Cognitive Surplus

cognotive-surplus

Cognitive Surplus

Cognitive Surplus, the new book by internet guru Clay Shirky, begins with a brilliant analogy. He starts with a description of London in the 1720s, when the city was in the midst of a gin binge. A flood of new arrivals from the countryside meant the metropolis was crowded, filthy, and violent. As a result, people sought out the anesthesia of alcohol as they tried to collectively forget the early days of the Industrial Revolution.

Shirky’s hypothesis is that a lot of the 20th century stuff we used to take for granted — most people didn’t want to create media, people didn’t value homemade and amateur productions, no one would pitch in to create something for others to enjoy unless they were being paid — weren’t immutable laws of nature, but accidents of history. The Internet has undone those accidents, by making it possible for more people to make and do cool stuff, especially together.

They’re online, prowling the world wide web. Shirky describes this shift in media consumption as a net “cognitive surplus,” since our brain is no longer mesmerized by the boob tube. Needless to say, he describes this surplus as a wonderful opportunity, a chance to get back some of the productive social interactions that were lost when we all decided to watch TV alone. And when this new pool of free time is combined with the internet-a tool that enables strangers all across the world to connect with each other-the end result is a potentially vast new source of productivity. “The wiring of humanity lets us treat free time as a shared global resource,” Shirky writes. Furthermore, the web allows people to “design new kinds of participation and sharing that take advantage of that resource.”

After Shirky introduces his argument, much of the remaining 170 pages of the book are devoted to outlining what this surplus has produced. The author begins by describing the protests in South Korea over the importation of American beef. Interestingly, a majority of the protesters were teenage girls, who had been motivated to take to the streets by their online conversations. (Many of these conversations took place on a website dedicated to a Korean boy band.) Shirky describes this protest movement in breathless terms: “When teenage girls take to the streets to unnerve national governments, without needing professional organizations or organizers to get the ball rolling, we are in new territory,” he writes.

But are we really? There were, after all, a few political protests before the internet. Somehow, the students at Kent State found a way to organize without relying on the chat rooms of Bobdylan.com. While the internet might enable a bit more youthful agitprop, it seems unlikely that we are on the cusp of a new kind of politics, driven by the leisure hours of the young.

The most compelling example of Shirky’s cognitive surplus is also the most obvious: Wikipedia. He estimates that the pages of Wikipedia represent more than 100 million hours of human thought. All that unpaid labor has produced, by far, the most comprehensive, thorough, and intelligent summary of human knowledge that has ever existed. And it was all done by perfect strangers, most of whom are not experts in anything. The real gap is between doing nothing and doing something, and someone making lolcats has bridged that gap.

There are two things to say about this. The first is that the consumption of culture is not always worthless. The second thing is that it remains entirely unclear if the creative and generous acts made possible by the internet are really a replacement for time spent watching sitcoms. After all, people have always had hobbies; although they watched plenty of bad television, they also read newspapers and built model airplanes, went on hikes and volunteered at the local shelter. In other words, we weren’t quite as mindless or disconnected as Shirky seems to believe. In his zeal to celebrate the revolutionary capabilities of the internet, Shirky downplays the virtues of the world before the web. And then there is the terrifying possibility (not addressed by Shirky) that our online life is detracting, not from time spent watching TV, but from our interest in things that have nothing to do with technology, such as talking with friends or taking walks in the park.

Shirky is very good on the connection between trivial entertainments and serious business, from writing web-servers to changing government. Lolcats aren’t particularly virtuous examples of generosity and sharing, but they are a kind of gateway drug between zero participation and some participation. The difference between “zero” and “some” being the greatest one there is, it is possible and even likely that lolcatters will go on, some day, to do something of more note together. These sections are a warm and compelling rebuttal to people who argue that the net is a fad or a toxic waste heap, and his systematic argument is so well-reasoned that it might as well be a road-map for winning frustrating arguments about the net.

The last chapter of the book is a kind of roadmap for building your own structures for enabling participation, drawn from Clay’s long history of teaching and consulting, and it’s as practical as the rest is theoretical.

Cognitive Surplus continues to prove that Clay Shirky is one of the best thinkers and advocates the net has. It’s a delight to read and will change how you think about the future. Shirky has written an important book about an interesting moment in human history.


3 Comments so far »

  1. tiffany jewelry outlet said,

    Wrote on May 12, 2011 @ 7:13 am

    Thanks for sharing. That is a nice article.

  2. Ashley Pollara said,

    Wrote on August 1, 2011 @ 12:26 am

    In this great scheme of things you actually receive a B+ with regard to effort. Exactly where you actually confused me was on the particulars. As it is said, details make or break the argument.. And that could not be much more true here. Having said that, allow me say to you just what did deliver the results. The writing is really convincing and that is most likely the reason why I am making the effort in order to opine. I do not make it a regular habit of doing that. Second, despite the fact that I can easily notice a leaps in reasoning you make, I am not really sure of exactly how you appear to unite the details which help to make your conclusion. For now I will yield to your point however wish in the foreseeable future you actually link the facts much better.

  3. Glenda Bovain said,

    Wrote on August 1, 2011 @ 5:41 am

    Along with the whole thing which appears to be developing inside this area, your perspectives are generally quite exciting. Even so, I am sorry, but I do not give credence to your whole idea, all be it exciting none the less. It looks to everyone that your comments are not entirely rationalized and in simple fact you are generally your self not totally certain of the point. In any event I did enjoy looking at it.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

Name:

E-mail:

Website:

Comment: