However, there are lifestyle changes you can make that may lower your overall risk of developing dementia.
One of these could be changing your sleeping position. Continue reading
There are many lifestyle factors within our control that can increase our risk of developing dementias if we don’t make the right choices about them now.
One of the lifelong struggles we, as human beings, do – or should be doing – battle with is being consistently honest both with ourselves (I submit this may be the hardest part of this battle because our capacity for self-deception seems to have no limits) and with others.
I have written here before about the interconnected relationship between honesty and trust. When we are dishonest with someone, we break their trust. Continue reading
Going Gentle Into That Good Night has and will continue to discussed the connection between lifestyle choices and an increased risk of developing dementia. Some of these lifestyle choices include alcohol abuse and addiction, prescription drug use, abuse, and addiction, illegal drug use and addiction, and “smart drug” use and abuse.
So maybe you’re reading this and thinking, “Well, I don’t make any of those risky lifestyle choices, so I don’t have to worry about neurological damage and developing dementia.” And you would be wrong. Continue reading
Prescription addiction is a national problem in the United States. Although there has been some public acknowledgement of its existence in general terms recently, the real scope of how deep and pervasive prescription addiction is in this country is still mostly hidden from public view.
Because of this, Big Pharma and the medical profession still pushes the two classes of drugs – central nervous system (CNS) depressants (“downers”) and central nervous system (CNS) stimulants (“uppers”) – at the core of prescription addiction insistently and without restraint. Continue reading
This blog has discussed the use of drugs designed for specific kinds of attention-deficit disorders being used by people without an attention-deficit disorder for cognitive enhancement and the risk such usages portends toward an eventual development of lifestyle dementia.
Anything that alters brain chemistry (legal or illegal) introduces the risk of dementia down the road. We must understand that. It seems, however, that we – both the medical community who blithely prescribes these legal brain-altering chemical compositions and we the people, who decide for ourselves and choose to take both legal and illegal brain-altering chemical compositions because they seem to promise a short-term benefit (or because we want to numb our brains and not deal with life as it is and comes) – don’t understand that. Continue reading
In my book review of The End of Absence by Michael Harris, we see how an increasingly constant interaction with, reliance on, and addiction to technology is creating devastating effects on us neurologically.
Among these effects are dementia-like symptoms: loss of short-term memory, easy distraction, lack of focus, loss of critical thinking skills, and loss of executive functions.
These effects are happening to people all around us just like you and me. The effects don’t discriminate: even the very young are affected just as profoundly as others of varying ages.
In Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, a book everybody should read, the discussion centers on the neurological effects of 24/7 technology connection in the actual composition of the brain.
The research and the science is sobering, especially in light of how it points to the emergence of another lifestyle dementia that is already beginning to affect people, and will increasingly affect vast numbers of people at earlier and earlier ages.
Lifestyle dementias are dementias we choose because we adopt or don’t control or eliminate the lifestyle factors that cause the dementias.
Alcohol abuse and addiction is one of those lifestyle choices. How we treat our bodies (food, exercise, etc.) is another lifestyle choice. The quality and quantity of our sleep is yet another lifestyle choice.
And our relationship with technology presents even one more lifestyle choice. A recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 20% of Americans report that they are online almost constantly.
That is 1 in every 5 people here in the United States. It is not surprising to me, but it is disturbing to me for many reasons.
Because my whole career has been intricately involved with technology, I’m uniquely qualified to discuss this since I’ve always made choices to limit my exposure, instinctively, I suppose, realizing the dangers, and I continue to do so because my brain, for better or worse, is the best asset I have and I don’t want my choices to be the reason I lose any functionality it has.
Different parts of the brain are stimulated with how we receive information.
Images light up a different area of the brain than words do. Technology lights up a totally different area of the brain than either images or words do.
Which area of our brains get lit up the most often is the part of the brain that becomes dominant and we use the other parts less and less.
The brain is the only organ in which there is no cellular regenation. Once the cells in the brain die, they’re gone for good. With time, this cellular death becomes widespread and we experience dementia.
The problem with our increasing interaction exclusively with technology (smart phones and tablets have definitely made this easier) is that technology is purposefully designed to stimulate the part of the brain that deals with emotions.
Because of the emotional stimulation that technology elicits, it consistently bypasses logical, analytic processing of information and the desire and ability to discern between what’s true and false, what’s right and wrong, and what’s valuable and what’s not.
The effect on us is that we are unaware of what’s happening behind the scenes to our brains as we’re tethered to technology, so we don’t realize we’re not logically and analytically processing information coming in and that we’re rapidly losing the desire and ability to discern between what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and what is valuable and what is not.
It is simply disappearing without our awareness that we’re losing the very things that make us unique as humans and which are the most precious gifts we have been given.
The end result is that in the short term we become shallow (gullible, unthinking, ignorant, and imprisoned in a shrinking world that is simply a mirrored reflection of our narcissistic selves) and in the long term that we lose our cognitive abilities altogether.
It’s not to late for most of us to turn this around and do everything in our power to make choices that will stave off this lifestyle dementia.
But each of us has to make the choice for ourselves. Some of us won’t. Some of us don’t believe this is happening. Some of us don’t care.
However, for those that will, that do believe this is happening, and that do care, here are a few ways to get started:
We only get one brain in our lives. Everything we do supports it or destroys it. Once destruction happens, it’s permanent and it can’t be undone.
Let’s make sure we’re doing everything in our power with our choices to support our brains and not destroy them.
In “Lifestyle Dementia: Underdiscussed, Overlooked, But a Very Real and Present Danger,” and “Is the Precipitous Rise in Dementias and Alzheimer’s Disease Over the Last Twenty to Thirty Years Linked to Lifestyle?,” we see that certain lifestyle factors and choices can make the likelihood of developing dementias and Alzheimer’s Disease more probable.
Two lifestyle factors that can contribute to the development of dementias and Alzheimer’s Disease – and the onset of these is usually before age 65 – are chronic, long-term alcohol abuse and alcoholism. This type of dementia is called alcohol-related dementia and can manifest itself in various forms.
This post will take a look at how chronic, long-term alcohol abuse and alcoholism affects the brain and what the behaviors and symptoms of the dementia looks like.
We all know that drinking enough alcohol at one time impairs the brain. Common symptoms include slurring words, exhibiting general motor impairment, including stumbling and walking off-balance, making poor decisions (like driving, for example), being less able to hear sound at a normal volume, experiencing vision problems, and being unable to think clearly.
These behaviors occur because alcohol depresses the central nervous system , causing it to slow down its responses and reactions. The brain stem (made up of the Pons, Medulla, and Midbrain), which regulates breathing, heart rate, and consciousness, as well all other areas of the brain are affected by alcohol:
Chronic, long-term alcohol abuse and alcoholism have even more devastating – and permanent – effects on the brain, eventually leading to alcohol-related dementia.
Usually the first noticeable symptoms of chronic, long-term alcohol abuse and alcoholism are cognitive. Memory loss is common, but a unique feature of memory loss with people who are chronic, long-term alcohol abusers or alcoholics is confabulation.
Confabulation occurs when, instead of recalling accurate memories because of the damage to the brain, the person distorts, makes up, and misinterprets memories about themselves, others, and the world around them.
As difficult as it is to believe for those on the receiving end of confabulation, there is no conscious intent to be dishonest. It is simply the result of extensive neurological damage.
One of the most challenging aspects of people who confabulate is that although they are giving blatantly false information, the information can appear to be coherent, internally consistent, and relatively normal.
People who confabulate have incorrect memories that run the gambit from slight, almost imperceptible changes to the most outlandish made-up stories you can imagine.
The maddening thing about this is that they generally very confident – to the point of arguing down anyone (because they know the memory is fabricated) who tries to correct or challenge them – about their recollections, despite overwhelming concrete evidence that contradicts them.
Other signs of alcohol-related dementia emerge as:
With alcohol-related dementia, as with all other dementias, the person who has alcohol-related dementia loses the self-awareness that anything is wrong, both neurologically and behaviorally.
Most cases of alcohol-related dementia involve global neurological deterioration. Everything is affected.
However, two very specific types of alcohol-related dementia, Wernicke encephalopathy and Korsakoff syndrome (known together as Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome), which are the result of a vitamin B1 (thiamine) deficiency, have key features specific to them. There can be some reversal of symptoms with B1 (thiamine) therapy, but there is still permanent neurological damage and concurrent alcohol-related dementia.
Wernicke encephalopathy (commonly known as “wet brain”) causes damage in the thalamus and hypothalamus. Its symptoms include:
As symptoms of Wernicke encephalopathy disappear, Korsakoff syndrome symptoms appear. These include:
Malcolm Young, the 61-year-old co-founder and guitarist for the band AC/DC, has been moved to a nursing home and his family has confirmed that he has dementia (he’s unable to remember any of the band’s songs).
Young’s addiction to alcohol is well-known. Although he sought rehabilitation treatment for alcoholism during the band’s tour in 1988, it appears that he relapsed (the statistics on the efficacy of alcohol rehab are grim: from 50 to 90% of people who’ve been through treatment relapse, often, over a period of time, habitually consuming even more alcohol than they did before entering treatment) and never sought treatment again.
In April of this year, Young was hospitalized with what was described to the media as a stroke (chronic alcohol abuse has very detrimental effects on blood, including causing the platelets to clump together and form clots, and these clots, when they travel to the brain are responsible for strokes), so this would be entirely consistent with what we know about Young’s lifestyle.
There are systemic physiological effects of chronic, long-term alcohol abuse and alcoholism, including nerve damage in the arms and legs (peripheral neuropathy), liver damage (cirrhosis), heart damage, and kidney damage.
Concurrent with all of that is the irreversible neurological damage to the brain that results in alcohol-related dementia, which can emerge as early as 30 years of age, but more commonly begins emerging after the age of 50 in chronic, long-term alcohol abusers and alcoholics.
Drinking alcohol in moderation is fine. But I urge you to take an honest look at your drinking patterns and behavior. If you find that you are a chronic, long-term alcohol abuser or an alcoholic, then it’s time today to find a way to stop drinking alcohol for good.
But no one else can do that for you. Only you can make the choice to stop drinking alcohol and then follow through with actually doing it for the rest of your life.
And here’s the key: until the rest of your life becomes more important than alcohol, you will be unsuccessful at choosing and taking action to stop drinking alcohol.
Because you are the only one who can take the action, every time you drink alcohol, as a chronic, long-term alcohol abuser or an alcoholic, you show yourself and the rest of the world the choice you’re making and you show yourself and the rest of the world what the most important thing in your life is.
And no one can change that but you.
Our brains are very soft organs that are surrounded by spinal fluid and are protected by the hard outer covering of our skulls.
Under normal circumstances, spinal fluid cushions the brain and keeps it from crashing into the skull. However, if our heads or our bodies are hit hard, our brains can slam into our skulls and result in traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). TBIs are also caused when the skull is fractured and the brain is directly damaged by outside force.
Although concussions, which we’ll discuss later, are sometimes referred to as mild TBIs, the reality is that no injury to the brain is mild and repeated injuries will lead to neurological degeneration that includes dementia.
TBIs are complex neurological injuries that result in a wide variety and severity of symptoms and disabilities.
The least severe symptoms of TBIs – and these may not happen immediately and, in fact, may occur some time after the injury, can include:
The most severe symptoms of TBIs can include:
In the category of TBIs from falling, most of the falls occur disproportionately in the very young (55% of falls among children occur in children between the ages of 0 and 14) and the very old (81% of falls among adults occur in adults who are 65 or older).
Most of the TBIs in the Other category (19%) are from personal firearms and military weapons.
A type of TBI that is more frequently in the headlines today is Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). CTE is brain damage that occurs as a result of repeated concussions (a concussion is defined as injury to the brain from a direct blow to the head or from the head or upper body being violently shaken).
The first identified variant of CTE was described in 1928 by forensic pathologist Dr. Harrison Stanford Martland as pugilistic (from the Latin word pugil, which is translated as “boxer” or “fighter”) dementia. The symptoms included tremors (Parkinsonism), slowed movement, mental confusion, and speech difficulties.
In 1973, the neuropathology of pugilistic dementia was discovered and described by a team of pathologists led by J. A. Corsellis who documented their findings after performing thorough autopsies on the brains of 15 deceased boxers.
By the age of 18, he had boxed his way to the heavyweight gold medal at the Olympics (1960).
A few months later Ali began his professional boxing career. He quickly gained national prominence because of his skill in the ring and his trademark quote: “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. The hands can’t hit what the eyes can’t see.” He boxed professionally until his retirement in 1981.
His wife, Lonnie, is his caregiver and contributed to a moving article that AARP published last year about what she and Ali deal with on a daily basis as a result of the neurological degeneration that CTE has caused.
CTE has increasingly become a major health concern in the high-contact sports of professional wrestling, ice hockey, soccer, and football as more and more current and retired athletes are showing symptoms consistent with CTE.
In recent years, football – and especially professional football – has become the focal point for a closer examination of CTE. Not only has this sport become more violent in terms of how the game is played, but how concussions are treated – or not treated – has also come under greater scrutiny.
Although NFL team doctors assert that CTE is “rare” or “overexaggerated,” the hard scientific neurological and physiological evidence proves that these doctors are simply paid hirelings who care more about their paychecks than they do about the overall health of the players.
Let’s examine the facts. In a 2014 landmark study by the largest brain bank in the United States, 76 of the 79 brains of deceased NFL players that pathologists examined had TBI, and specifically, CTE.
A class action lawsuit has been filed – and a tentative agreement reached with the NFL – by retired NFL football players and/or their families (some of the players have already died from neurodegenerative causes) which claims that players were not (a) adequately protected from suffering concussions, (b) medically treated properly following concussions, and (c) provided adequate medical compensation to treat the burgeoning costs of CTE as it progresses.
This gist of this lawsuit is that the NFL used – and abused – these players to fabulously guild the seemingly-endless coffers of the NFL, often forcing the players by intimidation or fear to get back on the field as soon as they could after suffering a concussion (often in the same game), and then abandoned their responsibility to their former employees (as part of their contractual agreement) as soon as the employees began costing them money instead of making them money.
Even more damning to the NFL is the actuarial report accompanying the lawsuit that indicates that at least 1/3 of NFL players will suffer CTE.
If there is a silver lining in all of this, it is that the younger NFL players have a much greater awareness of the relationship – and their increased risk – between professional football and CTE.
They are aware of the very real probability that they will be one of the 1 out of every 3 players who develops CTE.
And they’re choosing their long-term health, including their brain health, over temporary fame and fortune.
While Finnegan, Locker, and Worilds did not publicly cite CTE as a factor in their premature retirements from the NFL, there can be no logical reason to doubt that the mounting evidence was a factor in their decisions.
Borland just finished his rookie season (2014-2015) with the San Francisco 49ers, but he revealed after the season that he suffered a concussion in training camp last fall. Instead of reporting the concussion, Borland covered it up so that he could continue to practice and win a starting position on the team.
This is the kind of competitive pressure that gets put on these young players by the NFL (yes, Borland made the decision and he bears the responsibility for it, but had he reported the concussion, he would have been replaced and lost the starting spot and may not have played all season).
Fortunately, though, Borland came to his senses and realized how much he had jeopardized – and would continue to – his neurological health.
As he said on the March 16, 2015 edition of ESPN’s Outside the Lines, “”I just thought to myself, ‘What am I doing? Is this how I’m going to live my adult life, banging my head, especially with what I’ve learned and knew about the dangers?'”
We can only hope that more athletes in high-contact sports will know the higher risks of TBIs they face, not just in the professional leagues, but at the amateur levels, and they will choose to walk away from certain neurological damage.
In the meantime, we have a better understanding just in our daily lives of how TBIs can happen and what the results can be, so I hope that we’re a little more observant and attentive after falls with our little loved ones and our older loved ones, especially those already going through the journey through dementias and Alzheimer’s Disease, as they are even more prone to falling than the general elderly population.
As Sergeant Phil Esterhaus says at the end of every roll call on Hill Street Blues (a favorite TV show of mine during my high school and college years), “Hey, let’s be careful out there.”
This is the second of a three-part series of reviews that I am writing on The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve Lost in a World of Constant Connection written by Michael Harris in 2014.
In “Part 1 – ‘The End of Absence’ (Michael Harris) Book Review,” we looked at the definition of absence and how it relates to our quality of life.
We discussed how absence gives rise to critical thinking, problem-solving, short-term and long-term planning, concentrated focus, and creativity.
We also discussed the physical, emotional, and mental benefits of absence.
And, finally, we discussed how absence has been eroded by our constant connection to technology to the point that it is virtually extinct in our current society.
We discussed how this has dumbed down society as a whole and how susceptible that makes us to being controlled, manipulated, and deceived by technology.
And, finally, we looked at how much technology and our constant connection to it mirrors the society that George Orwell described in 1984, coming to the conclusion that the frighteningly eerie similarities should compel each of us to consciously choose not to follow the crowd and intentionally limit our connection and ensure a healthy amount of absence exists in our lives individually.
In this post, we’ll take a behind-the-scenes look at what happens with all the data you’re willingly and freely putting into digital technology every time you text on your phone, go to a website, input anything onto social media (including the infamous “like” button on Facebook), do a Google search, buy something online, watch streaming video, and play internet video games.
We’ll also see how being constantly connected to digital technology brings that data back to us and shrinks our exposure to real and complete knowledge (Google infamously does this with their industry-standard data mining and predictive analysis processes, which narrow search results down to what we want to see, based on our input, rather than everything there is to see).
In effect, we are being shaped and manipulated in an endless loop of our own little world of preferences and beliefs with subtle changes and false ideas about value and credibility being implanted along the way.
Our constant connection to technology is literally rewiring and incorrectly programming our brains. This negatively affects – if not outright destroys – our value systems and belief systems.
Additionally, our ability to not only think for ourselves – and change our minds based on that – but also to critically and objectively think, as well as to think outside the boxes of what we know and are familiar with is rapidly being destroyed because we depend on technology to do our “thinking” for us.
Additionally, we’ll continue our look at how our constant connection to technology is essentially creating a virtual life (think the movie The Matrix) that we are being conned into believing is real life, while actual real life, which includes lack and absence, is rapidly disappearing for all but a few of us who are aware of what’s happening and refusing to let it happen to us.
Our lifestyles, which now center around technology, are creating a new kind of lifestyle dementia, and most of us don’t even realize it’s happening. That’s why you need to read this book and that’s why I’m spending so much time reviewing it.
It’s already happened and it is happening. I know technology very well from a big-picture and a behind-the-scenes perspective, so I’m speaking as an insider and an expert who has worked and does work with this on a daily basis.
Here’s the reality. Whether you choose to ignore this is immaterial. It’s already well in motion and progressing rapidly and, if we choose to remain ignorant and we choose to continue our constant connection, we will be devastatingly changed in the process.
And the sad part is that, like the society that Orwell discusses in 1984, not only will we not be aware, but we will not care, even if it’s the most destructive thing that can happen to humanity.
One of the ways in which our constant connection to technology has changed us is that now our default choice is to use technology to interact with people and things rather than actually interact with people and things for real.
Here’s a simple comparative survey of why our brains have been rewired to prefer technological interaction with people and things rather than real interaction with people and things.
With technology, we can ignore or eliminate or limit our time with anybody or anything we don’t want to have to deal with. This can include people and things we find challenging, who disagree with us, who don’t “tickle our fancy,” and who “make” our lives “harder” just by their presence.
With a click of a button, we can unfriend them or unfollow them and turn off their news feeds, or we can avoid those things altogether until they simply no longer exist to us.
What we end up with in the process is an artificial, virtual world that we create to make us feel good. It’s also a shallow and stagnant world that ends up being essentially us looking in a mirror and seeing nothing but our own image reflected, because the people and things that are left after our unfriending, unfollowing, and avoiding are those that never challenge us, always agree with us (even when we’re wrong), and boost our feel-good emotions (as we do theirs).
In real life, those people or things are right there with us and we have figure out the best way to deal with them whether we want to or not, even if that means putting up with our co-workers, friends, and relatives or all the tough things that exist in real life.
In other words, we can’t turn them off (and if we eliminate them, in the case of people, then we go to prison). So it forces us to find creative and workable ways to share the same space with them and it increases our relating-to-humanity-and-things skills and builds traits like patience, kindness, gentleness, understanding, empathy and mercy.
These are character-related traits that cannot be developed in the artificial, virtual world that constant connection to technology enables us to create in our own image.
And our artificial, virtual worlds make demands on us as well, although this dark side is seldom, if ever, on our minds or consciences. They demand our 24/7 attention and presence and because of our acquiescence to those demands, we lose absence. Solitude. Peace. Disconnection.
Absence gives us time alone with our thoughts, alone with ourselves, and alone with our ideas, our dreams, our hopes, and our imaginations. Absence also gives us the ability to regroup and recharge our brains and ourselves. It gives us a chance to get away from all the “noise” of life and have peace and quiet.
Here’s the irony. We need solitude as part of our mental, emotional, physical and spiritual health. There’s no other way to survive life.
Yet, even for those of us born before 1985, from the moment we’re born the emphasis is on socialization.
Society is so insistent on this – my parents often had to drag me kicking and screaming as a small child into social situations because I was always very uncomfortable with them, and as I got into my teenage years and could make my own choices, more often than not, I chose staying home over going somewhere either for a few hours or overnight – that most of us are uncomfortable being alone and being quiet, with nothing to entertain or distract us.
Technology and constant connection ensure that we don’t have to be uncomfortable, and it amplifies the illusion of constant company.
This, by the way, began before digital technology. Before there was the internet, there was television. And before television, there was radio. All of these technologies gave – and give – the illusion of constant company because of the noise and the distraction they provide.
And here’s the reality for humanity now. For those of us who remember absence, we have the constant choice of saying “yes” or “no” to constant connection. For those of us who came of age with constant connection as part of our normal lives, we don’t even know there is a choice. And that is truly sad.
Because our artificial, virtual worlds seem real to us because they’re replacing real life, our brains get rewired in additional ways by the illusion this creates.
One way is that we feel surrounded by people like us, so we feel free to say whatever we want to say however we want to say it. We don’t care how wrong it is, how hurtful it is, or how confessional it is. Constant connection, by subverting thinking, has removed the filtering that normally goes into thinking before we speak.
In this way, the words spewed out on the internet actually mimic one of the tell-tale signs of dementia: the loss of impulse control and ability to know what things to verbalize and what things to keep to ourselves.
Another way that constant connection to technology rewires our brains is that it promotes the self all the time. With an artificial, virtual world that we have created and are the center of, we can continuously draw all the attention to ourselves.
This self-broadcasting, which shares many traits with narcissism, includes fervent self-documentation consisting of constant tweets, continual status updates, and a never-ending supply of selfies.
In effect, a constant connection to technology makes us incredibly self-centered, self-absorbed, selfish, and it reinforces our belief that “it’s all about me.”
So it’s no surprise that we’re less empathetic, less genuinely caring (caring for someone online takes little effort, engagement, involvement, and commitment while caring for someone in real life takes continual effort, engagement, involvement, and commitment, no matter what circumstances arise), less able to listen and hear what people are saying or trying to say, less understanding, and less able to provide authentic comfort, encouragement and support.
In other words, a constant connection to technology makes us less human.
So why do we do it? Because it’s rewarding online. The more attention we garner, the more we want. If everybody notices us and loves – or likes – us, that is very motivating to continue our self-tracking because it feeds our egos.
A constant connection to technology and self-broadcasting gives us the approval we crave just for living life and doing the mundane things it requires of all of us. Somehow, having a bunch of people like and praise some routine, ordinary thing we’ve done makes us feel extraordinary and accomplished.
It doesn’t happen like that in real life. Most of what we say and do goes completely unnoticed, even though we may say and do a lot and say and do a lot of good, but despite that reality, those of us who are invested in real life just keep going on and putting one foot in front of the other.
A constant connection to technology rewires our brains to stop doing our own thinking and shop it out the the public opinion of the internet.
This costs us far more than we are remotely aware of.
In choosing constant connection and public opinion to do our thinking and decision-making, we choose to abandon the most powerful workshop we have access to, which is our lone minds.
In our lone minds, which only solitude can give us, we can think objectively and critically through things. We can solve problems. We can fill in missing pieces of the puzzles that life inherently has. We can find connections between things that don’t look connected on the surface. And we can innovate and create scenarios and options that point us forward in our lives.
When we abandon our lone minds, we offer ourselves up to indiscriminate information from public opinion, much of which is conflicting, wrong, and worthless.
But because our brains are rewired to believe that’s a valid and real world, we accept all the input we’re given and make the erroneous assumption that it all has the same quality, the same value, and the same veracity.
And that will destroy us, because most of what we get is uninformed, uneducated, and unknowledgeable in the context of being “expert” information.
In addition to this and what most people don’t know is that public opinion is manipulated, especially on the organizational level.
For example, many organizations have people internal to the organization write a lot of positive reviews about whatever their products are to feed the search engines to give them a higher rating of satisfaction.
Data mining cannot analyze quality, only quantity. So the more times a search engine sees a name and sees positive input, the higher it ranks it organically. This is a driving force – and goal – in every organization with an online presence.
There are two types of search engine results, paid and organic.
Paid search engine results (the ones in the example above with AD to the left of the link) are those that organizations pay, often a lot of money, to the search engine for significant keywords to get top-of-the-page (or top-right-side-of-the-page), first-page placement.
This is known as pay-per-click (PPC) advertising. Each time someone clicks on the paid advertisement, whatever that keyword costs is what is charged to the organization. This can get really expensive really fast.
Organic search engine results (in the example above, below the faint gray line, starting with the Alzheimer’s Association’s link) are generated in order by how many times the keyword appears on the site and how much traffic (search engines don’t really care where the traffic comes from, only how much of it there is) goes to the site (this is where social media sharing has really taken center stage in driving traffic to sites). This doesn’t cost anything.
So, it should be obvious why organizations manipulate their data behind the scenes to get higher organic ranking. The most prevalent (and most dishonest) way has become social media sharing and having people internal to the organization physically go to the site as often as they can. More hits equals higher ranking in the organic search results.
What does that have to do with us and the end of absence and constant connection to technology? Everything!
We instinctively choose what’s listed first because we connect that with what must be the best. However, because what’s listed first is simply because of manipulation (which we are unaware of) and not because of proven and tested quality, we get duped in accepting things as “best,” “right,” or “most” when in fact there is no proof any of those things are true. It’s all an illusion.
Because we have come to believe that Google is always right and if it’s on the internet then it must true and because the answers are alway immediate, we have abandoned the mental processes that time would allow – comparison, analysis, perspective, insight, and wisdom – so that we could be sure we were making the right and best choice. That’s the lack of absence that real life decision-making gives us.
And what do Google and Facebook do with all that data you share with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Google (these are just a few – everything you do on the internet gets stored somewhere and is analyzed by software that gets a sense of who and what you are about using predictive analysis, so that what you ask for ends up being things that appeal to or interest you, not everything there is on the subject)?
The next time you do a Google search, log in to your Facebook account afterwards. Look at the right hand side of the screen where the ads are. Odds are good they will be for what you just searched for in Google.
Pay attention when you share links on Facebook to that same right hand side of the screen. The odds are good that whatever the content is within the link you shared will be what the advertising is for.
Google’s method is invisible, but much more detrimental and dangerous.
Google uses what is known as a “filter bubble” to generate search results. This gets personalized for each person that uses Google and it is based on our preferences and our activities.
Google keeps meticulous track of our searching history, promoting the same results each time we repeat a search and further personalizing them based on which results we choose to follow through on by clicking on the links Google shows.
Each time we do the search, results are pared down to match our personalization preferences, which in effect means we get exposed to a narrower and narrower view of the universe.
Facebook uses this same algorithm in our newsfeeds. We might have 100 Facebook friends, but we interact with 10 or so almost constantly.
All the statuses of those 10 will always show up in our news feeds. The other 90 friends will randomly show up in our news feeds based on how much we interact with them and they interact with us.
The more interaction, the more likely the statuses will show up randomly – not always – in our news feeds. For friends with whom we have little interaction on Facebook, their statuses disappear from our news feeds altogether.
In other words, the internet is making our worlds smaller, not bigger.
And the personalization that makes our worlds smaller, not bigger has affected every part of our lives. The music we listen to. The suggested content for us to watch on live streaming. How and if we get employed by an organization.
And it seems that our brains are, with their constant connection rewiring, accepting this as being okay and we’ve adopted an “out of sight. out of mind” mentality toward anyone or anything we don’t see regularly or at all.
Here’s what we must understand and realize about how dangerous this is and how much we’re losing in the process.
Personalization is really just the glorification of our own tastes and our own opinions. It eliminates the big picture and a general, broad and comprehensive base of knowledge and understanding while embracing customization, specialization, and a singular viewpoint that takes nothing around it into account (no context).
Personalization cuts off our access to real learning and real knowledge. It cuts us off from the very things – and people – who could help us the most.
Because there is no “surprise” content to challenge us, to think about, to learn from, and to grow and mature in, we stagnate in life.
Stagnation is one step away from the regression to the kind of mindlessness that typified 1984‘s society as a whole. We are not that far from it ourselves.
In the next and last post reviewing The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve Lost in a World of Constant Connection, we will look at the final third of the book, still looking for signs of hope, although the prospects of that are getting dimmer.