The Age of Profilicity and Identity Politics with Hans-Georg Moeller and Sam Gilbert #5

WEBVTT
00:00:20.079 --> 00:00:21.760
Welcome to the future of you.
00:00:21.920 --> 00:00:27.280
Today I'm joined by Hans Georg Müller, who is a professor at the University of Macau.
00:00:27.679 --> 00:00:33.039
His research focuses on Chinese and comparative philosophy and on social and political thought.
00:00:33.280 --> 00:00:43.520
He is the host of the Carefree Wandering YouTube channel and the co-author of the book You and Your Profile, Identity After Authenticity, which he co-wrote with Paul J.
00:00:43.679 --> 00:00:44.719
D'Ambrosio.
00:00:44.880 --> 00:00:51.840
It's a book whose first quote is a quote from Marshall McLuhan, and regular listeners know what a fan and even a student I am of that.
00:00:52.240 --> 00:00:54.159
And we're joined by Sam Gilbert.
00:00:54.320 --> 00:00:59.920
He's an affiliated researcher at the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge.
00:01:00.159 --> 00:01:08.319
He's an expert in data-driven marketing and was employee number one and CMO at Bought by Many, a well-known fintech startup.
00:01:08.560 --> 00:01:15.519
Previously, he was head of strategy and development at the data company Experion, and he was head of consumer finance at Santander.
00:01:16.400 --> 00:01:26.879
He is the author of Lush's book Good Data, and I've had the pleasure of doing several literary festivals with Sam, doing a good data, bad data double act on stage.
00:01:27.120 --> 00:01:35.680
He lives in Copenhagen, and with Georg joining us from Macau, we have a very international flavour to the discussion about identity today.
00:01:35.840 --> 00:01:42.719
And just before we get into it, I did want to mention that we were showcased by Apple Podcasts as one of the best news shows in tech recently.
00:01:42.879 --> 00:01:48.000
So please do share news of the podcast, and if you can subscribe, you'll never miss an episode.
00:01:48.239 --> 00:01:50.640
Thank you as always for listening.
00:01:50.959 --> 00:01:56.480
So today's conversation was always going to revolve around identity, data and profiling.
00:01:56.560 --> 00:02:02.239
And I've really wanted to talk about this for a long time because it's probably the area that I'm most interested in.
00:02:02.400 --> 00:02:07.680
And it was a pleasure to get these two guests together for such a discussion.
00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:10.719
We covered a wide-ranging remit.
00:02:11.199 --> 00:02:24.560
We talked about the death of authenticity or certainly the need to leave the notion of authenticity behind because in the modern world our identity really resembles a different kind of construction.
00:02:24.800 --> 00:02:39.039
It's made up in different ways, is of use to us in lots of different ways, and we should be thinking about identity as propelicity, i.e., it has a much more fluid sense about it, and indeed that fluidity is much more useful in the modern world.
00:02:39.280 --> 00:03:00.240
We actually touched on identity politics too, and where we are in the world of identity politics and how dangerous it could be and is, and the jeopardy that comes with having pride in some versions of your identity or some attributes of identity, how they could actually put you on the road to punishment or cancellation.
00:03:00.560 --> 00:03:15.919
We talked a lot about how profiling data is reached, we talked about search data and how that can be useful not just on an individual basis but as a collective, how we can have insights into both the individual but also the collective.
00:03:16.159 --> 00:03:18.319
And we talked about what is the real self.
00:03:18.560 --> 00:03:20.719
Do we even really need that language anymore?
00:03:20.879 --> 00:03:30.560
And we wind up, of course, talking about where we're going, which is the multiverse or the metaverse, and what identities will be like in there.
00:03:31.120 --> 00:03:38.879
I was really lucky to get two such thoughtful and considerate guests who think about this topic all the time.
00:03:39.039 --> 00:03:42.159
And we had a very rich discussion.
00:03:42.400 --> 00:03:46.560
So to quote from Georg's book, authenticity is now fading away.
00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:50.240
Authenticity relies heavily on personal interaction between people.
00:03:50.479 --> 00:03:58.960
Authentic individuals mutually confirm their identity value, and to do this, they must know one another and be at the same time in the same place.
00:03:59.199 --> 00:04:05.439
Well, I was very happy to be in the same time and at the same place as these two guests.
00:04:05.680 --> 00:04:12.319
Please join me in listening in to a conversation about identity and profilicity.
00:04:18.480 --> 00:04:19.519
Well, hello both.
00:04:19.680 --> 00:04:31.120
This is a conversation I've been wanting to do for ages because I think it's going to revolve around identity and data and profiling, all the things I think are really exciting that are going on at the moment.
00:04:31.279 --> 00:04:34.879
And I'm so happy to have you both here together to discuss this.
00:04:35.120 --> 00:04:37.519
I know it's going to be a fantastic discussion.
00:04:37.680 --> 00:04:48.000
But I wondered if we could start by thinking about where we are now as a society and as individuals when we consider identity.
00:04:48.240 --> 00:04:49.279
How did we get here?
00:04:49.439 --> 00:04:52.399
If there's been any change, what are the drivers of that change?
00:04:52.560 --> 00:04:56.319
So could we just get your points of view to start off on?
00:04:56.639 --> 00:05:02.000
Where we think we are with identity, how we should conceptualize it in today's world.
00:05:02.160 --> 00:05:04.720
Uh, Georg, perhaps I could start with you.
00:05:05.519 --> 00:05:06.160
Oh, yeah.
00:05:06.240 --> 00:05:11.120
I mean, I hope I won't talk too long, but it's such a big uh question.
00:05:11.360 --> 00:05:15.279
So um you already brought up the word profile, right?
00:05:15.360 --> 00:05:36.800
And I think that's really, at least from my perspective, the major shift that happened in recent decades and very strongly since uh uh the new uh media and social media and so forth, that we basically are forced to manufacture our identity in the form of profiles.
00:05:37.120 --> 00:05:55.680
And if you want to define the times we live in from a kind of a new existentialist perspective, existentialist in the sense of somehow trying to find define the mode, the way in which we exist, in which we live, then I think identity is a good starting point, right?
00:05:55.839 --> 00:05:57.680
How do we how do we build identity?
00:05:57.839 --> 00:06:01.040
How do we perceive the identity of others?
00:06:01.279 --> 00:06:03.439
How do we live identity?
00:06:03.600 --> 00:06:19.199
And uh yeah, I think that's a kind of a relatively new thing that we do so in the form of constructing profiles, and again, also of course, of getting to know others through their profiles.
00:06:19.279 --> 00:06:29.839
I mean, I see both you, Tracy and Sam, for the first time, but I already knew both of you through your profiles, and I guess that's the same uh vice versa.
00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:34.000
That's how we found one another, and that's unusual.
00:06:34.160 --> 00:06:37.920
That would not have been the case uh a few decades ago.
00:06:38.480 --> 00:06:39.199
That's very interesting.
00:06:39.279 --> 00:06:46.959
Actually, I discovered your book via Adam Townsend tweeting it, actually, and I only really know him through his profile.
00:06:47.519 --> 00:06:51.279
Um these are new connections that we're forming, aren't they?
00:06:51.519 --> 00:06:53.920
In these different nodes in this network.
00:06:54.079 --> 00:06:57.199
Um, Sam, what what do you think about where we are now at the moment?
00:06:57.360 --> 00:07:00.399
How would you how would you profile where we are now?
00:07:01.439 --> 00:07:11.519
Well, I think it's a very interesting period the last 10 years, because I think identity is quite a mercurial concept.
00:07:11.600 --> 00:07:13.839
It's very difficult to pin down.
00:07:14.240 --> 00:07:29.920
And when I reflect on where we were a decade ago, at that time I was working at Experian, the data company, and there was a big focus there on something the company referred to as identity management.
00:07:30.560 --> 00:07:38.240
And that really, I suppose, had a much more traditional attitude towards identity.
00:07:38.399 --> 00:07:54.720
So it was thinking about an individual's identity in terms of data points that would make them knowable or governable or allow their access to particular services to be accepted or denied.
00:07:55.279 --> 00:08:11.759
So what Experian was interested in was developing products that would facilitate that process in some way, including things like digital ways of validating or authenticating documents like passports or driving licenses.
00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:20.160
And that frame was very much, I think, the the frame through which I saw the concept of identity at that time.
00:08:20.319 --> 00:08:29.759
And then what's been so interesting in the last 10 years is the way that a very different understanding of identity has emerged in public conversation.
00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:45.519
So particularly younger people will talk about identity as being a very important mode of self-expression, and obviously, we've seen identity politics become very influential.
00:08:45.759 --> 00:08:54.799
People will describe themselves as identifying as something or identifying with particular political or social causes.
00:08:55.120 --> 00:09:04.480
So there's been this really interesting shift, and it's almost as if those two ideas of identity are actually not even commensurable.
00:09:04.799 --> 00:09:07.039
They seem to mean such different things.
00:09:07.360 --> 00:09:16.559
So fascinating moment of things shifting and changing, even in what we mean when we use the term identity.
00:09:17.279 --> 00:09:29.360
Yeah, one of the things I've been wondering about the modern world, if you like, is whether our identity or identity management, as you said, or perhaps creation or curation, is more complex than it ever was.
00:09:29.600 --> 00:09:31.919
Or is it more simple actually?
00:09:32.159 --> 00:09:56.960
Because what what I often see in an online environment is people creating a complexity around their identity, and obviously they use the there's a possibility of using lots of different aspects to do that, but also there's a homogenization of people as they perhaps get drawn into certain tribes or they feel like there are only certain actions or behaviors or values they might want to flag to belong to a group.
00:09:57.120 --> 00:09:59.360
So I wonder what your thoughts are on that, both of you.
00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:02.799
Is identity more complex these days or not?
00:10:03.279 --> 00:10:06.399
Well, we don't really know about the past, right?
00:10:06.559 --> 00:10:07.919
Hundreds of years ago.
00:10:08.240 --> 00:10:20.080
We just can know about it through whatever books or stuff like this, and so we don't really know how hard it was for people to build or create an identity or have one.
00:10:20.399 --> 00:10:26.639
But I think it's quite telling that they didn't really talk about the problem, they didn't really have the word.
00:10:26.960 --> 00:10:29.600
It's a relatively new concept.
00:10:29.919 --> 00:10:42.480
So it seems that identity in one way or another was taken for granted, and then other things would be important, whatever, to keep your honor or to gain recognition and so forth.
00:10:42.720 --> 00:10:46.879
But identity as such seems to be a pretty new concept.
00:10:47.039 --> 00:10:52.559
I think it's very important, at least for me too, what Sam said, this rise of identity politics.
00:10:52.720 --> 00:11:06.000
And I find identity politics quite problematic, and I think it expresses a certain kind of form of obsession with identity in our times, under our conditions.
00:11:06.240 --> 00:11:13.039
So, of course, people were obsessed with who they were under different conditions, probably all the time.
00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:23.200
And again, we can look at literature and we find all kinds of people, whatever, trying to make a name for themselves and you know, trying to impress others, and these things are not new.
00:11:23.600 --> 00:11:46.159
But the very fact that we have this focus on the notion of identity, and and focus on this concept and on this idea, I think that is that is a relatively new thing, and that has to do with the fact that the identity is no longer simply that clear.
00:11:46.960 --> 00:11:53.919
Do you think that's maybe because well, our identity was born out of roles in society to some respects?
00:11:54.000 --> 00:12:11.600
I mean, I've looked at like naming, for example, we took our names from the crafts-based work that we might do, i.e., the value that we would contribute to society, and therefore, in some ways, it was taken for granted, as you say, people knew what we did and therefore how we should be named, and in a sense, that was our identity.
00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:18.080
Now we're sort of in this free-floating atmosphere where we're untethered from some of these traditional roles in society.
00:12:18.159 --> 00:12:20.960
Is that part of the driver of change then?
00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:26.879
I mean, to me that seems like a compelling explanation.
00:12:27.039 --> 00:12:37.200
It also puts me in mind of what Georg said at the beginning of the conversation about the influence of social media and online profiles.
00:12:37.759 --> 00:12:57.840
Because I think although this idea of code switching, so this is where you adopt different a different set of behaviours, a different set of norms, depending on the context in which you're interacting with other people, that that has been a phenomenon of social life for some time.
00:12:58.080 --> 00:13:16.720
It does seem like the fact that there are now so many different social networking services that we need to use as part of our daily life, that has sort of led to the creation of a multiplicity of new norms and expectations.
00:13:17.039 --> 00:13:31.279
And so we end up having to, I guess, like moderate or edit the way in which we appear in order to conform to the norms that exist in those different contexts.
00:13:31.759 --> 00:13:33.759
I mean, and that's the big difference, right?
00:13:33.919 --> 00:13:39.600
In the past, we wouldn't have much choice regarding to dress or hairstyle, right?
00:13:39.919 --> 00:13:46.080
First of all, you would be probably working most of the time, and then you would be just dressed properly for work.
00:13:46.159 --> 00:13:58.320
But like every any other occasion, you wouldn't really have much choice which kind of shoes to wear, or in your cases, which kind of glasses to choose from.
00:13:58.879 --> 00:14:03.840
So all of these uh things would would just not be even a question, right?
00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:14.080
And since all these tiny things, they are now all a question, and somehow we have to somehow identify with the glasses we wear, right?
00:14:14.240 --> 00:14:32.879
The glasses you I'm or your glasses that I'm now looking at, they are obviously perceived and need to be kind of chosen by you with regard to how they express your identity, what kind of profile, and so just like your glasses, right?
00:14:32.960 --> 00:14:38.879
They are all part of your profile creation, and it's impossible not to do that.
00:14:39.039 --> 00:14:57.279
I mean, you could uh maybe choose contact lenses, but that would also be uh ultimately uh a profile-related choice, and um that's very different from a few hundred years ago or even a few decades ago.
00:14:57.679 --> 00:15:06.559
That's very interesting, actually, because it it might bring me on to ask Sam a question about search, because a lot of the profiling you've done is through search, isn't it?
00:15:06.720 --> 00:15:07.840
And search data.
00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:16.240
And and that really is sort of pointing towards people searching for, you know, to make a better decision when there is this choice open to them.
00:15:16.399 --> 00:15:22.720
How much can we tell about someone through the buildup of data, through like search data?
00:15:22.879 --> 00:15:24.799
How much can we really profile them?
00:15:25.519 --> 00:15:26.000
Yes.
00:15:26.240 --> 00:15:35.919
So as you say, Tracy, the use of internet search data to understand the world is something that I'm a little bit obsessed with.
00:15:36.080 --> 00:16:02.000
But I guess I should make a bit of a distinction, which is between using that data at an aggregate level to reveal things about society or about large groups, which is the area that I'm predominantly interested in, and a different thing that would be revealed by that search data if you were to look at the searches that a specific individual has made.
00:16:02.320 --> 00:16:11.840
So just to say a bit more about the first of those things, that data is very powerful in contexts like public health.
00:16:12.080 --> 00:16:28.320
So in recent times, and particularly for things like tracking the spread of COVID outbreaks, that has been possible by paying attention to symptom searches that people are making through Google.
00:16:28.480 --> 00:16:41.440
And there is this very significant benefit to the public and society of that data being available in order that researchers are able to tell what's going on from a public health perspective.
00:16:41.679 --> 00:16:46.159
So that's the that's the collective approach to using that data.
00:16:46.320 --> 00:17:24.480
There is also other interesting academic research that has been done on individuals' search histories, so particularly in areas like mental health, so researchers who are interested in what people's psychological state is in the run-up to episodes of self-harm or suicide attempts, perhaps unsurprisingly, their individual Google search history is uh uh very revealing and very helpful to researchers trying to think about how to diagnose and how to design mental health interventions more effectively.
00:17:24.799 --> 00:17:35.599
So I think it is definitely the case that an individual's search history is expressing something quite profound probably about their identity.
00:17:35.759 --> 00:17:57.279
Um, it also puts me in mind of some an interesting bit of work done by the designer Chris Downs, who quite some time ago now, like 15 plus years ago, decided that he wanted to physically collect all of the data that organisations held about him.
00:17:57.440 --> 00:18:08.000
So that included all of his club card data from the supermarket that he shopped at, all of his transaction data from the bank.
00:18:08.480 --> 00:18:18.240
And so he wrote this series of subject access requests and got these organizations to physically send him copies of the data that they were holding.
00:18:18.480 --> 00:18:31.119
And one of the things that he found from that was that even things as banal as his choices about what type of laundry detergent to buy said something about the person that he was.
00:18:31.279 --> 00:18:49.119
To the specific example I've got in mind, is that he'd been using eCover, which is a brand of eco-friendly laundry detergent for years and years and years, um, and that spoke to his concerns about the the environment and the choices that he was making as a result.
00:18:49.839 --> 00:18:57.119
So it is definitely the case, I think, that these forms of digital data can say really profound things about the people that we are.
00:18:57.599 --> 00:18:59.279
May I interject on this?
00:18:59.440 --> 00:19:04.799
I've just listened to a talk I found fascinating by Elena Esposito.
00:19:04.960 --> 00:19:08.720
She's a professor in both Bielefeld and Bologna.
00:19:09.359 --> 00:19:11.599
And she works on algorithms now.
00:19:12.079 --> 00:19:16.559
And she was talking about the same thing that you were just talking about, right?
00:19:16.720 --> 00:19:28.319
That we make predictions based on, for instance, our Google search data about something that seems entirely unrelated, whatever, our suicidal tendencies, as you just mentioned.
00:19:28.559 --> 00:19:38.480
Now she says, and I think that's a very good point that that somewhat contradicts what you said, that this function is actually like old age divination.
00:19:38.799 --> 00:19:40.400
And what does she mean by this?
00:19:40.559 --> 00:19:49.680
She means all we're really seeing, and all that we're really interested in, actually, as well, is the correlation.
00:19:50.240 --> 00:20:00.160
We have certain phenomena, and then we, so to speak, divine by uh establishing a correlation to something that seems to be entirely unrelated.
00:20:00.319 --> 00:20:08.880
And of course, that works much better than old age divination, but the rationality behind it is basically the same.
00:20:09.119 --> 00:20:19.279
So we are not looking at causation, so we're actually not even interested why the two things are related and not even how they're related.
00:20:19.519 --> 00:20:30.799
So, in that sense, we're not looking at the Google search of a person to find out who the person really is, but we want to find out, for instance, if they are suicidal or not.
00:20:30.960 --> 00:20:40.720
We don't want to find out why they are suicidal, and we don't want to find out uh anything about their personality as such.
00:20:40.960 --> 00:20:50.880
We just want to find the correlation between between let's say data and a future event, and that's all.
00:20:51.200 --> 00:21:09.359
And that's very different from an interest in let's say a person's real self, but we still use this language of a person's real self because that's something that we are kind of used to.
00:21:09.920 --> 00:21:29.279
But i I I'm I think Elena Esposita has a good point in pointing out this thing, that this phenomenon that you just described, or this method that you just described, actually has this divinatory function and is not really aiming at finding out who the person really is.
00:21:29.359 --> 00:21:34.880
They just want to find out if whatever they buy this product or not, or if they commit suicide or not.
00:21:35.200 --> 00:21:57.119
So I I essentially agree with this criticism that you've raised, Georg, and this is a very important criticism in any context where people are thinking about ways of using big data sets and machine learning algorithms to make predictions that affect individuals.
00:21:57.440 --> 00:22:06.720
Because exactly as you say, They should not be assumed to be saying something that is truthful about individuals.
00:22:06.880 --> 00:22:15.119
What they're doing is making probabilistic inferences about the future based on data from the past.
00:22:15.440 --> 00:22:29.200
So obviously, in the context of things like predicting somebody's consumer preferences and whether they'll have an interest in a particular set of shoes or a particular type of food, the stakes are relatively low.
00:22:29.519 --> 00:22:43.200
The people who are doing that type of prediction are interested in being commercially effective at a very large scale, they're not trying to make a high-stakes decision about a particular individual.
00:22:43.279 --> 00:22:45.039
They're not trying to know that individual.
00:22:45.200 --> 00:22:51.119
They're trying to make educated guesses about how a large population of people will behave.
00:22:51.680 --> 00:23:10.799
I guess if we cross over from those banal use cases of this type of data analytics into contexts where the stakes are higher, I think the you know that there is a good body of academic peer-reviewed research in the field of what is referred to as infodemiology.
00:23:10.960 --> 00:23:26.079
So this is the use of these of internet search data and other digital data sources as part of understanding public health challenges and making better informed decisions about how to respond to those.
00:23:26.880 --> 00:23:42.000
Those things also to some extent it doesn't it doesn't necessarily matter if a causal relationship can't be established because what is important is having an effective public health intervention in response to a particular challenge.
00:23:42.799 --> 00:24:06.880
I totally agree that if we get into the case of individuals' search data, it it's right to say that we can't know something about an individual based on an analysis of any form of digital data about other individuals from the past, or perhaps even about that that same individual from the past.
00:24:07.519 --> 00:24:12.319
So from the outside, it doesn't help us understand their identity.
00:24:12.480 --> 00:24:28.799
What it may do, and and here I'm talking again about these other researchers who do ask individuals to share their own data in order to uh enable research or in order to target interventions more effectively.
00:24:29.680 --> 00:24:46.799
Again, the well I think that that data probably can say something meaningful about those individuals, but in the case of that research, again, the goal is to have a more effective future intervention on a probabilistic basis.
00:24:47.039 --> 00:25:09.599
So if you can understand from an individual search history that they have made a particular set of searches that relate to self-harm and that that appears to be predictive of suicidal ideation, perhaps it's possible to design a public health intervention where Google ads appear or are triggered by particular searches and promote suicide help lines, for example.
00:25:09.759 --> 00:25:27.440
So I think in that case we could say there's a there's arguably a public benefit to that type of intervention, but I don't think we would say we'd necessarily that that reveals something about the individual or or or the identity of the person who is making that search.
00:25:29.200 --> 00:25:34.799
I saw um just to bring those two thoughts together, I saw um an interesting tweet this morning while I was just scrolling.
00:25:34.960 --> 00:25:37.920
I won't say who tweeted it, but I'll tell you you what it said.
00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:51.440
It said um, it's from a woman who said, I have an MA, a PhD, eight patents, 15 plus years of funding tech, 20 plus years of building tech, five of them at Google.
00:25:51.680 --> 00:25:56.480
After all that, today I see Google search has generated a knowledge box about me.
00:25:56.720 --> 00:25:58.640
Apparently I'm a wife.
00:25:58.880 --> 00:26:01.359
Tell me again how neutral algorithms are.
00:26:01.920 --> 00:26:08.559
And then to top it all, given we're thinking about identity and profiling, she says, happy hashtag women's history month.
00:26:09.359 --> 00:26:13.440
I thought it was the perfect tweet to see on the morning I was going to speak to both of you.
00:26:13.839 --> 00:26:15.759
I went to her profile actually to see.
00:26:15.839 --> 00:26:19.200
Well, if she doesn't, I mean, given all of that she said, fine.
00:26:19.279 --> 00:26:30.079
And she does she mention she's a wife even in her profile or a bio on Twitter, and it says NJ by birth, J Hook by Marriage, X, Google Maps, YouTube, Android, etc.
00:26:30.319 --> 00:26:32.880
And then in location it says vaccinated.
00:26:33.039 --> 00:26:43.759
I mean, it's a very interesting example because it's somebody who's giving out lots of identity cues, I think, lots of cues to how they would like to be profiled or how they would like to be seen.
00:26:43.920 --> 00:26:52.559
And the algorithm, in this case, has been perceived to come back and have chosen one very limited uh dimension.
00:26:52.720 --> 00:26:54.640
I just thought it was kind of you know ironic.
00:26:54.799 --> 00:27:12.559
Sorry, Sam, you were going to say I was going to add another quite similar example, which is yesterday I used Bing to search for Dominic Cummings, and that produced a knowledge box which prominently describes Dominic Cummings as the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
00:27:12.640 --> 00:27:19.920
Uh which I mean I haven't lived in the United Kingdom for a couple of years, but unless I missed something, Dominic Cummings was never Prime Minister.
00:27:20.640 --> 00:27:23.200
But to be fair, Sam, he did think he was.
00:27:24.480 --> 00:27:35.519
Well, I I I think this this so I tweeted this, and and this was one of the comments that I've got was well surely this just reveals that Bing knows things for sure that we only suspected.
00:27:37.440 --> 00:27:59.200
But I think that like maybe the more plausible explanation, which depressingly also explains the example that you just gave, is it's to do with this thing called the knowledge graph, which Microsoft and Google and other tech companies have invested a lot in trying to build.
00:27:59.359 --> 00:28:10.720
So in the knowledge graph, you have the concept of an entity, so an entity might be a person, and then there are a lot of attributes that you can place against that entity in the knowledge graph.
00:28:10.960 --> 00:28:27.039
And when we see answer boxes or direct answers on search engines, they are drawing attributes from the knowledge graph to try and enrich your understanding of that entity.
00:28:27.440 --> 00:28:57.200
But and this this goes to exactly some of the problems that Georg was describing with the way that data gets constructed, built into the knowledge graph, are certain things which its initial developers deemed to be objective and neutral, like whether somebody was male or female, whether they were married or unmarried, a husband or a wife, and how old they are, how tall they are.
00:28:57.680 --> 00:29:16.160
These kinds of things have ended up becoming woven into the search results that we see as a result of some very arbitrary decisions that reflected background assumptions of the people who developed the data set and the concept of the knowledge graph in the first place.
00:29:16.400 --> 00:29:22.400
And so it's always fascinating to me to see these materialise in reality.
00:29:22.799 --> 00:29:39.839
And of course, they they do probably say something about identity as well, and the way in which one in the digital world, one's identity may end up getting fixed by the categories that a developer at a big tech company has unthinkingly created many years in the past.
00:29:40.640 --> 00:29:41.680
I was going to ask about that.
00:29:41.920 --> 00:29:53.839
Perhaps, Georg, you could um talk around this or address this around that uh fixedness or not in online profilicity, but also who then is in control of our profile?
00:29:54.000 --> 00:30:04.319
If we think we are representing ourselves in one way, but actually the algorithms are depicting us to others in another way, maybe a more limited way, but just maybe a different way.
00:30:04.480 --> 00:30:11.599
Who is really in control of our identity, our persona or personas in these environments, do you think?
00:30:12.160 --> 00:30:27.519
Well, I mean, obviously we're not in control, and that we're not in control disappoints the modern idea or ideal of human agency, right?
00:30:27.599 --> 00:30:33.839
That's a con con central aspect of the of Western Enlightenment philosophy.
00:30:34.559 --> 00:30:55.200
That you know the the the point of being human is to be in control, autonomous, autonomy, that's a central term, and autonomy means self-law giving, which means you don't follow the laws that anyone else has given you, and that means you're not under control of someone else.
00:30:55.279 --> 00:31:02.559
But so this idea that which was a scandalous thing at the time because it would break with the religious uh ideals, right?
00:31:02.640 --> 00:31:07.839
If humans were under religious uh ideas, you weren't really supposed to be autonomous.
00:31:08.079 --> 00:31:14.480
The Lord would be kind of the ultimate person who would be in control of you, and that was regarded as all right.
00:31:14.880 --> 00:31:25.359
But then in modernity, there is the idea that humans have to be in control, and the more control we have, the more autonomous we have, the better we are, both as individuals or as societies.
00:31:25.440 --> 00:31:49.519
So there is this fixation of control, which informs this whole uh let's say discourse that you are now referring to, because originally the whole new media, I I remember that well, I'm old enough, maybe other than you guys, to remember like in the 1990s when these new technologies were being hyped, and of course, they were hyped with the same semantics, with the same rhetorics.
00:31:49.599 --> 00:31:51.119
They will enhance control.
00:31:51.519 --> 00:31:53.920
We will be even more autonomous, right?
00:31:54.160 --> 00:32:00.400
But then uh very soon there was a disappointment that that actually didn't really happen, right?
00:32:00.640 --> 00:32:02.799
And uh of course, why didn't it happen?
00:32:02.960 --> 00:32:12.880
Because the whole narrative is flawed from the beginning, because we were never really fully in control, and we can not really fully be in control of anything, right?
00:32:12.960 --> 00:32:21.119
We're not in control of our bodily functions, we're not in control of our blood circulation, of our heartbeat right now, right?
00:32:21.279 --> 00:32:27.920
We're not in control if you study psychology of our desires and of our perceptions.
00:32:28.160 --> 00:32:34.559
We can't, you know, be uh cannot be in control and you know see the color behind you differently.
00:32:34.640 --> 00:32:36.480
I just see it as as I see it.
00:32:36.559 --> 00:32:41.839
And we're also not in control of ourselves socially, as a matter of fact, right?
00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:48.079
If we want to get we're not in control of our profiles, maybe no one wants to read the book we're writing, right?
00:32:48.240 --> 00:32:51.200
Maybe we made the wrong choice with a profile photo.
00:32:51.359 --> 00:32:52.559
Who knows, right?
00:32:52.720 --> 00:33:24.799
It's a feedback loop, and that is a social that we are we are we are we have to somehow project uh and form our profiles in line with the social, let's say, tools that are provided to us, and even then we're kind of entirely dependent on how it actually works, and unlike in in previous times, again, going back centuries, we could basically know, yeah, we marry and have children, and then we fulfilled our role.
00:33:24.960 --> 00:33:26.720
Nowadays, that's not even the case.
00:33:26.880 --> 00:33:32.160
Nowadays, you have whatever, you know, it's it's not really that easy anymore.
00:33:32.319 --> 00:33:37.440
And you know, you maybe that's not actually the best profile to be a mom with three kids, right?
00:33:37.599 --> 00:33:39.279
Maybe that's not that cool.
00:33:39.519 --> 00:33:43.359
Uh and uh and maybe that changes next year, right?
00:33:43.440 --> 00:33:50.160
We thought it would be cool, but then we find out after year the whole kind of discourse uh has changed.
00:33:50.480 --> 00:34:19.360
And so, yeah, I think that's of course uh uh a real problem that we are still kind of orienting ourselves, like Noam Chomsky says, we look in the rear view mirror of this semantics of the 18th century basically, and we're trying to describe the 21st century with and kind of desperately hang on to it and think we can transport into in it into the the digital world.
00:34:19.519 --> 00:34:39.440
And I think the semantics is entirely hopeless and actually exaggerating here a bit, uh useless to adequately understand what's happening and uh equally uh helpless to understand what would potentially make things better or worse.
00:34:39.840 --> 00:34:44.639
I think that speaks really well to where we might be going in the future with AI assistance.
00:34:44.880 --> 00:34:58.960
So when I've researched a lot, particularly with sort of what we might call Gen Z, particularly sort of people in their early 20s right now, they're using AI to outsource a lot of these decisions and make some of these choices for them.
00:34:59.119 --> 00:35:03.280
And perhaps older people might look on that and think that's odd.
00:35:03.440 --> 00:35:11.840
But I've spoken to like there was a young girl who was a fashion student, and she wanted to be sure that she was making the right fashion choices for herself.
00:35:12.079 --> 00:35:27.039
So uh rather than necessarily just rely on her own instinct to make those choices or decisions, she wanted an AI to sort of analyse her style and then choose some of the right outfits or or whatever for her.
00:35:27.199 --> 00:35:33.760
And in digging into this, it just became clear that she didn't necessarily not trust her own instinct.
00:35:33.840 --> 00:35:42.800
It was that she should she thought she'd get a more analytic, somehow objective point of view about herself using AI.
00:35:42.960 --> 00:36:05.679
And I think this might be one of the interesting extensions to this prophelicity that we see today, which is can we use these AI assistants almost to not better curate uh uh identity, but curate it in a different way, perhaps bring some new insights to ourselves and our own behavior that we couldn't see from our own perspective.
00:36:05.840 --> 00:36:12.880
And then maybe that will create a more interesting or richer sort of profile for each of us in the end.
00:36:12.960 --> 00:36:15.199
I don't know if either of you have thoughts on that.
00:36:16.320 --> 00:36:24.639
So I have two examples of my own of using quote-unquote AI systems to make these types of choices.
00:36:24.800 --> 00:36:33.119
So one is very similar to the one you described, Tracy, which is when I still lived in London, I used a service called Thread to buy clothes.
00:36:33.360 --> 00:36:49.760
So the idea here was that you answered a questionnaire about your clothing preferences, you took some photos and made some measurements, and then the algorithm told you what you should wear, you put your credit card details in, and the clothes arrived.
00:36:49.840 --> 00:37:01.920
Uh, and I have to say I got a lot of value from this service as somebody who is just really not that into clothes, but of necessity has to sometimes appear moderately well dressed.
00:37:02.159 --> 00:37:03.599
So that was the first example.
00:37:03.760 --> 00:37:15.440
The second example is something that I really regret doesn't exist anymore, which is a website called justbuythisone.com, which was built by the reviews website Revoo.
00:37:15.599 --> 00:37:23.760
And the way that that worked was that it would aggregate all of the consumer reviews for every product type.
00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:33.760
So you would just tell justbuythisone.com, I need a new laptop and I want to spend 600 pounds, and it would say just buy this one.
00:37:34.000 --> 00:38:06.079
And I loved that service because it took away the futile attempt to make the optimal decision about what laptop to buy in this context of just an absurd number of different things that one has to choose from, most of which I neither know anything about nor care about, for example, the size of the hard drive or what specific computer chip is being used at the core of the machine.
00:38:06.639 --> 00:38:47.039
So I guess to connect this to Georg's point, for me one way of looking at those services was that they dispensed with the old idea that I am a rational, autonomous chooser who can directly make choices about the things in my life, and it seemed to engage more honestly with the very complex uh reality and the the the sort of unknowability of what the correct choices for us in the world that we currently live in.
00:38:47.360 --> 00:38:56.239
Yeah, I don't know if I mentioned actually, but I don't remember if I mentioned this in the book, but it's possible in the you and your profile book.
00:38:56.639 --> 00:38:57.519
It's a true story.
00:38:57.599 --> 00:39:12.960
I had this kind of existential crisis, I think, as many teenagers have around the age of 16 or so, when I noticed because that was still very much in the age of authenticity, and so growing up was basically the task.
00:39:13.119 --> 00:39:23.519
You have to be become and very soon an uh an authentic person, and only in this way you can basically exist in your peer group as a teenager.
00:39:23.679 --> 00:39:30.159
So becoming authentic and knowing and and also demon being able to demonstrate this is very important.
00:39:30.719 --> 00:39:38.239
Now, uh I still remember this that I had this crisis that I found out, oh, I'm acting different with everyone, right?
00:39:38.320 --> 00:39:44.639
With these friends and with the girls, I'm acting different with the boys and with uh these friends, I'm acting different than those.
00:39:44.719 --> 00:39:48.000
When I'm playing soccer, I act different than when I'm at school.
00:39:48.239 --> 00:39:52.880
And then I thought I'm just like I'm a total cheat or anything, right?
00:39:52.960 --> 00:39:58.320
I'm I'm just who I am, and it was a real existential, my first existential crisis.
00:39:58.480 --> 00:40:01.599
And uh I had no way of resolving this.
00:40:01.840 --> 00:40:08.800
And then later on, I started Chinese philosophy, and then I learned that from a traditional Chinese perspective, that's actually a good thing.
00:40:08.960 --> 00:40:14.880
And then I remember this because according to Chinese philosophy, which is traditional sincerity thing, it's an art.
00:40:15.039 --> 00:40:26.000
Whenever you're with a different person, it's a different relationship, and you have to have, you know, develop different different personality in order to make this relationship function very well, right?
00:40:26.079 --> 00:40:33.920
You can't act in the same way as a parent, then you act as a kid, or right, and you but you're both a parent and a kid most of the time of your life, right?
00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:39.280
So you have to act interact with your children and your parents, and you just can't do it the same authentic way.
00:40:39.360 --> 00:40:41.360
It's always a relational thing, right?
00:40:41.440 --> 00:40:51.920
So again, it's not we're not in control of these, it's just like a national relations we're in, and in each of them we have to learn to act in a different way.
00:40:52.159 --> 00:41:01.599
And so I found out then after studying this like 10 years later, that my experience I experienced as an experience of my own fakeness.
00:41:01.840 --> 00:41:07.760
But that was just because I was applying the age of authenticity paradigm, right?
00:41:07.920 --> 00:41:13.920
If I would have lived in a sincerity context, I would have not experienced this as an existential crisis at all.
00:41:14.079 --> 00:41:19.440
I would have experienced as a good way of growing up, and my relationship network becomes richer.
00:41:19.599 --> 00:41:23.199
I become like more, uh how to say, more nuanced, right?
00:41:23.280 --> 00:41:27.119
I develop different personas as it should be with different people.
00:41:27.360 --> 00:41:31.599
Again, that violates the ethics of authenticity.
00:41:31.840 --> 00:41:42.719
But again, again, this goes directly to your point, Tracy, that I think in Profilicity we can learn to get away from this paradigm of authenticity.
00:41:42.960 --> 00:42:00.079
In the book, I refer to an article by a colleague of mine on sociologist about electronic music, how electronic musicians in the same gig, in the same night, like play under like three, four different names, and they play different kinds of music.
00:42:00.400 --> 00:42:09.440
And not only this, in this music they relate differently to the audience and relate differently to the persona they are, and it's like a whole different thing.
00:42:09.599 --> 00:42:27.119
And again, I'm just saying this in order to support your point, Tracy, that through profility, we kind of uh rediscover this ability that we once had in sincerity to have to assume different identities in different relationships, which is a good thing, which is not a bad thing.
00:42:27.280 --> 00:42:31.199
Uh so we experience this whole new social media thing.
00:42:31.440 --> 00:42:35.360
I think Paul, my co-author, quoted this in the You and Your Profile book.
00:42:35.519 --> 00:42:39.119
All these different profiles that people have, they should be united in one thing.
00:42:39.199 --> 00:42:40.719
Otherwise, people are fake.
00:42:40.880 --> 00:42:41.199
Right?
00:42:41.360 --> 00:42:42.960
That's that's exactly the thing.
00:42:43.039 --> 00:42:43.920
It's not true.
00:42:44.159 --> 00:42:45.440
No, this is why.
00:42:45.519 --> 00:42:47.199
This is a stupid paradigm.
00:42:47.440 --> 00:43:00.480
And in profilicity, once we kind of get used to it, I think we can again like recover this actual art of existence that we have, and we all of them equally, right?
00:43:00.559 --> 00:43:03.199
We're equally the father as we are the kid.
00:43:03.440 --> 00:43:13.039
And uh that doesn't mean that we're that one is even though the two are completely different, that they don't kind of cancel one another out, they enhance one another.
00:43:13.199 --> 00:43:32.719
And I think again, like with with profility and living and creating and and living up to and identifying with and being invested in, that's the terminology I I use, uh, being invested in different truly invested in different profiles, we can actually go back to some sort of richer existence.
00:43:32.880 --> 00:43:33.679
Why not?
00:43:34.000 --> 00:43:36.159
I think that's a really beautiful way of putting it.
00:43:36.320 --> 00:43:53.119
I mean, my I'd said in my book that perhaps we should start to think of ourselves a bit like polymorphic code, that there's a sort of in that there's a the original algorithm is somehow intact, but it mutates according to the context.
00:43:53.360 --> 00:43:59.760
So, you know, six minus two is four, but so is one plus three, and it can so the four can.
00:44:00.079 --> 00:44:01.360
Show up in different ways, sort of thing.
00:44:01.519 --> 00:44:04.639
I couldn't fight, you've articulated it much more eloquently than me.
00:44:04.800 --> 00:44:11.519
I was trying to think about what was the best analogy I could think of, and that was only the closest I I could get, really.
00:44:11.679 --> 00:44:20.000
But I love that idea that you've just expressed, and it makes me feel like we don't have to worry so much about there being many cells.
00:44:20.079 --> 00:44:26.960
It's just embracing the fluidity of the self without being constrained by this authenticity.
00:44:27.280 --> 00:44:29.440
Sam, do you want to comment on that?
00:44:29.920 --> 00:44:34.960
Yes, I mean, like you, Tracy, I will struggle to be as articulate as Georg.
00:44:35.199 --> 00:44:51.199
I would really actually like to play that clip to, well, I think many, this is a bit of a generalization, but many younger people in that contemporary workplace have very high demands when it comes to authenticity.
00:44:51.280 --> 00:45:07.840
And I think this is partly because there has been a trend towards authentic leadership and the idea that leaders need to be less command and control and more in touch with their own feelings and sensitive to the feelings of people who work for them.
00:45:08.320 --> 00:45:31.280
But I guess, in my opinion, in the professional world, we have probably gone too far, and there are now a lot of people who have a set of expectations about how workplaces ought to operate that are predicated on the idea of people being their quote-unquote authentic selves at all times.
00:45:31.840 --> 00:45:45.280
And what that translates to in practice is people just behave, or it can translate to people behaving in a manner that in previous generations would have just been thought unprofessional.
00:45:45.599 --> 00:46:11.519
So, for example, in in a work environment, if there is a decision that makes you very angry or makes you feel very upset, the idea that it would be inauthentic to proactively manage your instinctive reaction to the decision on the basis that you are in a professional interaction with your colleagues.
00:46:11.760 --> 00:46:17.119
That has become a seems to have become a difficult idea for people to come to terms with.
00:46:40.239 --> 00:46:48.559
Don't worry, we're going to capture that beautiful articulation and we're going to enable as many other people to hear it as possible.
00:46:48.800 --> 00:46:58.000
I wanted to maybe take you back to something that's linked to what we were just talking about, but was also mentioned at the beginning of the conversation about identity politics.
00:46:58.239 --> 00:47:02.079
I feel like there's almost a new jeopardy in identity at the moment.
00:47:02.239 --> 00:47:14.159
So I know, Georg, you talk about in the book, you talk about pride, and you talk about pride being sort of like happy in the successful identification, a feeling of being at home with oneself.
00:47:14.559 --> 00:47:19.679
And of course, this is this has been very important to people, and it is still important to people.
00:47:19.840 --> 00:47:25.760
I wonder if increasingly people are being punished for their identity at the moment.
00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:31.760
It could be, I mean, I think it kind of started certainly in the West around how they voted.
00:47:31.920 --> 00:47:35.760
Now it's even punishment for what charity they might give money to.
00:47:35.840 --> 00:47:38.320
I'm thinking about the Canadian truckers, obviously.
00:47:38.480 --> 00:47:56.079
But only even in the last 24 hours, I've heard that big tech are now flagging any content that you want to share that is authored by a Russian, flagging it and tagging it as Russian state-sponsored media.
00:47:56.239 --> 00:48:08.800
I mean, regardless of what the content is, regardless of the intention or motivation you have in sharing it, they've identified it and you very specifically, almost I would say, to bring about shame.
00:48:08.960 --> 00:48:14.159
And so I wondered if you could talk to this idea if you agree with it, or even if you don't, actually.
00:48:14.320 --> 00:48:24.559
We had a pride in our identity, and now there's some jeopardy because we're being encouraged to have shame over our identity, which gives some people a license to punish us.
00:48:24.880 --> 00:48:27.519
This feels to me like a very dangerous time.
00:48:28.480 --> 00:48:30.320
Yes, I fully agree with that.
00:48:30.400 --> 00:48:31.760
That's a good observation.
00:48:31.920 --> 00:48:35.920
And I mean, all of these things are very ambiguous.
00:48:36.320 --> 00:48:42.159
So just maybe let's stick to pride, but shame is uh is very similar.
00:48:42.480 --> 00:48:49.920
So on the one hand, like pride, I think is a main indicator of identity, right?
00:48:50.239 --> 00:48:54.559
So whatever I'm proud of is something I identify with, right?
00:48:54.639 --> 00:48:58.239
I can be proud of uh my family, right?
00:48:58.400 --> 00:49:02.639
To be whatever, but I can also be proud of your nation, of your country, right?
00:49:02.800 --> 00:49:08.880
And and then you identify with like and in Germany we didn't have the best experiences with that, right?
00:49:08.960 --> 00:49:14.880
We took it a little bit too far, and that can happen uh very easily, right?
00:49:15.039 --> 00:49:18.559
And the same thing can be with religion and so forth, right?
00:49:19.039 --> 00:49:23.679
And uh that can it doesn't matter what you're proud of, what you're proud to be.
00:49:23.840 --> 00:49:28.800
Whatever you're proud to be, I think is potentially dangerous.
00:49:29.360 --> 00:49:46.079
And um on the other hand, again, it's ambiguous, it is a strong, let's say, emotional, on the one hand, it's an it's an emotional confirmation that confirms your identity, which is somehow, I guess, essential and necessary.
00:49:46.400 --> 00:49:51.679
And of course, it also has at the same time the social signaling thing, right?
00:49:51.920 --> 00:49:57.199
Pride is then is always something like you pri like the national identity with a flag.
00:49:57.280 --> 00:49:59.760
You proudly display the flag, right?
00:49:59.920 --> 00:50:09.199
Or you proudly display the signs of your religion, or you proudly through other things display your motherhood in in certain forms, right?
00:50:09.519 --> 00:50:15.119
Uh so it's always also something that is an identity that is that is signaled, right?
00:50:15.199 --> 00:50:19.039
Because you're proud of it, you you like to signal it.
00:50:19.280 --> 00:50:25.280
And again, that that shows, let's say, the again, like the precariousness of identity.
00:50:25.519 --> 00:50:42.800
I think I, as I said, also that's the same thing why I find identity politics problematic, as I said earlier, because if you base politics on identity, and again, the German example for me from my national background, that's uh somehow unavoidable, that that's always on your mind, right?
00:50:42.880 --> 00:50:51.840
If you're too proud on your identity and make it into the basic thing of your fucking politics, that's like really the worst thing that you can do.
00:50:52.079 --> 00:51:00.480
So, in this sense, I think I'm not at all uh, you know, but that's a similar thing between wokism and uh and the populism, right?
00:51:00.559 --> 00:51:06.480
And it's all that they all do identity politics, and that's really dangerous thing to do.
00:51:06.719 --> 00:51:28.159
So uh I'm not a friend of identity politics while I admit that in order to have function as a human being and for society to function, there needs a certain form of pride, and there also needs to be, as Sam already pointed out, a certain form of shame, which is kind of the opposite of it.
00:51:28.400 --> 00:51:31.519
But again, it's it's it's a very volatile thing.
00:51:31.679 --> 00:51:38.320
Shame can also, and you gave an example, Tracy, which I think is also hugely problematic right now.
00:51:38.480 --> 00:51:51.039
But then you also have all these again in Chinese culture that is the opposite of what I said earlier, and Confucianism, on the one hand, you develop this this art of relating in different personas, on the other hand, it's a huge shame pressure, right?
00:51:51.119 --> 00:52:02.400
And and you very easily, uh just as you as you if you build your identity on shame as a negative marker, right, that that you become oversensitive to issues of shame.
00:52:03.039 --> 00:52:07.920
Yes, so very interesting times that we live in.
00:52:08.239 --> 00:52:22.719
I think that one of the best academic pieces that's been written about the age of the internet is a paper by David Rentaman, which I think is called Political Theory and Real Politics in the Age of the Internet.
00:52:23.199 --> 00:52:44.960
And one of the things that he does in that paper is look at the philosophy of Judith Schlaar and particularly at her book on or what she called the ordinary vices, and the thing that he draws out from that is well, it's twofold.
00:52:45.199 --> 00:52:54.800
So one is hypocrisy, that's one of the ordinary vices that really seems to have been foregrounded by the internet.
00:52:55.840 --> 00:53:21.280
So it certainly seems to me at the moment that the internet both exposes a lot of hypocrisy, but also somehow encourages everybody to be really angry all the time about hypocrisy, which I think then you know the anger about hypocrisy connects to some of the things we've already talked about in relation to authenticity.
00:53:21.519 --> 00:53:37.519
Because I think if you buy the idea that the virtuous thing is always to be your authentic self, then hypocrisy is the worst thing that you can do because by definition you must be acting in a way that is contrary to your authentic self.
00:53:37.679 --> 00:53:42.320
And you know, we we see this play out in scandal after scandal.
00:53:42.400 --> 00:53:52.800
If we think about UK politics, we already talked about Dominic Cummings, we don't need to uh relive examples of hypocrisy in relation to him.
00:53:53.039 --> 00:54:04.880
The same goes with uh the Dining Street parties, it it seems like the reason people are so angry about these things is because they they seem like they're hypocritical.
00:54:05.199 --> 00:54:10.639
So that's uh one thing that David Ronsaman draws out of Judith Schla's writing.
00:54:10.800 --> 00:54:36.079
And the other thing, the other ordinary vice is cruelty, which for Judith Glar, this was the worst of the ordinary vices, and she argues in that book and elsewhere that politics ought to happen in a way that minimizes the amount of cruelty that is inflicted in the world, mitigates the possibilities for cruelty to happen.
00:54:36.400 --> 00:54:47.360
But um, what the internet or another thing the internet seems to have done is create all these new ways in which cruelty can be inflicted.
00:54:47.679 --> 00:54:58.800
So, in the language of the public policy debate, though we could talk about online harms like trolling or doxing or cyberbullying.
00:54:59.119 --> 00:55:03.440
These are all new forms of cruelty that exist.
00:55:04.079 --> 00:55:13.119
And it seems like we now live in a world where the constant exposing of hypocrisy is an inevitability.
00:55:13.519 --> 00:55:29.360
The response to that, because it is in conflict with the idea of authenticity, is for everybody to be really angry, and they then have many more tools to go and express their anger through new forms of cruelty.
00:55:30.320 --> 00:55:47.039
And so I suppose when I think about identity politics, I partly think of it in through this sort of frame, and yeah, you know, like I have sort of deep reservations about it as the basis for politics.
00:55:47.199 --> 00:56:02.719
It seems to me the opposite of what politics ought to be achieving, which is some sort of commonality of purpose between people who have different perspectives and different interests.
00:56:02.880 --> 00:56:14.000
That that's surely what political systems are for, is making as equitable a possible uh trade-off between the views and interests of uh those different groups.
00:56:15.119 --> 00:56:18.559
We seem to be walking away from our tolerance of diversity.
00:56:18.719 --> 00:56:22.880
For all the talk of diversity, we seem to be less tolerant than ever.
00:56:23.119 --> 00:56:31.280
And the point you're making there is fascinating because I find some of the cruelest people are the people who are shielded behind hashtag bekind.
00:56:31.920 --> 00:56:37.679
So there's an interesting interplay on identity and profilicity there, I think.
00:56:38.079 --> 00:56:40.800
Yeah, I think this what you just mentioned, right?
00:56:40.880 --> 00:56:47.280
And we see this uh has a lot to do with morality and moral language and moral communication, right?
00:56:47.519 --> 00:56:58.800
Because specifically now on social media, the things that you mentioned, the outrage, right, it's basically always a form of virtue signaling of moral self-display.
00:56:58.880 --> 00:57:15.199
And that's such a again, this is so similar to uh sincerity times where you were always forced to display your honor, where you were always forced to display kind of your conformity with the moral expectations.
00:57:15.599 --> 00:57:31.280
And now people do this very strongly because it's such a strong identity builder that you just publicly in and often in increasingly hysterical and aggressive and cruel ways, you display your morality.
00:57:31.360 --> 00:57:40.000
And we've seen this with individuals, but we've seen it also, as you said, we see it very strongly now in a commodified way with companies.
00:57:40.159 --> 00:57:41.760
I mean advertising, right?
00:57:41.920 --> 00:57:44.400
How companies advertise themselves.
00:57:44.559 --> 00:57:51.360
It's all them all making these moral statements because, again, they enhance the prophylic identity.
00:57:51.440 --> 00:58:04.960
They're a very strong, uh almost a drug-like function for uh the intensity of how identity is shaped in the form of moral language and moral profile curation.
00:58:05.519 --> 00:58:13.039
So, as we get to the end of our conversation, I wonder if I can ask you both to comment on where you think this is taking us.
00:58:13.280 --> 00:58:26.159
Because if we think we're perhaps entering some of these emergent media which are much more immersive, they're very different to social media, closer to virtual reality, I guess, but not necessarily just that.
00:58:26.400 --> 00:58:39.840
Just having an augmented sense of reality too, and these multiverses, and if we've accepted that we've left authenticity behind and we have a greater fluidity of our identity.
00:58:40.079 --> 00:58:46.159
As the fluidity of our identity meets these multiverses, what does that mean for us?
00:58:46.320 --> 00:58:51.519
How are we going to stay sane, even in these new environments?
00:58:51.679 --> 00:58:54.079
I'd love to know your thoughts on the future.
00:58:55.039 --> 00:59:00.880
Shall I say something a little bit deflationary about the metaverse idea?
00:59:01.679 --> 00:59:37.920
So I think that uh perhaps some of what you've just uh described, uh Tracy, presupposes that we're moving towards a metaverse of the type that is depicted in Neil Stevenson's novel Snow Crash or in Ready Player One, where we've got this completely immersive, interoperable, real-time virtual world in which people spend a significant portion of their time, um, partly because it is a more appealing place to be than the real world.
00:59:38.079 --> 01:00:00.559
And I I suppose I suspect that the metaverse we will end up living in is more of a a bottom-up metaverse, so it's one that makes the experience of massively multiplayer online gaming richer, uh, which is great for anybody who is into gaming.
01:00:00.800 --> 01:00:10.079
Uh, it probably also allows the economic side of gaming to develop more than it has currently.
01:00:10.400 --> 01:00:27.119
And so I I think in that world people will continue to be able to live as different selves and experiment with different identities through gaming as they already do and as they have done for a number of years.
01:00:27.519 --> 01:00:38.639
But I I suspect there'll be another dimension to the bottom-up metaverse, which will be richer experiences of things like Zoom calls.
01:00:38.960 --> 01:00:48.639
So we've all had to get used to spending a much higher proportion of our work and social lives talking to people on video calls.
01:00:48.960 --> 01:01:02.400
And it's easy for me to imagine actually that virtual reality could lead to a significant improvement in our experience of these types of remote interactions with other people.
01:01:02.880 --> 01:01:24.159
So I think for that to make sense when it comes to identity, whereas you might well want to be a completely different type of being in a gaming environment, I think in a social or professional set of interactions in virtual reality, it's much more likely that you will want to have as photorealistic an avatar as possible.
01:01:24.639 --> 01:01:36.800
And I mean I think a lot of people were quite scathing about Mark Zuckerberg's vision for the metaverse that he presented in uh his Kinect presentation last year.
01:01:37.119 --> 01:01:40.639
But there were actually some bits of it that I found quite exciting.
01:01:40.800 --> 01:02:23.840
So one was the virtual rendering of a real apartment and quite how convincingly it was possible to recreate an actual real apartment, and that made me uh sort of excited and optimistic about the idea that assuming life continues in the way that it has been in the period 2020 to 2022, if I can visit my friends and family in a virtual environment that almost perfectly reproduces their real home that I am familiar with, then I'm sure that would be a better experience than having to have Christmas dinner over a Zoom call.
01:02:24.079 --> 01:02:28.880
So I I guess just to just to sum that up, I I'd see it probably as going in two directions.
01:02:29.039 --> 01:02:52.719
So one is the uh the the gaming type environment in which a multiplicity of identities are possible, and then the other is the as realistic as the technology will allow environment where uh one will want oneself and one's spaces to be faithfully reproduced in the virtual realm.
01:02:53.440 --> 01:02:57.840
Yes, I I'd say something actually similar from a very different perspective.
01:02:58.159 --> 01:03:00.000
Sam was talking a lot about gaming.
01:03:00.079 --> 01:03:07.519
I'd use the term playfulness, there we have a more playful experience of identity, right?
01:03:07.599 --> 01:03:19.199
So, and I mean playful again, like you can play in a maybe obsessive way, that's not so good, but uh you can also play in a very intense and enjoyable way, right?
01:03:19.280 --> 01:03:26.639
And then whatever, you can play football or you can play games, but in one in some way, you know, we're also playing right now, right?
01:03:26.719 --> 01:03:39.119
We're also playing some form of game, and we'll take on our different personalities, our different identities, and hopefully, if the game goes well, I thought I thought it went quite well, it was a very enjoyable game, right?
01:03:39.360 --> 01:04:06.559
But then at the same time, we can approach one another's identity in the spirit of playfulness, so that we don't overly, for instance, get angry or don't overly get moralistic or uh don't overly kind of shame other people that we approach these kind of interactions in a playful way, which at the same time makes the experience, and that's the Taoist point, absolutely genuine and intense.
01:04:06.719 --> 01:04:11.280
Like if you play a good game, that's a very intense experience of identity.
01:04:11.519 --> 01:04:31.360
It's non-authentic, but it's not inauthentic, it's very intense and very kind of a momentary strong experience of identity, that at the same time you can, on the one hand, let go, which is very important, and on the other hand, that you treat, which is equally if maybe even more important, that you treat the other like also co-players.
01:04:31.599 --> 01:04:38.559
Like that you treat the others also as identities who participate in your game.
01:04:38.719 --> 01:04:50.800
And if if we can approach like identity and particularly in a social context in that way, I think that that would be a very nice thing, a good thing for identity experience.
01:04:51.199 --> 01:04:54.079
I think that sounds like an environment we'd all thrive in.
01:04:54.239 --> 01:04:57.519
I think my concern is about the commercialization of some of this.
01:04:57.679 --> 01:05:00.320
That's obviously, and and Sam's alluded to it as well.
01:05:00.559 --> 01:05:22.400
I mean, in a previous episode, we've talked about whether you can tokenize the self, the gaming pioneers, and people are are doing that already, in a sense that they're almost giving a sense of ownership to of to others of their self, in that they're monetizing themselves, and it's become um a series of economic avatars, if you like.
01:05:22.559 --> 01:05:29.360
And so, one of the things we're going to have to be really cognizant of is how we can avoid that from happening.
01:05:29.440 --> 01:05:34.719
I mean, maybe it happens in some places, spaces, verses, whatever, but we don't want it.
01:05:34.880 --> 01:05:40.800
I wouldn't have thought, unless you disagree, we don't want that to be the uh sort of majority experience.
01:05:41.119 --> 01:05:42.880
Sam, you look disconcerted.
01:05:43.519 --> 01:05:57.119
I mean, speaking personally, it's very hard for me to imagine my enjoyment of any type of game in the broadest sense being enhanced by financialization.
01:05:58.000 --> 01:05:58.400
Right.
01:05:58.719 --> 01:06:03.519
So I I how That these worlds will be kept separate.
01:06:04.239 --> 01:06:07.360
It's one of the reasons I asked who was in control of our identity.
01:06:07.519 --> 01:06:30.400
Not that I think, as we've agreed, we're not 100% in control of it, but it worries me, some of the forces at play here, that we've got an opportunity to, in a sense, liberate ourselves, you know, not play by the rules, if you like, of the physical world game and explore something, well, it's the unknown, really, to explore the unknown because we don't know what it'll feel like or be like or what those experiences will be.
01:06:30.480 --> 01:06:36.239
And already we're being told that there's a commercial layer on top of it that might snuff that out.
01:06:36.559 --> 01:06:38.559
I think that's the concern for me.
01:06:39.039 --> 01:06:51.119
Okay, so what we're going to do just to conclude is ask the question that I ask all the guests, which is what action for identity would you most like to see in the sort of near-to-midterm future?
01:06:51.360 --> 01:06:54.239
We're just going to take a short pause for an ad break.
01:06:54.639 --> 01:06:57.280
The Future of You is sponsored by FutureMade Consulting.
01:06:57.440 --> 01:07:05.199
Writing for outlets like Forbes, Reuters, Cool Hunting and Wired means I'm always on the lookout for those who can inspire me on alternative futures and work with me to activate them.
01:07:05.360 --> 01:07:10.880
That's why I tap into the brains at FutureMade, a network of established professionals in research for strategic thinking.
01:07:11.039 --> 01:07:14.880
They help me spot trends, roadmap innovation, and fully prepare for what comes next.
01:07:15.119 --> 01:07:22.880
They've worked with a host of global brands, businesses and organizations, whether it's consulting, speaking, or curating future on projects big and small.
01:07:23.039 --> 01:07:25.199
They even do training to teach you these skills too.
01:07:25.440 --> 01:07:33.679
Whether you're a CEO, CMO, or just in the business of starting up, FutureMade can help you grow business, design product, and make decisions, all with a future in mind.
01:07:33.920 --> 01:07:37.840
Find out more at futuremade.consulting, made with a future in mind.
01:07:38.639 --> 01:07:45.360
And we're back, so may I ask Sam and Georg, what would you like to see as your action for identity?
01:07:45.920 --> 01:08:18.800
So I'm going to cheat a little bit and I'm going to go back to something that we discussed earlier, which is the social and the public good that can come out of people being willing to share data about them, which as we've talked about, doesn't necessarily comprise their identity or doesn't necessarily need to be thought of as being some fundamental property that ought to be protected.
01:08:19.119 --> 01:08:39.760
I think if people can become more comfortable with the idea of allowing anonymised data about them to be put into the public domain, there's all kinds of uh benefits that we can get from that, I think particularly in the context of public health.
01:08:40.079 --> 01:08:50.880
And I think we can do that with a much lower risk to the integrity of our identities than we've probably become used to thinking about.
01:08:51.920 --> 01:08:53.920
Good public data, yeah.
01:08:55.439 --> 01:08:58.960
Okay, Org, is one of yours leaving authenticity behind?
01:08:59.600 --> 01:09:02.640
Well, I mean, I was just thinking now of an answer.
01:09:02.720 --> 01:09:11.279
I also find it like really always important to have a break or uh sort of a break from one's identity, but not just on online.
01:09:11.920 --> 01:09:21.279
So I still we can also still appear experience like offline activities like going for a walk or going for a swim.
01:09:21.439 --> 01:09:43.359
Uh things like this, I think, are are super important for in acting, being able to just as a kind of the break you have in between and the switch in between, and not in order to experience your authentic self, but to experience a kind of a moment of of relaxation and kind of de-identification offline.
01:09:43.520 --> 01:09:49.600
I think that's that's also something I would like to stay the way it still is, fortunately.
01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:52.079
A relief from identity.
01:09:52.960 --> 01:09:54.880
Yes, that's fascinating.
01:09:55.119 --> 01:09:59.760
Well, wise words just for life in general, as well as um for this topic here.
01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:02.720
Thank you so much for such a rich, brilliant discussion.
01:10:02.800 --> 01:10:06.640
I've enjoyed it very much, and it's been a great pleasure to speak to you both.
01:10:06.720 --> 01:10:09.359
Uh hope you'll join me again at some point in the future.
01:10:09.680 --> 01:10:10.479
Thank you both.
01:10:10.800 --> 01:10:11.439
Thank you.
01:10:11.680 --> 01:10:12.720
Thanks so much.