We build faster and faster computers, that far surpass the calculation speed of man.
We create them in the image of man in terms of memory, the more memory we have the powerful we are in computing terms. The processor is only as smart as the input. GIGO (Garbage in garbage out) is a simple computer science concept. We are still learning about ourselves as humans. As Pythagoras could calculate complex maths in 300 BC – we are still rubbing our chins and quoting Freud in Psychoanalytic studies on each other in the present day.
In the late 19th century, a German physicist Hermann Helmholtz researched pioneering work into our perception. The one I like however, building on this is in the 1890s.
A psychologist called George M Stratton experimented with a theory of “perceptual adaption”. He was able to wear spectacles that inverted his normal visual spectrum.
He noted the brain adapted to this fully after five days of constant use. It took days to readjust once removing the device.
Neural or sensory adaption is a change over time of our sensory system to a constant stimulus. Think about that for a second. This was a psychological experiment, so has psychological implications: If we are bombarded with a constant stimulus for long enough then we accept that as a “truth”. We have to unlearn that truth if the stimulus is removed or shown to be false.
If we are open minded then we can know the world is round and then convince ourselves to the possibility of it being flat again. By questioning truths and who or what is behind the reasoning we can be susceptible to conspiracy theories. As any post ironic student knows, it’s hip to be square.
Technology that allows us to see things accurately is important in the progress of perception. I’m not talking about the singularity here, I’m talking about items as rudimentary as the printing press and the camera. Scientists versus Artists, fact finders and provers versus the expressers.
It’s fascinating that it wasn’t until 1440 that Ucello was credited with even hinting at perspective with his painting “The battle of San Romano”
Da Vinci was somewhat of an anomaly. Interested in mastering the vivisection of humans to understand how we were psychically put together. An inventor of things such as the helicopter without even an etch-a-sketch let alone free wifi.
Even german physicists from 1880 can still have an impact in perception and technology in the 21st century. As the latest fighter pilot helmets enable a high tech augmented reality. It’s not just the tech that needs to get smarter but the user, too. The same goes for the communications industry. Creativity is not subservient to clicks and shares. We need to be more active with our brains, not so reliant on techniques. I mean, what’s the worst that can happen?
Advertising agencies always had one over design companies because of the team structure. Art director and a writer. A thinker and a visualiser. Call it left brain, right – whatever. Two people that were in it together. Science and the art – and it works in a beautifully symbiotic way.
It is more than an MBA formulaic way. More than thinking in a systematic, heuristic or rational way. Until you can feel things for yourself and think beyond the norm – you’ll be too scared to think outside the brief or the market you’re told to operate in. A trusted partner to sense check you is all you need.
I still don’t understand why there is a big deal to be ‘digital native’ if you’re a creative director in any agency. (Do these guys actually understand what a Creative Director is?)
If you think ideas are not more powerful than technology in an agency, then why is this true: Aside from the fact that Jonny Ive is a product designer; Apple computer
(the most powerful corporation on the planet) may employ some creative people to
look after marketing and design internally, why have they always relied on external advertising agencies?
The old ad model was people in the street asking you if you remembered that advert last night. Replaced now by the analytics of clicks and shares. Big Data is big business.
Would you put 8 randoms sat behind a one way mirror eating warm beer and drinking sandwiches in charge of your business? So why trust 8,000 of them then?
I wonder if the bosses young or old of these digital agencies really understand the concept of computer science. It’s on an exponential curve, which means its still in relative infancy.
Facts and formulas are learnt and language is whatever new code there is. There is no course on computer psychology is there? If you need a PhD in cybernetics to understand something, then how does that encourage you to relate to someone walking the isles of ASDA or Waitrose?
I think there is a huge difference in the mindset of Edison. Someone who created a demand or need for his inventions – i.e. it was electric appliances that propagated electricity. Then there’s Nikola Tesla who said ‘hey, that’s great but it could be more efficient and benefit everybody’ – i.e. inventing alternating current (AC). Tesla also went on to invent many other things that would or could have benefited mankind.
Anyone who’s ever worked for me knows this:
The pillars of any business at their simplest are
joined up and seeded by an idea. Big, unique, or otherwise. Good would be a start.
Digital is not an idea. Neither are computers. Even if you’re Apple. (It’s user friendly).
I could draw you a picture if you want or stick it on a microsite hyperlinked subthread.
Human was always the buzzword, before digital.
We can all play chess, it doesn’t make us strategy gurus.
Less buzzwords. More reality checks needed.
Can we make sense, common again?
Here’s to getting it right.
Here’s to the reality natives.