety and relative anonymity of unknown address and a locked door.
But people ultimately crave warmth. And that warmth is a product of an eye-to-eye exchange.
One of the beauties of our Maker’s Ambassador program is that it does enable like minded brand enthusaists to come together in both small and large settings, independent of us, and with us, to make the on-line experience a real life experience.
Thanks for the kind remards about the program. And for thinking outside of the tribal box.
I think this ‘circle’ is actually the human relationship to technology. This relationship will continue to (r) or (d)evolve and the technology will become more and more human-like while human beings become more like inanimate objects.
Ears are kind of like USB ports.
When’s the last time you posted all of the photos from a night out? Even the ones where your chin looks all crazy? Good job, you, if you have.
And do you really reach out to that friend on FB who you used to work with, but don’t talk to anymore. How’s that connection going? Just padding the friend stats?
My wonder is if social networking is really about profound connections and understanding, or is it a new expression of our own narcissism? (see here. now.)
“My wonder is if social networking is really about profound connections and understanding, or is it a new expression of our own narcissism? (see here. now.)”
Jordan, like anything there is never a simple answer to that question. I for one to not see “social” through a utopian lens, and your point about narcissism is valid and well taken. And also one part of the story. There are many parts of this story—and which is why I decided to tell a slice of it in this fashion.
Looks like an old Xerox PARC collaboration experiment from the early 1990s. If you’ve been digital since the mid-1980s this wouldn’t seem very new, but putting it out to the world rather than members of distributed research labs makes it seem, well, cutting-edge.
“but putting it out to the world rather than members of distributed research labs makes it seem, well, cutting-edge.”
Aint that the truth Larry.
Funny, Matt Milan and I were talking about this over lunch… how social networks are getting physical components to them… people looking for a human touch. As I was saying to Matt, we grew up so certain that digital was the end all be all, but what ended up happening (at least in my world) was a lot of those connections became meaningless, with no soul.
I like where we’re heading.
Am I the only one who find this notion incredibly scary?
We continually replace real human interaction with the digital tofu version. We’re all parked behind our machines daily “interacting” via MSN with our co-workers 3 desks down. We video conference with our clients rather than meeting in person.We email instead of phoning. Hell even our “phones” now have relegated voice communication to a tertiary function at best.
When does reality blur to the point where we no longer understand what real interaction is?
What pill will you choose?
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some online gaming to play…
Hi David,
You said, “I am making an observation. Which is that people are craving live contact and technology is evolving into something that can actually begin to support that, which brings us closer to how some things were.”
That is certainly true. Let’s remember that a big part of people running to the internet wasn’t only for access to loads more information but a mix of things really, including the sense of safety, real or imagined, of socializing in relative anonymity.
People GOT their contact.
The only thing that seems to have changed much is that now people feel more exhilarated by their ability to converse with, and/or effect (real or imagined), business entities via the power of membership in social networks.
What we begin to notice, if we look a little more closely, is that, yes, people are STILL craving connectivity and interaction but, if it appears to have intensified, it’s only because they’re becoming addicted to the chase.
And the reason they become increasingly addicted to the chase is because, again, it seems, the large majority are not willing to give up the aforementioned anonymity.
The individuals who do, though, become group network leaders because the followers are attracted by the wish that they could be so confident and secure. Thus, the mad irony is that instead of us being “all tribal”, we actually end up more easily and efficiently funneled into a barrel.
One who was formerly “our own” has evolved to the point where we trust the part of them that still looks like us, enough to let them steer us into the sights of companies/marketers who reward them handsomely to do so.
In some circles, this is known as the psychological/cosmic food chain - and, imagination aside, it’s a fact of existence.
So, Seth sells us on the alluring concept of increased connectivity and interaction via tribes and because we crave the chase, he neatly funnels us into venues where our presence/hides put food on his table.
So, why would you guess people glamorize all of this as something else?
Sam, very interesting points about both Tribes and the authorship behind it. You raise a few good points and I you can make the case that anyone who benefits from the social media boom is moving to a place that looks more like “push broadcast” as they become less accessbile.
Still, I’m more focused on examples like Lisa P Maxwell which trade pre-recorded slick avatars for real live people. Yes webcams and chat have been around for some time, yet we haven’t seen them used exactly this way until recently, and my instincts tell me that we’ll see more of this type of thing in business applications.
Back to your point about why people glamorize this as something else–don’t we all want something to believe in?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdeGeo2nuN8