thinking is the new black

I went to the 1st of the evening media seminars at Brighton University yesterday to hear Dr Kate O’Riordan from Sussex give her paper “The Genome incorporated: Constructing Biodigital Identity’” which

“examines the intersection of genome sequencing and digital media practices through a discussion of interactivity, social networking and genome browsing which centres around the personal genome sequencing company23andMe “

In terms of social networking 23andMe has a community function whereby users compare their genome data with other people signed up for the service. As I commented last night I can really see this ending up as some sort of face-book style application  / public profile. 

What was especially interesting to me is that Google is one of the investors of 23andMe. 

As the article points out

the investment could be seen as Google’s first step towards indexing genetic information.

Food for Thought

If Google were able to combine the immense amounts of user data they collect right now with the health and medical data that could potentially be gathered from Google Health AND combine that with data potentially available to them through 23andMe, a person’s Google profile could be a dangerous thing. What if this hypothetical Google profile ever got into the hands of a health insurance provider? Could you be denied coverage based on a genetic predisposition to cancer? What if you also often search terms like “breathing problems” and “wheezing,” or you’ve emailed a cancer specialist to try and get an appointment?

Quick bit of procrastination before I get cracking today. I had a hideous day yesterday riddling through Marxs’ theory of general intellect and its’ relationship with the consumer/producer debate. FYI The only way to deal with the likes of Italian theorist Paulo Virno is to eat a large bag of Minstrels and listen to some banging techno.

Anyway – time to conclude on the Google/white bread debate. My thoughts on the subject are based around a couple of issues. One is the decline of critical thinking as a skill, then there is what Foucault would call regimes of truth, and finally what it means to teach.

Lets work backwards. Tara hasn’t taught me, though I have been to 2 of her public lectures in the past year, and was privileged to have her read through some of my work and sit in on my transfer viva and give comment. I’ve also taught some of the same students as her last year on a module at Brighton University. This means I know her to be an effervescent and exceptional teacher who inspires students. There’s another article about her in The Guardian today btw.

Now I don’t want to go all “Dead Poets Society”, but good teaching is magic, and can have life changing effects. Which brings me to “Oh Captain my Captain”. My Tara is Paul Cobley who taught me semiotics on my B.A over a decade ago. Up until then I was some what of an education anomaly, reported as less than remarkable at 2ndry school. I began A-levels and promptly dropped out half way through when I discovered rave and bad men. The only reason I went to Uni way back when, was because I worked out I’d be better off than on the dole. However a year into the course I started to get interested and the reason is simply – great teaching introduced me to awesome ideas. Thoughts that I could not shake, which have influenced me to go on and work in the media, take an M.A and now write a thesis. All my lecturers on that course were without exception, passionate, involved and inspiring, and I am not alone in this opinion. I am the only one to return to University education, but of the good mates I made back then, they all still refer to Paul Cobley as “Oh Captain my Captain”.

OK, so “Regimes of Truth”. A nice explanation can be found in Sara Mills’ book ‘Michel Foucault”, part of the Routledge Critical Thinkers series.
Foucault 1st introduced this concept in an interview that he gave called ‘Truth and Power” in 1979 with Fontano. In it he described truth statements as common sense knowledge within a society, “truth like knowledge, is of the world; it is produced there by virtue of multiple constraints” (Mills, S 2003 p74). Basically what he was getting at is that certain knowledge is presented as truth because it is kept in place by institutions of power, and knowledge that doesn’t meet with the criteria of the institutions of power fades away. All I’m saying is, SEO. When someone goes to Google looking for info they will merrily tap in a few keywords to begin their search, and usually rely on a nippy click through the first 2 or 3 pages. Therefore it’s not objective, but via a set of institutional practices and criteria determined by Google. I feel what we need is for them to be more explicit about how they measure the metrics of a site to determine its’ page ranking and rigorous analyses on the practices of Google. However I think it is pointless to think in terms of achieving an objective knowledge via the internet and instead, always keep in mind the question of who’s’ interest do those page rankings serve?

Lastly critical thinking. This is weighing up ideas and making your mind up whether to accept or reject, if you’re really good you might have some of your own based on the ones you’ve evaluated and so it goes… Honestly I think this is a lot to demand of a first year university student. I can’t comment on other disciplines but in respect of media and communication studies it’s one hell of an ask, given the theory they are required to engage with. It is not enough to simply understand something, critical thinking involves going above n’beyond, and fitting in other peoples ideas with your own view of the world. To get into the validity of information one must go outside the context and this to my mind is an issue with online material in the academic world. We need to bring to bear outside knowledge and standards.