The term "Luddite" historically refers to early 19th-century English textile workers who destroyed machinery they believed threatened their jobs amid the Industrial Revolution.

Contrary to common belief, these Luddites were not opposed to technology per se but resisted how new machines were implemented in ways that harmed workers’ rights and livelihoods.

Their primary concern was the unfair labor practices surrounding mechanized production, not the technology itself.

The moniker traces to the possibly apocryphal figure Ned Ludd, symbolizing opposition to oppressive industrial changes .

In the 21st century, "Luddite" is used metaphorically to describe people or groups resistant to technological change or who express skepticism about new technologies.

This includes critics of artificial intelligence (AI) and associated innovations.

Some prominent figures, such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, have been ironically labeled modern Luddites due to their cautious stance on AI's risks, though they are recognized as pioneers rather than outright opponents.

The term also captures a broader social phenomenon of unease or opposition to rapid, large-scale technological transformations perceived as disruptive or dehumanizing .

Resistance to new technology in the modern era arises from several intertwined psychological, social, and economic reasons.

Key factors include:

1.

Fear of Job Loss and Economic Vulnerability: Analogous to the original Luddites, many workers today fear that automation and AI may replace human labor, leading to unemployment or devaluation of their skills.

This engenders apprehension about the pace and fairness of technological adoption, especially when labor protections are weak .

2. Distrust in Technology and Institutions:

Studies find segments of consumers and workers distrust new technologies, especially when benefits and risks are unclear or unevenly distributed.

For example, skepticism surrounding new vaccines employing mRNA technology involves concerns about health risks and long-term effects, often amplified by misinformation and lack of transparent communication.

Such distrust is also compounded where governmental or corporate motives are suspect .

3. Risk Aversion and Uncertainty:

New technologies often present uncertainties, including indirect and unforeseen impacts, reduced control, and potential health, privacy, or social harms.

Individuals who are risk-averse or lack familiarity with technology tend to resist or delay adoption until they feel sufficiently assured .

Generational and Cultural Differences: Generational divides, varying levels of digital literacy, and cultural values influence openness toward technologies.

Some may prioritize traditional or slower ways of working, valuing human connectivity and social capital over digital acceleration, while others embrace innovation enthusiastically.

Resistance sometimes reflects a mismatch between fast-paced technological change and human capacity to adapt .

Ethical, Privacy, and Social Concerns: Concerns about data privacy, surveillance capitalism, and the ethical use of technologies fuel resistance or skepticism.

The phenomenon of "surveillance capitalism" describes how tech companies capitalize on user data, leading to distrust and fear of loss of autonomy.

Lack of regulatory safeguards and transparency exacerbates these worries .

Psychological Resistance:

Resistance can also stem from a psychological preference for stability, fear of change, or ideological opposition to perceived loss of human agency or community.

People may feel alienated by rapid changes that threaten identity, job security, or social cohesion .

This complex set of motivations suggests that 21st-century Luddites are not simply anti-technology but often respond to the broader social, economic, ethical, and personal implications of technological change.

They may challenge the manner of implementation, adequacy of protections, or the underlying power dynamics shaping technological progress .

In workplaces, resistance can manifest as skepticism toward digital tools, discomfort with constant connectivity, or fear of being left behind.

Building rapport with such individuals requires empathy, recognition of their valid concerns, clear communication about benefits and risks, and collaborative approaches to technology adoption that address fears and support skill development.

Encouraging dialogue, transparency, and shared decision-making can bridge divides between technology advocates and skeptics .

In summary, the 21st-century Luddites’ resistance to new technology primarily arises from fears about economic displacement, distrust and uncertainty about technologies and their societal effects, ethical and privacy concerns, generational divides, and psychological resistance to rapid change.

Understanding these reasons fosters a respectful workplace atmosphere where technology adoption is sensitive to human factors and social contexts, facilitating cooperation and trust.

This approach can help interns and supervisors find common ground amid differing views on technological change.

The term "Luddite" historically refers to early 19th-century English textile workers who destroyed machinery they believed threatened their jobs amid the Industrial Revolution.

Title:

Content: Andrew Luck Finally Upgrades His Flip Phone … To Another Flip Phone

Intro: Andrew Luck has made it clear that he’s not interested in joining the world of smartphones. He’s just fine with his flip phone, and he finally got an upgrade this week.

INDIANAPOLIS — Has Andrew Luck finally turned in his ancient flip phone for a smartphone?

No. No he has not.

But, he did get a new flip phone this week.

The Indianapolis Colts quarterback on Thursday shared on his Facebook account that his mobile carrier had hooked him up with a new phone.

In June, Luck became the recipient of the most lucrative contract in NFL history, and many wondered if the fifth-year Stanford product was going to splurge on the newest smartphone for himself.

"One, I like it. It's a comfort thing," Luck said of not giving up the flip phone lifestyle. "I think anybody can appreciate that, if you're used to that. … Two, I don't think I want to be connected 24/7, and this phone is maybe sort of a reminder that you don't have to be connected. And it's nice to get away. It's nice to turn your phone off."

Luck's phone at that time — and his new one, we assume — can send and receive text messages, and for all the newest crazes in apps and technology, he says he has an iPad.

"What else do you need?" Luck asked. "I'm not a Luddite."

Luddite | Ludd·ite | Noun: "One of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly :  one who is opposed to especially technological change." Thank you, Merriam Webster.

Nice word choice, Andrew. Looks like his "Andrew Luck Book Club" is paying huge dividends.

While many of us (including the author of this article) remain glued to their smartphones, Luck is obviously content with what's gotten him to this point in life.

Smartphone or flip phone — or rotary phone — he's back on the field and healthy for the Indianapolis Colts, and that's all that should matter to his fans and his organization.

This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Please use the Contact Us link in our site footer to report an issue.

Related Content

2023 Season Tickets On Sale Now!

Secure the best seats, benefits & more for next season! Be there live for exciting matchups against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and more opponents to be announced soon. Learn more today!

Advertising

Contrary to common belief, these Luddites were not opposed to technology per se but resisted how new machines were implemented in ways that harmed workers’ rights and livelihoods.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

Their primary concern was the unfair labor practices surrounding mechanized production, not the technology itself.

The moniker traces to the possibly apocryphal figure Ned Ludd, symbolizing opposition to oppressive industrial changes .

Title:

Content: The new is the old well forgotten.
Where in the Network there was a fashionable insult to the opponents of AI
In the Internet discourse, deep in the study of sarcastic comments of anonymous persons, you can find the term "Luddite".
This label is often referred to as people who dare to express the slightest inclination to inhibit the constant development of artificial intelligence (AI).
Related video
Interestingly, such prominent figures as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have been awarded the Luddite Award, which is recognition of their cautionary position regarding the potential dangers associated with artificial intelligence.
During the ceremony, Robert D. Atkinson, the organizer of the award, noted: “Unfortunately, luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to the feverish refraction of hands about the impending apocalypse of artificial intelligence, ” writes IFLScience.
In Focus.Technology appeared its own Telegram-channel.
Subscribe not to miss the latest and exciting news from the world of science!
Atkinson also explained: "Do we consider any of them personally Luddites?
No, of course not.
They are pioneers of science and technology.
But they and others have done a disservice to the public — and undoubtedly have helped and comforted the increasingly common neo-Luddist impulse in modern society — by demonizing AI in the popular imagination.
But how did the term come about?
Its roots can be traced back to the early 1800s in England.
Before the industrial revolution, skilled craftsmen who knew a lot about textile production made clothes using their own machines and specialized tools.
However, a situation arose when new technologies and methods of mass production appeared, as a result of which artisans were unable to compete.
The result was a movement whose purpose was the destruction of the textile industry and the destruction of new machines.
Although there is some truth to this story, it does not reflect the whole essence of the Luddite movement.
Their actions were not driven solely by a reaction to new technologies; rather, they were a response to the profound transformations taking place in their professional activities.
While it is true that they often attacked a knitting machine known as a stocking frame, as well as other mechanized fixtures, their main concern was the labor practices associated with these machines.
Kevin Binfield, editor of the Luddite and Compassionate Works, explained their motives: "They simply wanted machines to produce high-quality goods, and that these machines employed workers who had been trained and received fair wages.
It was their only concern. ”
The nickname "Luddites" comes from the nickname "Ned Ludd", an apocryphal figure who allegedly sabotaged a textile factory in 1779, although historical evidence suggests that this man was most likely a fictional one.
In a 2007 paper, researcher David Linton explained: “Some say that a young man, possibly with cognitive impairment, named Ned Ludd once misunderstood an order and accidentally broke his frame machine.
Others argue that this was done deliberately, in a fit of anger.
Whatever the motive, it seems to have become a joke phrase that whenever the machine breaks, for whatever reason, you can say something like, "Ludd must have been here."
From this construction, it is a short step to the ironic application of the name Ludd to vandalism for political purposes. "
Between 1811 and 1816, the Luddite movement held sporadic and somewhat unorganized protests, characterized by the destruction of cars and the burning of factories.
In response, the mill owners resorted to extreme measures, using deadly force against the Luddites.
In April 1812, there was a grim turning point in Huddersfield, where at least four people died at the hands of the mill owners.
In retaliation, the Luddites killed the owner of the mill, William Horsfall, who boldly declared his intention to "smear himself with Luddite blood to the saddles."
Horsfall was shot while sitting on his horse.
Faced with these uprisings, the government immediately sent thousands of soldiers to quell the protests.
Moreover, they adopted a law according to which the breakdown of cars was subject to the death penalty or sending to colonies.
Subsequently, the movement dissipated, but the stable expression "Luddite" could not accurately convey the ideals and goals of the Luddites.
Previously, Focus wrote about the first IPSO in the history of mankind.
It turns out that it was invented in Babylon and it concerns the Flood.

In the 21st century, "Luddite" is used metaphorically to describe people or groups resistant to technological change or who express skepticism about new technologies.

Title:

Content: Does AI make the arts poorer?
The real difference between the rich and the poor is the human mind.
▲ Since we have AI tools, we can do things quickly and well with a simple prompt, and the cost is low. (Illustration / Reuters)
2nd / Podcaster
I had a friend who had been unemployed for a while and asked me if I had a job for him to do, such as simple things like keeping an account and sorting out documents.
I said, if you asked me two years earlier, there must be, but unfortunately not now.
In the past, those chores took time, since the AI tool, as long as the simple prompt can be completed, the monthly fee is only a few hundred yuan, two or three hundred hourly wage students may not do so well.
He listened to me, didn ’ t believe it, and was curious to ask me how I use AI now.
In fact, the application is too broad and too complicated. To make him understand it as soon as possible, I cite my entire workflow as an example.
For example, when writing an article, in the stage of collecting materials, AI helps me to make notes of books / meetings / lectures / courses with speech, and the content is accurate and the grammar is strict. It can also be converted into various forms of charts, different lengths and various articles.
At the writing stage, I will discuss with AI what different topics can be cut into perspective, such as this article I want to know how AI is changing our society, ask it to help me summarize the main views on the Internet, and I will continue to ask for some details, and also ask it to grab the latest data for me.
Next, before po comes to the community, ask it to help me modify the typos and punctuation, the correction only takes a few seconds, and the text creation is basically completed.
I asked my friend, do you think you can do better, faster and cheaper than AI?
▲ AI can help users to take notes with voice, and the content of speech to text is accurate and the grammar is strict. It can also be converted into various forms of charts, different lengths and various articles.
(Chart / CFP)
Next, the image creation.
Now many devices, including WebCam and Monocular, the camera can lock the portrait to move in small amplitude, and even deliberately create a natural hand shake, self-portrait images are becoming more and more dependent on others.
Before the oral video, mainly rely on improvisation or reading, the former plays subtitles until the hand is broken, the latter has to get a reader to adjust the speed, now AI recognition subtitles are very common, the reader also evolved into the script will follow my words run (used readers will know how convenient this is), greatly speeding up the efficiency of recording videos.
It is also a technology derived from AI speech recognition: AI editing. Although it is not completely free from manual work, the editor is now editing by reading the text, without the need to listen with ears, which saves a lot of effort.
Music and images can be generated by AI, saving a lot of time to find materials and reducing the risk of copyright infringement.
As for the job that my friends are looking for, such as document processing and answering e-mail, I just write a SOP file to feed the robot, and it can do it flawlessly, and there is no need to rest for 24 hours.
It doesn ’ t matter if what is said above is not understood, in simple terms, I used to find two or three more people to deal with the process of chores, and it was replaced by AI, and AI did well and fast.
After all, it was all simple work.
▲ Document processing, e-mail and other things, as long as you write a SOP file to feed the robot, it can do flawless, and 24 hours without rest.
(Chart / CFP)
My friend is angry after hearing it.
I said, but I still need someone to help me, because I ’ m saving a lot of time now, have more capacity, and have the opportunity to make more money.
Do you do business sponsorship? Do you write creative scripts that are popular with young people? Do you have experience in IP marketing?
He was frustrated and said that he would not be those, as if he could only be eliminated.
Then he complained to me, saying that Taiwan's industry is serious, only the technology industry can make money, and other people live in deep water.
In fact, every technological innovation is like this, the British textile industry in the 19th century industrialization, a group of textile workers are also very angry at their loss of work, in the factory to destroy the loom.
These people are called Luddites. Now Luddites have become synonymous with opposition to technological progress. Most people also know that Luddites are marginal beings who will eventually die.
But it is obviously not accurate to attribute the fierce competition to the struggle for literature. In the example above, I am also a writer, but my property has leapt with the industrial revolution.
The difference is that I did two things: the first is the investment trend, and the second is that I treat AI as extremely cheap capital and use it to make money.
But I have taken advantage of resources, like I do not mix badly, will mix better, and mixed badly, will only mix worse.
Times change too fast, now this environment can not guarantee that you listen carefully to the classroom to teach those textbooks out of the society to eat, talent needs a flexible brain, as well as a variety of information judgment, to keep up with the pace of faster and faster technological development.
Then it is true that some people can not do, some people from the past to the present, all want to do the simplest job, they either can not find a job, or they have to get a lower salary than the robot.
▲ In the era of rapid technological changes, the advantages of language have been greatly weakened.
(Image from Google Translate)
In fact, education must be reformed as soon as possible, we need new departments, abolish some old departments, and now it seems like the pure language department of the college is really harming students, ensuring that they graduate and lose their jobs. (This sentence is easy to be misunderstood, it seems that I am belittling a particular department, I am not necessary.) And...
In my experience as a minor in Japanese at university, although I can also study culture and history, the advantages of language have been greatly weakened, and the teaching syllabus must be adjusted.)
The gap between the rich and the poor is inevitable, and policies can only try to avoid too many poor people, otherwise there will be social unrest.
Put on the beautiful idea of science fiction, before the civil unrest of mankind, I hope that robots will take care of our food like mothers.
Can you think about it? – I love this post.
Welcome to join the "cloud theory fan group" to see more!
● This article is authorized to be reproduced from the “XIX ” Facebook page.
The above remarks do not represent the position of this website. Welcome to submit "Cloud Theory" to let high-quality good articles be seen by more people, please send to editor88 @ ettoday.net or click here to submit, this website reserves the right to delete the text.
Hot Click 》
► Erotic websites can really be used for united warfare!
You want color, you want health, you don't want to be watched.
► Not "internal waters", not "territorial waters", but "territorial waters".
► Ammunition Preemptive Panic The DPP may be the initiator of the war.
► Can Singapore ’ s 3-Day Weekend Pass Taiwan ’ s Work-Time Revolution?
Share with friends:
Follow us
Back to the top.

This includes critics of artificial intelligence (AI) and associated innovations.

Some prominent figures, such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, have been ironically labeled modern Luddites due to their cautious stance on AI's risks, though they are recognized as pioneers rather than outright opponents.

The term also captures a broader social phenomenon of unease or opposition to rapid, large-scale technological transformations perceived as disruptive or dehumanizing .

Title:

Content: Technology in the face of democracy
In September 2021, data scientist Frances Hogan resigned her position at Facebook and then revealed tens of thousands of pages of the company ’ s documents, research and correspondence, which were submitted to Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The documents, which sparked a storm of hate and lawsuits against Facebook and its CEO, indicate that the platform not only affects the mental health of adolescents, enables the spread of populist hate speech, and enhances the work of human trafficking gangs, but the company is aware of these drawbacks, and is either satisfied with them or unable to reduce them; contrary to what Mark Zuckerberg says about the platform ’ s ability and algorithms to provide a safer environment for teenagers. To contribute to the promotion of democratic values and the reduction of hate speech.
In this article, I do not want to try to prove the company ’ s intention or claim, but rather to trace the reasons that made such phenomena possible, whether on Facebook, Instagram or other social media platforms; which will lead us to the conclusion that this case does not apply to Facebook alone, and it is not related to someone ’ s intention or disability, but it is a fundamental characteristic of all the tech giants and determine how they work and dominate their business model. This is what the American economist Shoshana Zuboff calls “behavioral surplus value. ”
In Zuboff ’ s view, the tech giants of today ’ s world are operating on a single business model that Google established after the dot-com bubble in 2008 — one that doesn ’ t stop selling consumer data, information, and surveillance — what Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism, ” but rather establishes what Zuboff calls the“ prediction goods market, ” a market that relies on collecting user information from social networks and converting it into algorithms. able to predict their behavior.
These algorithms and their results are then sold to marketers, contestants in election races, or authoritarian governments to monitor consumers more broadly and make their control more monopolistic in the market.
Zuboff ’ s analysis will be very useful in understanding the phenomenon, which leads us to trace its historical roots in the first section of the article.
It seems that we will be facing a fundamental thesis that we will have to criticize, and this criticism is the first objective of the article.
There is a thesis led by Zuboff herself and shared by many of the top technicians in these companies, and a number of commentators and democratic politicians, all of whom argue that the phenomena revealed by the Hogan documents and other similar phenomena are real, but they seem to see it as a tax to be paid for the promised fruits of the technical world, and that algorithms are able to correct its course by themselves, especially Zuboff. Inside it is led by the “top minds of the business world. ”
The second argument the article will address is that a mere commodity such as the “prediction market commodity ” is hostile to democracy, the rule of law, equality, and privacy.
It is true that “surveillance capitalism ” is part of monopoly capitalism, but I would argue that it goes beyond this, and that its effects extend from the economy to all spheres of social life, especially its negative effects on the future of democracy.
The third thing we focus on is that falling into a pessimistic vision of humanity ’ s future under technology is just another facet of the rosy narrative promoted by tech giants of the story of the inevitable rise of technology, but in its pessimistic version.
The emergence of the forecasting market and behavioral surplus value
After the rise of neoliberal capitalism following the waves of inflation and recession in the 1970s, the authors of neoliberal programs decided that the policies of state intervention in the economy and the extension of social protection for the people were no longer profitable.
Neoliberalism retained the core elements of classical economic liberalism, such as freedom and individualism, but the role of the state in social protection and welfare programs was hotly contested by policymakers and legislators.
While some countries in Europe have pursued so-called systemic liberalism aimed at maintaining and expanding social protection programmes, notably Germany, Britain and the United States have gone the other way, reducing the role of the state in the economy and expanding market freedom, trade and international lending institutions at the expense of social spending.
Hence the story of monopolistic technology as we know it today began, coinciding with the collapse of the value of the shares of major technology companies in the so-called dot-com bubble in 2001, which was followed by severe frustration with the future of technology and its promise and ability to develop capitalism.
After that, Google took a step that will henceforth define the future of tech companies and their practices; the move is to abandon its hostility to advertising gains due to shareholder pressure.
Google has decided to increase advertising revenue through hell, which has opened the door for the rest of the companies to follow suit by monopolizing access to its users ’ data and using it in online promotion and marketing services, which has long been known as “data exhaustion. ”
Using its superior analytical capabilities, Google has adopted a new way of making money by building algorithms that can predict consumer behavior; from monitoring your online activity, for example, the algorithms recognize your buying habits and preferences and ways of diversifying your sources of consumption, and of course, the level and types of spending, and even your reluctance to buy a particular product when you receive an ad for another.
These algorithms provide sellers with not only real-time information about consumer preferences, but also predictions of consumer preferences in the near future.
With this behavioral revolution, excess data has become the basis for new prediction markets that we now know as targeted advertising.
This is what Zuboff calls “behavioral surplus-value, ” where a user ’ s online behavior, obscene and monopolized data, becomes a mine for value extraction and profit.
Google does not care about the consumer and his decisions, and this data is often taken without consent or acknowledgement from the consumer.
This new type of “prediction goods market ” quickly became a role model for all major Silicon Valley companies, and advertising became as important to Google as the development of the search engine on which the company was founded.
When Google went public in 2004, the company revealed that after adopting the plan, it increased its revenue from 2001 to 2004 by more than 3,500 percent.
Zuboff points out that Google CEO Sheryl Sandberg ’ s move to Facebook represented a magical, contagious transition to this new plan based on behavioral surplus value extraction, or “prediction goods trade, ” which is no longer limited to Silicon Valley companies since 2008, but has moved to sectors such as insurance, retail, healthcare, finance, entertainment, education, transportation, and so on, creating a“ new production pattern. ” Zubov is a whole “new environment ” of suppliers, producers, customers and market makers.
In that market, every product or service starts with “smart ” or“ customized, ” every device connects to the internet, and every “digital assistant ” is simply an interface for a supply chain of behavioral data that helps predict the future of what Zuboff calls the“ surveillance economy. ”
The “prediction goods market ” merges three categories into one:“ user, consumer, and consumer data, ” and this triad is henceforth just multiple facets of a single phenomenon, which Zuboff calls “indigenous people ” in the style of the colonial invasion and exploitation model.
Today we do not lack a plethora of expressions that attempt to describe what the technological market has changed the structure of global capitalism.
We will find “algorithmic capitalism, ”“ cognitive capitalism, ” “communicative capitalism, ”“ data capitalism, ” “digital capitalism, ”“ information capitalism, ” “platform capitalism, ”“ surveillance capitalism, ” and “virtual capitalism, ” to name a few.
Recently, then, capitalism is abandoning itself and retreating into a world of “data emperors, ” which is why this phenomenon has been called“ digital feudalism, ” “technological feudalism, ”“ information feudalism, ” or simply “new feudalism. ”
But if tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are not accumulating their wealth through capitalism ’ s old exploitative mechanisms of labor itself, and while today ’ s production process is not based on manufacturing, but on monopolistic control over data sets and algorithms to extract advertising revenues generated elsewhere in the capitalist economy, is this a new stage of capitalism?
The big companies that rely on technology do not make a profit, but their market value continues to rise due to speculation in the markets, representing what is known as the model of "selling growth", is this model considered a transgression of capitalism?
Is it a new form of “digital expropriation ” that fuels a new logic of accumulation that can be seen as a structural change in the structure of capitalism, similar to the model of“ accumulation by plunder ” posited by David Harvey in The New Imperialism?
Or is it, as Cedric Durand put it in his book “Technical Feudalism, ” that the tech giants are effectively subjecting us to their rule by controlling information and knowledge in a“ knowledge monopoly, ” thus creating ever more sophisticated means of seizing surplus value without getting involved in the production process?
Darwinism and counter-Darwinism
The main problem of technology today, and the way it extracts value through monopoly, is not merely that it is a monopoly, not that it leads us to a social reality similar to Big Brother ’ s world, but that it is based on a structural transformation of the labor market.
The merging of knowledge with technology and markets means that everyone who has nothing to sell will be despised, and a new kind of individualism will triumph, not the “liberal individualism ” promised by the liberal project, but a technical individualism that cares so much about the“ user-consumer-data ” triad. Achille Mbembe: “The Nasi ” who will be every day the firewood of a new“ trend ”, a new empty battle, incitement against minorities, or the fire of populism that has become the hallmark of our time.
What matters is that the individual is a vessel of data, a catalyst for more consumption of this class struggle that denies its nature on the Internet, for more gain, the Hogan documents published by the Wall Street Journal tell us.
It will now seem to every user aware that “contempt ” is the basic commodity of the Internet, as the statistics contained in the documents indicate that the most popular and promoted materials are the materials inciting hatred and intolerance against minorities and insults and self-generated nonsense every day, which are most able to acquire interested people who volunteer their data to participate in battles for gains, as leaked studies from Facebook Labs tell us. A humanistic library containing the most accurate information of community members that is updated in real time for the purposes of censorship and social regulation, as China ’ s experience tells us.
So it doesn ’ t stop at monopoly, it doesn ’ t break down into a pessimistic picture as terms like “feudalism ” or“ big brother ” are trying to tell us.
The problem with such critical attempts is that they confront conflict-based technical Darwinism with a counter-Darwinism stemming from what American businessman and writer Alvin Toffler in the 1960s called the “shock of the future, ” a disappointment in the ambition of resisting capitalism.
These thinkers now present technology to us as a new stage in our human history, as if it were irrelevant to the recent capitalist past.
Technology and its hostility to democracy
The philosophers of the Enlightenment preached historical progress, a linear time on a straight path to better and higher, but the irony of the history of progress is that every historical frustration we have experienced has turned the idea of progress against itself and portrayed history as an ominous march towards further degeneration and ugliness.
The present of technology is no exception: the fleeting hopes of the rise of technology, which heralded a future in which machine and man are allied against evil, have been transformed into an antithesis that foreshadows the merging of machine and evil into a tragedy in which man becomes the victim.
We just have to start by accepting that every sinister scenario we invent to terrorize ourselves is only a part of our history, built by human beings like us, and can be transcended.
Western intellectual traditions have traditionally explained and understood the modern political world through a dichotomy between the private and the public, with the private sphere centered on the family, personal life and self-reflection, and the public centered on public morality, communion, governance of the state, administration, and institution.
But there is a third scope proposed by the famous German political thinker Hanna Arendt that mediates these two arguments: the “social ” sphere where collective feelings, feelings, and preferences are concentrated among connected groups of people — a set of values that people share without agreement that express their hopes, moral biases, and vision for the future.
When democracy defeated Nazism in World War II, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s coincided with the rise of globalization, a set of public values had settled in the West, with the private between the values of conservative Christian families and the values of generalized individualism, dominated by capitalist values, the state of institutions, the free economy, and the decline of the welfare state.
The social sphere is dominated by the values of democracy, individualism, scientific appreciation, technical optimism, and other values that neoliberal capitalism reluctantly shared with democracy under the pressure of labor movements and social participation.
However, a greater aspiration is emerging within the institutions of neoliberalism, which has tended increasingly to abandon democratic values, with greater emphasis on reaping the benefits of globalization and wealth accumulation, and withdrawing from the industrial to the financial economy.
At the height of this ambition, technology and its investments waited for the attention they deserved.
Technology today is taking over human history, and the German philosopher Martin Heidegger once warned us that the problem of technology does not stop at the fact that our perception of the future is always linked to technology in a way that prevents us from imagining any future at all without thinking about it, but goes beyond that to the essence of technology itself, the social motivations behind its creation, reliance and attachment to it.
If it is the case that we are looking at technology as a savior who will arrive in the future to solve our tragedies at one time, and seeing it as a catastrophe that drags the present into an ominous future at another time, the tragedy here is not due to technology as a set of machines or tools to extract value, but rather to what led us to turn between these two extremes.
There are several reasons why the technical age is not a transgression of neoliberalism, not even a transgression of the worst.
One of these reasons is that the crisis of neoliberalism has manifested itself in a set of chronic problems that technology does not overcome and replace with other problems that require new thinking, but rather radicalize, expand and transfer to other spheres of social and individual life; or simply generalize them.
The Norwegian-American economist Thorstein Veblen argued more than a decade ago in his book The Theory of the Luxury Class that the capitalist class by its very nature tends to withdraw from the burden of engaging in the productive process, which culminates with the expansion of monetary capitalism and the increasing transformation of relations between the capitalist and other producers, producers and workers into creditors and debtors. Technical "user-consumer-consumer data", in which the debtor himself becomes the user, the worker, the consumer and the data miner that feeds the forecasting market.
This brings us to a second crisis caused by neoliberalism, the crisis of employment, which is usually presented as a problem independent of the rest of the productive system that gave rise to it.
It goes without saying that the tendency of capital to invest in debt products will attract a large amount of assets that were previously earmarked for investment in commodity production, which will have a negative impact on employment opportunities.
But if we look at the essence of this technological triad, we find that technological transformation is at the heart of this process: less reliance on labor, less wage labor, because the very existence of the triad “user ” on the Internet produces value by itself through an algorithm that works in a vacuum of its own, which is originally a set of programming phrases written by one or more people.
The programmer ’ s income may rise to unprecedented levels, and indeed this is happening, but on the other hand, the chances of employment will be very low.
Most importantly, it brings us to a third dilemma: social inequality will increase dramatically, as “knowledge workers ” will have all the opportunities, while anyone who finds nothing to sell in the commodity market relationships of forecasting will be shamed.
We shall live, or rather we shall live, in a new division of social positions in which knowledge becomes, by definition, logarithmic knowledge, and there will be no value left for any other profession that is unable to transform itself into the language of zeros and ones.
One of the most important characteristics of the modern technical sector is that it operates, to a significant extent, outside the framework of the law governing the rest of social life, in a situation similar to that of the medieval church of independent rule.
Technology ’ s work outside the law is due to two things: the “computational ambiguity ” inherent in the very nature of its work.
Western critics and philosophers of the law have long complained about the ambiguity of the law, about the multiplicity of cases of application of the law, and about incidents of social and human life, but now we are faced with a phenomenon so vague that the legislator is unable to understand the subject to which he will be asked to enact a legal framework to regulate his work.
We have all seen the expressions of the congressional committee at the hearing of Mark Zuckerberg against the background of his accusation of misuse of Facebook subscriber data for political purposes, a scene not without the horror on Zuckerberg ’ s face, but the signs of surprise and misunderstanding that the members of the hearing committee, as people of the world war generation unfamiliar with the Internet, are unmistakable.
The second thing that surrounds the mystery of the technology is the topics it deals with and depends on its transformation into commodities, and the pace at which this rapid and unprecedented process took place in history, a process that has no legal precedent, of course.
Did Google, for example, have to obtain permits from countries around the world to photograph its streets and monitor its maps in order to develop the Google Maps app?
Did an algorithm to track phones to detect traffic jams on motorways and pedestrians need the approval of a constitutional court in a country?
The answer is no, of course.
Even the most democratic legal solutions, especially those that the EU is doing through its various institutions and are already appreciated, trying to reduce the opportunities and possibilities of the technical monopoly, and trying to protect the privacy of its citizens against the transformation of their data into resources for extraction of value; they all seem to remain worthless for two reasons: First, they are trying to legalize the extraction of data that should not exist in the first place. Second, political and authoritarian uses for security control are attractive to any country with borders and sovereignty, especially at the first intimidation of its political borders, the harm of refugees to its national unity, or the harmony of its social fabric, as the case of China clearly illustrates.
Finally, technology relies on undermining individual self-determination, individual autonomy, and decision-making rights in favor of the unfettered flow of behavioral data that feeds markets that are ours but not ours.
This anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian tyrant is best described as a market-driven coup from above: the overthrow of a people hidden within a digital Trojan horse, without finally being able to emancipate.
Based on the power of human inclusion within it, this coup achieves exclusive concentrations of knowledge and power, that is, it is a form of tyranny that feeds on people, but not people.
Paradoxically, this coup is celebrated as “personalizing ” things, while ignoring, transcending, and replacing everything that is personal.
Source: The Island

Resistance to new technology in the modern era arises from several intertwined psychological, social, and economic reasons.

Key factors include:

1.

Fear of Job Loss and Economic Vulnerability: Analogous to the original Luddites, many workers today fear that automation and AI may replace human labor, leading to unemployment or devaluation of their skills.

This engenders apprehension about the pace and fairness of technological adoption, especially when labor protections are weak .

2. Distrust in Technology and Institutions:

Title:

Content: Technological solutionism — the idea that tech developers can be trusted to innovate or code our way out of problems, and into prosperity — is on its way out. Individuals’ trust in tech and the companies who develop it has been eroded by innumerable failures. For businesses, it’s no longer acceptable to use technology without taking steps to ensure it’s trustworthy.

Regular people — and, increasingly, legislators and regulators — have reasonably been made skeptical by recent transgressions against individuals’ privacy, calcification of corporate or individual biases into life-altering algorithms, constant threats that new tech erodes their ability to make a living, and beta testing unsecured or faulty connected devices or vehicles on an unsuspecting populace. Looking at the near future, with generative AI and virtual worlds being implemented faster than we can track, the trust problem is only getting worse.

More tech isn’t going to solve this problem. Customers are looking at the choices that company leaders make and assessing whether those choices match individual consumers and citizens’ values — and whether they put people first. And because every company uses some form of digital technology in its operations and relationships with customers and partners, every company needs to worry about digital trust. “Digital trust programs are a necessity, and when done right, can be both a differentiator and enabler for a business. As demands rise for companies to show they are trustworthy, organizations should strive to build a digital trust strategy that meets or exceeds their customers’ expectations, not just what’s legally required,” according to Vikram Rao, Salesforce’s Chief Trust Officer and a member of the World Economic Forum Digital Trust Steering Committee.

Some companies may look at the problem and hope they can buy or hire their way out of it. In some cases, a new role, like a Chief Trust Officer or Chief Digital Trust Officer may help. But before CEOs and boards rush into creating a c-suite role as a panacea, they need to take a hard look at what exactly trustworthy technology looks like in the 21st century, how companies earn digital trust, and what changes and investments they need to make to do that.

What makes technology trustworthy?

No technology is inherently trustworthy or untrustworthy. After all, technologies have no agency in themselves; instead, as a character in the Afrofuturist film Neptune Frost puts it, “technology is only a reflection of us.” Trust in technology is a reflection of the decisions people make when they develop the tech, use it, and implement it. While there are many ways to think about trust, when the World Economic Forum convened business, government, and civil society leaders in the field of trustworthy tech, the assembled group reached this consensus: “Digital trust is individuals’ expectation that digital technologies and services — and the organizations providing them — will protect all stakeholders’ interests and uphold societal expectations and values.”

In this work, the Forum’s Digital Trust Community realized that the most important question to ask with regard to technology is not “how do you get people to trust technology?” Rather it’s “what do we need to do — as technology developers, owners, and users — to respect people’s values and expectations?” With the right mindset and the right goals, it’s possible to develop an effective and trustworthy strategy for the use of digital technology. At its heart, such a trustworthy tech strategy comes from consideration for the individuals subjected to new technologies (regardless of the technology in question).

With respect for individual rights and expectations in mind, a trustworthy digital technology strategy should identify the right goals. The World Economic Forum’s digital trust community offered three broad sets of goals:

  • Security and Reliability
  • Accountability and Oversight, and
  • Inclusive, Ethical, and Responsible Use

As Julie Brill, Microsoft’s Chief Privacy Officer and a member of the Forum’s Digital Trust Steering Committee said at the time, “the goals of any developer of AI or other technologies should mirror the goals of the organizations and individuals who use or encounter that technology. Shared goals of inclusivity and responsible use, strong privacy and security protections, and effective oversight are the foundational elements to building a trustworthy relationship between developers, their customers, and individuals who use the technology.” Users and consumers can better rely on technologies that protect them, that include their needs and match their values, and that have good governance practices baked in, to remediate any inadvertent harms.

How do you invest in digital trust?

Earning digital trust isn’t simple, and it can’t be automated. Rather it requires a series of judgment calls, investments, and organizational changes that reflect the totality of a technology’s likely impact on individuals. These shifts, encompassing the whole business, can only be orchestrated by company leaders. As Keith Enright, Chief Privacy Officer at Google and Digital Trust Steering Committee member, said, “decisions companies are making now about preparedness determine where they will be down the line in terms of trust.”

Becoming prepared to start earning back trust requires CEOs and Boards of Directors to do at least three things:

  • Define a vision for digital trust
  • Plan to act in more trustworthy ways
  • Recruit people who will help earn trust

The first investment leaders need to make is to take the time and energy to truly understand the impact of the technologies they create or deploy. Developing a realistic and comprehensive vision for how an organization uses technology in service of its goals and those of the people who rely on it determines how an organization will invest in digital trust.

Leaders should approach decisions involving technology with a clear sense of how those technologies reflect and impact core organizational values and the values of the society in which the business operates. Their vision for creating or adopting new technologies must consider both the benefits to the business and society alongside a clear and responsible assessment of the potential harms new technologies might impose on potential customers or other stakeholders.

For example, a business adopting generative AI must assess how the technology might increase efficiencies (a benefit to the business), unlock new solutions to pressing challenges (a benefit to society) while also developing a plan to prevent expected harms, for example, to democratic processes from AI “hallucinations” or misinformation and to workers displaced by these advanced technologies. Only a vision that responsibly considers both the benefits and the risk of new technology can truly be considered trustworthy.

After deciding on a vision that includes trustworthy goals, organizations need a plan to act for digital trust. This plan requires leaders to invest in the internal structures and teams that best support digital trust. For all applications of digital technology, the Forum’s work identified eight dimensions where positive action can help achieve an organization’s goals — both trust goals and overall financial or strategic goals. Those dimensions are cybersecurity, safety, transparency, interoperability, auditability, redressability, fairness and privacy. (As with the Digital Trust Goals, these dimensions are defined and explored in the Forum’s Insight Report, Earning Digital Trust: Decision-making for Trustworthy Technologies.)

In most organizations, these areas likely fall to different departments and leaders, which means optimizing them requires an interdisciplinary approach — and possibly some structural change — in order to support the careful decision-making required to earn trust from users and other stakeholders. However, the realities of a given industry or company may mean it’s not possible to maximize every one of the dimensions described. For example, greater transparency may not be possible for companies who work in highly-sensitive industries (e.g., national security), so their accountability and security would have to supplement. Similarly, some dimensions of trustworthiness (perhaps most noticeably privacy) vary between jurisdictions and geographies. People’s expectations and values are the litmus test for what makes technology trustworthy. Trust, itself, may be highly region and industry specific.

The third big initial investment is in the people who can help the business earn digital trust. Making technology trustworthy is a multi-faceted effort conducted on an organizational (or societal) scale — which means that ultimate responsibility for trustworthiness falls to the CEO. This general duty of trustworthy technology decision-making doesn’t mean, however, that the business shouldn’t invest in recruiting experts (maybe even on the c-suite), who can help establish the right strategy, and the right structures, to support digital trust.

This leader, possibly a Chief Trust Officer — but just as likely to be the Chief Privacy Officer, General Counsel, CISO, or another executive — must be both an expert in stakeholder management and a trusted counselor to the CEO and the board. Stakeholder management comes into play where companies already have cybersecurity, privacy, compliance, and even ethics functions. The leads for each of those roles has a stake in the overall trustworthiness of the digital strategy of a company — in both building it and benefiting from it. In order to be a counselor on digital trust, this individual must also be able to think systemically — bridging between these disciplines in order to help leaders make the best judgement call on how, where, and toward what ends new technologies should be applied.

In order to be most effective, an officer responsible for digital trust can’t be an expert on every technology and every facet of trust, rather they have to be able to understand the strategy for the company and the values of affected individuals, workers, and customers. They support development of a trustworthy vision by conveying a system-wide picture of what the technology landscape looks like to CEOs and boards and helping build a strategy that supports trust rather than erodes it. They also help oversee the myriad and interdepending actions that, taken together, earn trust from users, partners, and other stakeholders.

CEOs must understand that trust in the technology that underlies and enables virtually every business can’t be bought, but by investing in the time it takes to make the right decisions, establish a trustworthy vision, and recruit effective supporters, it can be earned.

Studies find segments of consumers and workers distrust new technologies, especially when benefits and risks are unclear or unevenly distributed.

Title:

Content:
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

How can companies address consumers who are averse to products using a novel technology?

Researchers from IE Business School and Indian Institute of Management Shillong have published a new study that examines why certain consumers are averse to products using a novel technology and what strategies marketers can use to remedy this aversion.

The study, which appears in the Journal of Marketing, is titled "Adoption of New Technology Vaccines" and is authored by Laura Zimmermann, Jeeva Somasundaram, and Barsha Saha.

In October 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency-use authorization for the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Novavax. This was the third coronavirus vaccine available to Americans, but the only one not made with messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. The shot was marketed as an alternative for those who were skeptical of vaccines made with mRNA technology.

The COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna introduce a piece of mRNA that corresponds to a viral protein, usually one found on the outer membrane of the coronavirus. The recognizes this foreign protein and produces antibodies to fight it. These antibodies remain in the body even after the pathogen has been destroyed. If exposed to the virus after receiving an mRNA-based vaccine, antibodies can quickly recognize and fight it before it causes serious illness.

The skepticism about mRNA centers around claims that it could spread itself throughout the body and alter the basic DNA of those vaccinated. This belief persists despite several leading scientists and policymakers assuring the public that the mRNA is broken down shortly after vaccination and does not stay in the body.

This new study finds that certain consumers are surprisingly averse to products described as employing a , like vaccines based on mRNA technology. The researchers investigate how consumers react to technological innovations that have the following specific features:

  • When consumers cannot test and trial the new product to reduce uncertainty
  • When the new product might lead to a health loss
  • When other consumers' adoption of the might undermine the importance of the new technology

Examples of such innovations are mRNA vaccines and other pharmaceutical products, and also products such as nanoparticle pesticides, lithium-ion battery technology, and hydrogen energy.

Zimmermann explains, "We find that consumers demand higher vaccine efficacy to offset the higher perceived uncertainty that surrounds a new technology compared to a traditional vaccine. On average, our participants required a 19% higher vaccine efficacy to adopt a new technology vaccine."

This aversion was more pronounced among certain consumer segments, such as people who have little trust in their government. Consumers less inclined to embrace new technology in general were also more likely to avoid a vaccine employing new technology. Finally, consumers who are risk-averse, especially regarding small probabilities of losses, tended to show a stronger aversion to adopting a new technology vaccine.

Nudges to 'follow the herd'

One way to reduce this aversion is with a social proof nudge: to communicate that other consumers have adopted the new technology.

"When we communicated that a higher percentage of the population had adopted the new technology, people saw it as a proxy trial experience, which reduced their uncertainty. They were therefore more likely to 'follow the herd' and adopt the new technology," says Somasundaram.

But this strategy can be a double-edged sword: When people know that a high percentage of the population has taken up a vaccine, they might be less likely to vaccinate because they believe they are protected due to herd immunity.

Saha says, "Our research indicates, however, that a social proof nudge has an overall net positive effect in this context and reduces aversion to new technology vaccines." The same pattern applies to other domains such as novel energy-efficient technology (i.e., hydrogen energy heating, lithium-battery cars), nanoparticle pesticides, and other pharmaceutical products.

Lessons for marketers and policymakers

  • Marketers can identify consumers with low trust in government, low technology readiness, and high aversion to risk based on their willingness to pay for , past purchases of high-tech products, and their age and education level.
  • Companies can adjust their communication strategies to better connect with different groups of consumers by predicting how each would respond to the introduction of new technologies.
  • Consumers can make more informed choices about new technology by understanding how their personal beliefs and attitudes, such as trust in government and risk preferences, as well as social proof nudges influence their choices.
  • Policymakers and marketers must carefully consider the potential (long-term) risks of new technology and respect the autonomy of decision makers. This is because social proof nudges might bias information processing in ways that lead consumers to overlook uncertainty when they should not.
  • When a technology's greatest need lies in communities prone to distrust (e.g., new technology pesticides for farmers in ), marketers should understand the root causes of distrust, seek feedback, and focus on reducing the perceived uncertainty in a transparent fashion because exaggerated claims may contribute to further distrust.

More information: Laura Zimmermann et al, Adoption of New Technology Vaccines, Journal of Marketing (2023). DOI: 10.1177/00222429231220295

Journal information: Journal of Marketing

Citation: How can companies address consumers who are averse to products using a novel technology? (2024, April 16) retrieved 16 April 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-04-companies-consumers-averse-products-technology.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

New HIV mRNA vaccine study gets boost from COVID mRNA vaccine development

0 shares

Feedback to editors

For example, skepticism surrounding new vaccines employing mRNA technology involves concerns about health risks and long-term effects, often amplified by misinformation and lack of transparent communication.

Such distrust is also compounded where governmental or corporate motives are suspect .

3. Risk Aversion and Uncertainty:

New technologies often present uncertainties, including indirect and unforeseen impacts, reduced control, and potential health, privacy, or social harms.

Individuals who are risk-averse or lack familiarity with technology tend to resist or delay adoption until they feel sufficiently assured .

Generational and Cultural Differences: Generational divides, varying levels of digital literacy, and cultural values influence openness toward technologies.

Some may prioritize traditional or slower ways of working, valuing human connectivity and social capital over digital acceleration, while others embrace innovation enthusiastically.

Resistance sometimes reflects a mismatch between fast-paced technological change and human capacity to adapt .

Ethical, Privacy, and Social Concerns: Concerns about data privacy, surveillance capitalism, and the ethical use of technologies fuel resistance or skepticism.

The phenomenon of "surveillance capitalism" describes how tech companies capitalize on user data, leading to distrust and fear of loss of autonomy.

Lack of regulatory safeguards and transparency exacerbates these worries .

Psychological Resistance:

Title:

Content: How to Change a Person: President Clinton is right, these summer camp students are the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
Photo Credit: iStock
What we want you to know is
When was the last time you wanted to change someone, he really did?
In the event of a rebound, 99% of people will push harder.
The best persuasion is not to push hard, but to remove the obstacles to change and let the other party convince themselves.
Text: Jonah.
Jonah Berger
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is arguably one of the thorniest issues of our time.
Decades of failed negotiations and rising violence have engendered deep mistrust and hatred.
Violent clashes, such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks, have left people fearing for their lives.
Restrictions on movement and land encroachment by settlers, combined with the devastating impact of economic sanctions, have left many people in poverty and feeling isolated.
This naturally heightens the hostility between the Israelis and the Palestinians, who regard the other side as an enemy and must destroy it at all costs.
Mutual trust between opposing parties often seems impossible, let alone become friends.
But in 1993, on a windy, sunny morning in Washington, D.C., things took a turn for the better. President Bill Clinton received a delegation on the White House lawn for a public ceremony to sign the Oslo Accords.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has reached a consensus with Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
It was a historic day in the Middle East.
For the first time, the Israeli government signed a face-to-face agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Palestine Liberation Organization recognizes the legitimacy of Israel and renounces violence.
Israel agreed to withdraw its forces from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, stating that the future Palestinian self-government is the legitimate representative.
Rabin and Arafat won them the Nobel Peace Prize.
In addition to the two leaders, former U.S. presidents, ministers, and dignitaries also attended to express their support.
In his speech, however, Clinton singled out a particular group of attendees.
“Of all the people here, ” the President of the United States noted,“ no one is more important than them. ”
The members of that group are not dignitaries, nor are they world leaders, former presidents, or members of the press corps.
In fact, they are wearing green T-shirts and jeans, which stand out in this crowned event.
They are a group of summer camp students.
Seeds of Peace invites young people from Egypt, Israel and Palestine to spend a few weeks each summer at a lake resort in southern Maine.
In addition to sleeping together, eating together in a restaurant, and participating in all kinds of summer camp life at a normal pace, the students also participate in dialogue time together and try to seriously discuss each other's differences.
Before participating in the seeds of peace, most of the students from all over the country did not like the other party.
They are excellent representatives selected by their respective governments, some from settlements, some with orthodox thinking or religious views.
Many of the students are warlike loyalists, and their positions are unwavering.
“I came into the camp with a lot of hate.
According to Habeeba, an Egyptian girl involved in the project.
“I wanted to prove my point, and then I walked away, not intending to listen or learn anything. ” Habiba, an Arab, thought that was a sign of patriotism.
She wants the Israelites to know that their government is evil and that they live in someone else ’ s land.
For many students, this summer camp is an experience that fills their hearts with struggle.
They feel that they are traitors and that simply participating is betraying their country. Arabs are afraid to sleep in a cabin with the Israelis and worry about what will happen when they close their eyes.
The thought of eating at the table with the Palestinians was intolerable.
Some of the activities of the summer camp give the group the freedom to choose who they want to interact with, such as art classes.
But other activities, such as rock climbing, inevitably require cooperation with pesky people.
“If I want to climb up, I have to hold their hand, ” explained one camp cadet.“ The activity didn ’ t immediately defuse hostility, it was just an effort. ”
That's hard, I don't like it. "
However, the unsuspecting enemies spent three weeks together on the shores of Pleasant Lake, and something incredible happened.
They changed.
In addition to rock climbing and art classes, people also participate in what they talk about as “team challenges, ” such as using long ropes around shapes and engaging in other group activities.
Rounding a rope in a circle or a star may sound simple, but it is difficult for this group of students, who have spent the past two hours arguing about issues such as land rights or political representation, and do not want to work with the other party at all.
Many of them are well-spoken leaders who have no interest in partnering with their enemies.
One of the team challenges is the high-altitude rope course, where a team of two must climb a towering power pole and then walk 30 feet (about 9 meters) above the ground.
What is more difficult is that the student is blindfolded and can only rely on the instructions of his peers.
Without cooperation, it is impossible to complete the challenge.
Sometimes two people in the same group are blindfolded at the same time, and must find a way to cross the rope together, holding hands, talking, and taking a journey that can be touched but cannot be seen.
Habiba recalls that she once formed a team with a strong-character Israelite.
The person spoke bluntly at the time of the conversation, her position was unwavering, and she could not find anything in common between the two, nor did she trust each other.
But during the rope time, her eyes were blinded, and she had to rely entirely on this person to maintain her balance at 30 feet.
Habibie has two choices.
She can rely on someone she can't trust, or risk falling.
However, as her companion guides Habiba along the way and helps her through every step, Habiba feels that something has changed.
The things she cared about were different, and she never felt there was such a possibility.
“He ’ s just a normal person like me, ” Habiba found.“ On the half-empty rope, I don ’ t care if he ’ s Israeli, what I don ’ t agree with him doesn ’ t matter; what I care about is whether we ’ re going to fall. ”
Hubby was so excited for that moment.
“For the past two weeks, at some point, I have stopped judging the people in the camp based on their nationality, and I have started to see them as individuals. ”
Habiba is not the only one who has gone through this kind of mental journey.
Researchers at the University of Chicago have long tracked the seeds of peace, assessing the relationship between Israeli and Palestinian students and how they treat each other.
The researchers found that the camp team changed the attitude of the participants.
At the end of the summer camp, the attitude of the students to the other side improved, and they liked and trusted each other more.
Once they saw each other as enemies, they now see each other as similar to themselves.
At the same time, they are more optimistic about the possibility of peace and are more willing to work towards this goal.
Curiously, such a change would not be temporary.
Perhaps teenagers will return to their original ideas when they return to their torn home.
However, the results are reassuring.
Even though the camp has been over for a year, the participants ’ attitude towards the other side is still more positive than when they didn ’ t participate.
And the changes brought about by these practical experiences are not limited to attitudes.
For many students, the camp experience opened up a broader perspective of activism.
Subsequent follow-up studies have found that there is a high percentage of Peace Seeds trainees who are actively involved in peace building and social reform activities in the future, and they are usually out of the camp for more than 10 years.
President Clinton was right.
These summer camps are the future of the peace process.
Book Introduction
This article is from How to Change a Person: Wharton Business School teaches you to eliminate resistance and embrace change from the heart.
Author: Jonah.
Jonah Berger
by Tian Ning
• momo online bookstore
• Readmoo Ink Reading E-book
• Enter TNL83 at Pubu E-Bookstore checkout to enjoy 83% off sitewide (excluding some items, such as physical, adult and designated items, cannot be combined with other offers)
• If you purchase the book through the links above, Key Review Network will receive a score profit from it.
In the event of a rebound, 99% of people push harder.
the highest persuasion,
Not to push hard, but to remove obstacles to change.
Let each other convince themselves.
It is recommended for the annual reading of the book.
The latest work by the best-selling author of Mad Marketing.
"From A to A +", "Why Do We Live This Way and Work That Way?" and other heavyweight authors and media reviews are trending.
When was the last time you wanted to change someone and he really did?
Everyone has a moment to push for change: from parents to correct their children ’ s behavior, salespeople to change customers ’ minds … to LGBT rights, Brexit, and so on.
However, humans are born with five powerful demonic kings that trigger a backlash: the psychology of resistance, the self-concealing effect, distance, uncertainty, and corroboration.
In the face of these counterattacks, 99% of people ’ s reaction is to push harder, thinking that as long as they persist, they will eventually not bear hardships, but this will often only activate the rebellious youth in the heart of the other party, and start opposing it in order to oppose it.
Using the wrong method will not only cause a rebound, not achieve an effect, but worse, it will hurt each other's relationship.
Let the other party participate in the change, he will be more motivated to make the change come true.
The most successful youth smoking prevention campaign in history has not been a strong advocate for no smoking.
Warning slogans are like pushing for change with great force. Instead of drinking, they encourage college students to drink. Advocating that smoking is harmful to health makes people more eager to try.
This campaign only reveals how companies make smoking look cool through the media, and the company adheres to the principle of “today ’ s youth, tomorrow ’ s customers ”, and then lets smokers lead the meeting and decide what they want to do.
As a result, teen smoking rates halved in two years.
This is one of the ways in which the book drives change: leaving room for the other to decide.
16 Ways to Avoid Bounce Change and Get Others to Reject to Convince Yourself
• Disclosure of unchanging costs
Research confirms that unless the benefits of change are more than twice as large as that of no change, most people would prefer to remain silent.
But the focus on efficiency often ignores the cost of not changing.
Conservative investors do not manage how to explain the higher return rate of the stock market, or tend to put their money in the bank, because even if the interest rate is less, the annual balance will still increase.
Instead, he told the investor on a regular monthly basis that he had succeeded in earning results because he had not considered how much money had been lost in inflation so far.
In the Brexit referendum, the Brexiteers ’ key demand was that “we give the EU £350 million a week, which is less money than our own health board ” and also aimed to expose the cost of unchanging.
• Provide a menu
Instead of asking your child to eat broccoli, ask him: Do you want chicken or broccoli first?
Instead of asking the employee what the conditions are, why not ask him for a higher salary of $3,000 or three more days' leave?
Providing menus allows the other party to have a choice in the process, meet their negotiating needs, and achieve their own goals, just as a smart advertising company will never have only one proposal for its customers.
• Find common ground
After the failure of the same-sex marriage legislation in California, LGBT groups found that the effect of empathy strategies was limited, like a mother's superior student who had difficulty understanding the frustration of poor grades, so they changed from the other's position to find out the common points of shortening each other's distance.
Veterans are often discriminated against because of trauma syndrome, which can be compared to the injustice faced by LGBT people.
Homophobic care for an incapacitated wife; it can be compared to the feelings of LGBT people towards their partners.
• Overwhelming
When people are too strong with their old habits, sometimes they have to resort to more extreme measures.
Just like a company ’ s computer system upgrade, no matter how good the new system is, there will always be people who feel that one more thing is not enough and resist the update.
At this point, an ultimatum from the IT staff is necessary: we will be happy to help you update your system, but will no longer help you with problems with your old system.
Many manufacturers do not regenerate parts of old products at reasonable intervals, and use the same principle to induce consumers to buy new products.
Editor-in-Chief: Weng Shihang
Editor-in-chief: Bohan Pan
Tags:

Resistance can also stem from a psychological preference for stability, fear of change, or ideological opposition to perceived loss of human agency or community.

People may feel alienated by rapid changes that threaten identity, job security, or social cohesion .

Title:

Content: How Modern Progress Defined by Speed, Efficiency Is Killing the Planet — And Us

By

Feb 10, 2022

Share

Image credit: iStock/ Hitesh Sonar for The Swaddle

The “lightbulb” moment symbolises humanity’s ticket to greatness, signifying a paradigm shift in innovation and progress, akin to the moment of discovering fire.

What’s left unsaid is that the humble light bulb sparked an avalanche of change in our cultural imagination. Electricity allowed us the gift of sight in the dark at the flick of a switch, no longer requiring the tedious and long-winded process of manually breathing life into a fire. This logic has pervaded our sense of progress ever since. How fast can we think? How fast can we move? How soon can we consume? Produce? Live?

The dominant frame of thought would have us believe that whatever costs – most notably, environmental – are being incurred due to progress are worth it due to the comforts we have acquired along the way and the rapidness with which we can keep expecting to acquire them.

This thinking culminated most recently in India in the form of a new, shiny little scheme from the 2022 Union Budget. The ‘Gati Shakti’ scheme, its crowning jewel, aims to increase connectivity, the efficiency of logistics, by building more ports, more roads, more highways. “The Gati Shakti scheme is targeted at aiding economic growth and sustainable development,” the finance minister said. “Development” is the keyword that keeps everyone happy, even as the powers that be constantly raze down the Earth to build more ways for us to travel faster, for goods and services to be delivered more speedily, in the name of progress and development. Our clothes, grocery deliveries, e-commerce carts and travel will reach us faster under this “development” and we can have a good life much faster too, just the way we like it.

The pandemic, for instance, has seen a deluge of innovation – not around public health, which is slow and requires patience, but around public convenience, which is faster. Delivery apps now promise 10-minute wait times for non-essential goods that you can buy in a flash however many times a day.

The emphasis on speed for trivial commodities has innumerable, longer-lasting costs. “In the name of comfort, we are creating more discomfort. The fast and furious rush of the world in the name of development is disastrous,” says Goldy M. George, Dalit rights activist and scholar.

Related on The Swaddle:

To Keep Our Coastal Cities From Drowning in Floods, We Have to Reimagine Land Use

Meanwhile, deep in the Atacama desert in Chile, a strange blight was to be beheld late last year. Heaps and heaps of unused and unsold fast-fashion clothing replaced the rolling sand dunes, with price tags still attached. It took an unspeakable amount of water, land, and labor to make all of it, only for it to return to the elements – never having been seen, touched, or felt by a single consumer. All this while e-commerce continues to support the fast-fashion industry’s need to rapidly cycling through outfit trends that die out faster than we’ve had time to process them.

The same applies to most other industries. In the 21st century – change is good. The faster it happens, the better we can say our lives are.

In other words, our lifestyle trends, the norms we’ve come to associate with a good life, are less agentic than they seem. It is less the case that communities drive demands for faster production of the commodities they use, and more that industries producing these things coerce demand from us.

Avantika Goswami, from the Centre for Science and Environment, too points out that this demand hardly comes from consumers first – it is manufactured by industries. Because when we give in to this manufactured need for speed and efficiency, it lines the pockets of those who make it. Take the fact that soon after the Gati Shakti announcement, steel, construction and logistics companies saw the highest gains in stock value.

And yet, this is precisely what is framed as “growth.”  And “we associate growth in our minds with something that is good,” says Nityanand Jayaraman, environmental activist and journalist.  But the discourse obscures whose growth, exactly, is at hand. And critiquing growth would be to imply that people don’t deserve, or shouldn’t want, a good life of convenience.

But the corpse of this model of comfort and development lies in the Atacama desert. Clearly, we don’t actually want or need so many new things; the rate at which they’re produced far exceeds our demand.

“We don’t need anything that is super fast, we need to shift back to methods that exist in the age of taking things slow. A lot of why we want speed could also have something to do with social media and reduced attention spans… Quickness feels like an advance when it’s not really the case,” says Disha Ravi, 23-year-old environmental activist from Fridays for Future.

Ravi’s words cut to the heart of why the ideology of speed is not to our betterment. The Internet revolution promised a lot, most notably faster, instantaneous communication. This is a good thing, to an extent. But the easy access to other people and information has turned it into a toxic heap of crossed wires where communication often breaks down, leading to misinformation and hate that threatens entire democracies, fuels conflict, and notably, fuels climate denialism. It epitomizes an age of alienation, keeping individuals in pursuit of faster goods and services instead of giving and receiving care as communities.

Somewhere along the way, we crossed over from being citizens to consumers, where we don’t owe anyone anything. We are reassured that it is okay to abdicate responsibility towards the community: individual comfort is the priority above all else. And the ability to make things happen with nothing more than a flick of the finger endows us with a sense of luxury, a sign of having made it. Time itself is optimized under this regime of lifestyle citizenship; and the cost is our very future on this planet.

For instance, the only thing we, as consumers, gain from more roads is perhaps a few hours saved in travel. But so much more is lost – and the costs of convenience are hidden from view. Even when they’re not, however, the notion that some must make sacrifices for the good of society overall persists, without questioning what “good” is. Right now, fast equals good and good equals more goods. Within this paradigm, making decisions as individuals to consume items at a slower rate does not fundamentally challenge what it means to live a comfortable or a good life.

***

Most notably, indigenous systems of knowledge – many of which value slowness and reject the hyper-individualistic focus on speed and efficiency oriented growth – are kept out in these industrialized processes, even as indigenous populations suffer the most. George talks about how indigenous values have been “swept under the carpet of capitalism and casteism.”

“This [idea of growth] is not representative of the indigenous people who have a different worldview, the trade unions, the transgender groups, they have extremely different ways of looking at the same problem,” Jayaraman adds.

For one, our relationship with nature itself has become one centered around treating it as a “resource” for constructing the pace and standard of life that we are currently accustomed to. “This isn’t to say we must go back to horses and bullock carts, but not to dismiss their importance. If the cost of a lightbulb is the displacement and death of thousands, it is better to live by the candle,” he says.

The long-term environmental effects of thinking about comfort in this way, however, will soon catch up with us. “We need to look at the inverse. Is it comfortable to live without oxygen? Without water?” asks George.

Reducing consumption and slowing down is touted as a “sacrifice.” But the sooner we recognize it as necessary, the more we can start to see “the overproducers, the fossil fuel industries and their associates, as attacking the real heart of our world: we see them not as purveyors of beneficial products, but as death-bearing destroyers,” notes Julia Steinberger, ecological economist at the University of Lausanne.

Related on The Swaddle:

Mumbai Fish Workers Escalate Protest Against Displacement, Loss of Livelihood

However, these mechanics are hidden from view in the name of comfort, progress, and an inexorable rush away from what we’ve come to see as “primitive” or “slow.” A few steps behind the material comforts we’ve become more than accustomed to lie “other” people are sacrificed for these comforts. A few steps ahead, our own people are sacrificed for the comforts of elites above us. And on and on it goes until humanity extinguishes itself – all in service of a quality life that never felt that good or comfortable to begin with.

5G and bullet trains, when they properly arrive, will once again reset the normal for what the pace of life should be, as opposed to what it needs to be. But what’s so good about speed? Other alternatives exist. “[These alternatives] don’t valorize simplicity – they valorize health, time, community, land, these are all slow,” says Jayaraman.

What do we do about all this? One framework to think through it is that of survival versus luxury emissions. Enter the “degrowth” school of thought. Proponents argue that changing the paradigm of growth to decenter the economy and slow down how we live to just what consuming and emitting what we need, would reduce the chasm between the global North and South.

There is also another model of governance itself, that doesn’t look for the big changes we need from the state or from corporations. Radical ecological democracy, as Ashish Kothari explains, “puts collectives and communities at the center of governance and the economy.”

Techno-optimists would have us believe that it is possible and desirable to maintain the current pace of life, while also being sustainable. However, emerging research suggests otherwise: “unless we tackle the ‘root causes of vulnerability’ (i.e. the systemic and historically laden inequities based on extraction, colonialism, anthropocentricism etc.) through social and behavioural approaches, these tech fixes are, at best, bandages,” notes Chandni Singh, senior research consultant at the Indian Institute of Human Settlements. “Transformational change, the type needed for grave problems, requires a complete reimagination of human-nature relationships, societal functioning, and changes in our financial systems.”

Slowing down, therefore, doesn’t mean renouncement. Clearly, speed – defined even scientifically as the rate of displacement – leaves people behind. On the other hand, nobody is likely to suffer from slowness. Think about it: slower workdays. A slower pace of life. More rest and relaxation. In an economy designed to churn out maximum labor for minimum returns in the name of efficiency, rest can be resistance in more ways than one. It allows, simultaneously, for bodies and the planet to heal.

Share

Written By Rohitha Naraharisetty

Rohitha Naraharisetty is an Associate Editor at The Swaddle. Previously, she was a freelance writer and independent researcher working in the intersection of gender, social movements, and international relations. She can be found on Instagram at @rohitha_97 or on Twitter at @romimacaronii.

Share

The latest in health, gender & culture in India -- and why it matters. Delivered to your inbox weekly.

This complex set of motivations suggests that 21st-century Luddites are not simply anti-technology but often respond to the broader social, economic, ethical, and personal implications of technological change.

They may challenge the manner of implementation, adequacy of protections, or the underlying power dynamics shaping technological progress .

Title:

Content: A culture
“Humanities, Digital and the Post-Coronavirus Era. ”
Questions asked by Flowers.
dear to me
A book entitled “Humanities, Digital and the Post-Coronavirus Era ”, by Dr. Zohour Karam, presents a new perception of human beings in their digital situations, and engages in questions of historical transitions, in order to accompany scientific and philosophical thinking.
The author points out that the humanities and digital is a new field of knowledge that may not be a break with the previous fields of knowledge, because it is a continuation of the formula of evolution, but what is new in it is the quality of the relationship that is happening today between the humanities, which was established with the Renaissance to research human history, society, psychology and language. This changes the approach of the humanities and adds other fields of knowledge.
To the extent that this field of knowledge can make us aware of our new and different position in the 21st century, he explains, pointing out that the magnitude of our reception of the information flow that overflows from various technology mediums and applications, implicitly turns into partners not only in the sharing of information, but in the production of knowledge from information.
The author says in the introduction to the book that technology has introduced man into the digital quickly, due to the culture of access adopted by modern technology, the flow of information, the speed of communication and sharing, but forced by the rapid innovations of applications and the generosity of technological services to make individuals swim in the digital field, individuals in its logic, offering its “amazing ” services.
The achievements of the fourth digital revolution that we are living now, characterized by artificial intelligence, and the impact of this intelligence on life, economy, education and health, and we are supervising the reception of the fifth digital revolution, which began to appear with the concepts of “Robo ” and“ Internet of Things ”, which China and other countries faced the coronavirus, which caused the disease “COVID-19 ”. ′ ′ To refer to the infection itself, however, coronaviruses are actually a family of viruses, some of which cause human diseases, while others do not, and the virus that is of great concern at the moment is called SARS-CoV-2 or the coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome type 2.
It is not to be confused with the SARS virus that everyone feared in 2003; it is the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 ′, the name given by the World Health Organization (WHO) on February 11, 2020.
The author continues, "Until the coronavirus was discovered in central China in the city of Wuhan in 2019, which soon spread to the rest of the world, especially Europe and North America, and many Arab countries.
Therefore, the World Health Organization considered it a pandemic; forced the countries of the world and its peoples to home quarantine, social separation, and the adoption of modern technology to communicate with the outside world - subjective, and this pandemic forced humanity to leave the outside world, and retreat in homes, and the application of social distance, to prevent the infection of the Corona epidemic, and in the face of this exceptional situation imposed on humanity to stay homes, From crisis, through work proposal, communication and distance learning.
It is a new reality, imposed by the epidemic, but it will transfer humanity when the virus disappears to a different societal reality, in which technology is a social, economic, and therefore cultural condition. ”
In light of this development created by the Coronavirus pandemic, technology has come as a service medium, according to Kram, where countries and communities have used it to overcome the scourge of the epidemic, and forced most peoples to house quarantine, and commitment to social separation, which made external life stop, movement paralyzed, streets empty, and the largest squares of capitals suffer terrible silence.
In front of this crisis came technology as the savior of individuals from the crisis of movement.
The author notes that before the Coronavirus pandemic, the space for discussion was open to issues of the attitude towards technology, its ability to manage human social and economic life, and the danger of its enslavement of individuals, through voices insisting on the negative side of this technology, and analyzing the logic of intelligent machines control in humans, according to their own logic. The machines that exist, with high technology and quality, to stay in the race and control a reality that escapes it, but as Cédric Biagini sees in his book, he continues to rely more and more on the machines that he owns than he does.
Cédric talks about how the Internet and modern technology have colonized our lives, influenced education and scientific and pedagogical content, and how digital capitalism has driven the technological escape forward to generate enormous profits and create a strong enough imagination for people to submit to.
The rejection of technology or research into its negative aspects in changing society has also formed a confrontational discourse, especially in developing countries, or countries that still stand at the level of technology use / consumption; it shows the direct impact of technology on changing society, removing it from its familiar contracts, and even the debate about the introduction of technology in certain fields (writing / reading, education...)
Or the refusal to deal with it was strong in many proposals, even if the reality of technology transcends this debate and that debate, but the era of Corona and beyond, involved societies in the technological condition regardless of their level of technological development.
The author notes that the nature of precautionary measures taken by most countries to face the Corona epidemic, and the use of technological applications to monitor the movements of citizens and places of movement in order to monitor cases, and if the technological measure aims to track the spread of the epidemic, it restricts the freedom of the individual and makes his privacy subject to follow-up and monitoring. When it is in a legal form, it affects the behavior of the individual, forcing him to choose a new behavior in his life, and in his dealings with space, time, and man.
Kram considers that our different approach with the digital revolution, and our sense of change in lifestyle, the nature of interests, and the form of social communication, became tangible with the Corona epidemic that hit most of the world, began in China, to move to the world, leaving behind human victims, economic crises, political tensions, and social maladies...
And a big question about: How will we exist after Corona?, and the question arises from the question of what has been lost from us the time of Corona?
What did the pandemic take with it, as it bid farewell to the world, after throwing it into philosophical confusion about the meaning of its existence socially, economically, politically and culturally?
And how will humanity live its social relations, having experienced under the pressure of the epidemic social distancing?
Will the horror that Corona carried with it disappear, or will it continue to haunt the human being, especially with the political conflict over the source of the epidemic, and the vaccine?
The author points out that the presence of technology at the time of the epidemic was a real and practical savior of man, and played a role in the defense of human health, work, education, media, and various political, economic, social and scientific services, pointing to what Dr. Susan Peller, Secretary General of the International Federation of Robotics: “Robots have great potential to support us in the current dangerous coronavirus epidemic. ” It was imposed by the epidemic, by forcing people to quarantine homes, forcing people to social distance, it was necessary to live with the situation, and adapt the new life to the conditions of the epidemic through the services of technology.
The concept of adapting or living with new situations has emerged as a possibility, and therefore States must adopt strategies of confrontation and defence at the same time with technology and its services.
According to Kram, the delay in dealing with technology with the productive production of human beings, and the adoption of its services that provide human development suggestions and solutions to problems, is reflected in the policy of confronting epidemics or crises.
China, which was the starting point of the epidemic, in Wuhan, used technological weapons to counter the spread of the virus with artificial intelligence, such as delivery robots, which were charged with transporting essential needs (goods), urgent medical supplies, and digital data enabled the solution of problems faced by the economy.
According to the International Federation of Robotics, China “has the largest number of industrial robots since 2016.
In 2020, China will produce 150,000 units of robots and will have 950,300 industrial robots in operation.
Go to the top button
CLOSE
You are using Adblock.
Please support us by disabling Adblock

In workplaces, resistance can manifest as skepticism toward digital tools, discomfort with constant connectivity, or fear of being left behind.

Title:

Content: As workplace volatility continues in 2023, Gartner, Inc. has revealed its top nine workplace predictions that HR leaders must address this year and beyond to successfully navigate today’s labour market and continue to drive business outcomes.

“HR leaders have faced an increasingly unpredictable environment amid many organizations mandating a return to office, permanently higher turnover and burnt out employees,” says Emily Rose McRae, senior director in the Gartner HR practice. “This year’s predictions highlight the aspects of work that HR leaders must prioritise over the next 12 months.”

The top nine predictions for HR leaders are:

‘Quiet hiring’ will create new avenues to snag in-demand talent

Despite worries about a forthcoming recession and some layoff announcements, Gartner benchmarking data shows that a majority of HR leaders still expect the labour market to get more competitive.

Progressive HR leaders will turn to “quiet hiring” to acquire new skills and capabilities without acquiring new full-time employees. For example, they will deploy current employees to the highest priorities, which may necessitate reskilling and stretch assignments.

Leaders will also emphasise upskilling to fulfill employees’ career aspirations while meeting organisational needs.

Hybrid flexibility will reach frontline workers

Many organizations have sought to make the workforce-wide experience fair by simply making it equal: mandating on-site work for those who could work elsewhere. More than six in 10 organisations have some sort of on-site requirement for employees whose work can be done remotely.

In 2023, smart organisations will stop limiting flexibility in the name of fairness and will pursue formal strategies for more flexibility for the frontline workforce. To do this, organisations will provide frontline workers more control over their schedules, more paid leave and more stability in work schedules.

Managers will be sandwiched by leader and employee expectations

“Many managers are struggling with how to balance the need to implement corporate strategy on behalf of senior leaders and providing the sense of purpose, flexibility, and career opportunities that their employees expect,” says Peter Aykens, chief of research in the Gartner HR practice.

In 2023, leading organizations will recognize the increasing pressure on managers, and they will provide support and training to mitigate the widening managerial skills gap while clarifying manager priorities and redesigning their roles where necessary.

Pursuit of non-traditional candidates will expand talent pipelines

Organisations are being forced to expand and diversify their talent pipelines due to employees increasingly charting non-linear career paths. These organisations are also faced with an inability to meet talent needs through traditional sourcing methods and candidate pools.

To fill critical roles in 2023, organisations will need to become more comfortable assessing candidates solely on their ability to perform in the role, rather than their credentials and prior experience.

Organisations will take several approaches to do this, such as relaxing formal education and experience requirements in job postings and reaching out directly to internal or external candidates from nontraditional backgrounds.

Healing pandemic trauma will open a path to more sustainable performance

The challenges of a global pandemic, including unemployment, supply chain shortages, isolation from family and friends and divisive political fractures created intense stress. In fact, in 2022, employees’ stress and worry grew above even 2020 peaks — nearly 60% of employees are stressed at their jobs every day.

This year, leading organisations will shift from offering rest as a recovery solution and instead will support proactive rest for employees to help them maintain their emotional resilience and performance.

A July 2022 Gartner survey of nearly 3 500 employees found that when organisations offer proactive rest, they see a 26% increase in employee performance.

Organisations will drive DEI forward amid growing pushback

Although organisations still prioritise diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, many employees say their organisation’s DEI efforts are divisive. This pushback to DEI efforts can decrease workforce engagement, inclusion and trust.

To address this fraught moment for DEI, in 2023, HR must equip managers with tools and strategies to engage resistant employees and address pushback early before it evolves into more disruptive forms of DEI resistance. This is crucial for maintaining the momentum of DEI efforts and achieving greater maturity and strategic impact.

As organisations get more personal with employee support, it will create new data risks

Organisations are increasingly using emerging technologies – artificial intelligence (AI) assistants, wearables, etc. – to collect more data on employees’ health, family situations, living conditions and mental health in order to respond more effectively to their needs.

However, using these technologies has the potential to create a looming privacy crisis.

Progressive organizations will use 2023 to create an employee data bill of rights that prioritises transparency around how they collect, use and store employee data, and which allows employees to opt out of practices they find objectionable.

Concerns around AI will lead to increased transparency in recruiting tech

With more organisations leveraging AI in recruiting, the ethical implications of these practices have become more urgent. For example, a new law in New York City went into effect on 1 January that limits employers’ use of AI recruiting tools and requires organizations to undergo annual bias audits and publicly disclose their hiring metrics.

Organisations that use AI and machine learning in their hiring processes, as well as the vendors they rely on for these services, will face pressure to get ahead of new regulations and be more transparent about how they are using AI – and give employees and candidates the choice to opt out from AI-led processes.

Gen Z skills gaps will reveal workforce-wide erosion of social skills

The rise in remote and hybrid work has meant that many new-to-the-workforce employees have had few in-person opportunities to observe norms and determine what is appropriate or effective within their organisations.

Rather than forcing employees back to in-person work to establish connections, leaders need to build intentional connections among employees across geographic – and generational – boundaries.

Gartner research shows that there are three key elements to creating intentional interactions among employees: employee choice and autonomy, a clear structure and purpose, and a sense of levity and fun.

Building rapport with such individuals requires empathy, recognition of their valid concerns, clear communication about benefits and risks, and collaborative approaches to technology adoption that address fears and support skill development.

Title:

Content: Tune in to tech

Trouble speaking tech? How to bridge the communication gap for non-tech workers

Instilling the habits and processes needed for collaboration

By
We may earn a commission from links on this page.

If you believe that tech and non-tech teams can survive without completely understanding each other, think twice. In today’s interconnected economy, the lack of effective communication between every area of the business can lead to sizable financial losses. In some cases, it can be the deciding factor on whether a business can survive.

Consider the case of Knight Capital Group, an American financial services firm that, at some point, had revenues of over $1.4 billion. In 2012, the company, then led by Thomas Joyce, learned this lesson the hard way, as one of their non-tech teams failed to communicate with the IT team about a software update. This created a computer glitch, resulting in accidental trades and losses of $440 million. Knight Capital Group never recovered.

Advertisement

Transforming roadblocks into opportunities: 5 pathways to achieve success

A long-lasting, authentic cultural transformation arises from a consistent routine and from deeply rooted practices that are instilled, day by day, in the heart of the organization. As author and habits expert James Clear said, “You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your systems.”

Advertisement

Therefore, organizations must develop systems that foster better collaboration between teams on a daily basis. This needs to occur regardless of whether the company is launching a product because it is still decisive for the culture of the entire business entity. However, if the company succeeds, it can transform all the previously-explained roadblocks into opportunities and build an organization where both technical and non-technical teams thrive. Here are five ways to make progress:

1. Take a structured approach to meetings by going from problem to solution

Jeff Lawson, who co-founded StubHub and Twilio—and still serves as the CEO of the latter–emphasized in an interview with McKinsey the importance of integrating developers in the creative problem-solving process. For Lawson, developers are natural problem-solvers; if guided appropriately and within the proper framework, they can bring those skills to the business world and collaborate with the business teams to solve any issue more effectively.

Advertisement

Meetings need to follow a sequence instead of jumping to conclusions right away. If the CTO gets caught up in technical minutiae and the meeting is not stewarded properly, the talent of the technical leaders will not be harnessed the right way, and the company will miss out on their problem-solving skills.

To make a meeting productive, first outline the problem and then set a clear goal. Ideally, the goal can also be summarized in one sentence or question. For example, “What steps do we need to take to outsmart Booking.com?” Then, break this down into as many steps as possible and collaboratively discuss feedback.

Advertisement

2. Cross-functional training from the get-go

Whenever the company makes a new hire, it must integrate a comprehensive, cross-functional onboarding process that provides holistic training to the new employee in the different areas of the company.

Advertisement

Business-oriented employees need to be a part of the engineering onboarding process, and new engineers need to be a part of the non-technical teams’ induction. This will create familiarity between both teams, which increases understanding, collaboration, and synergy. It also makes everyone in the company more familiar with both types of languages and conscious and subconscious perceptions, which increases the odds that everyone will communicate more effectively.

3. Raise awareness and create desire for change

It is inevitable that when teams are engaging with terms and processes that they have not been familiar with before, there will be a learning curve. Therefore, it is important to remember that the more fun and engaging we make the process, the easier going through this steep learning curve will be.

Advertisement

An interesting approach could be an internal hackathon, in which employees from different teams work together to solve a specific challenge. To make it fun, the company could offer a prize to reward those who developed the best potential solution.

A company can also include a role reversal day. On this day, the company could ask an engineer to spend a day shadowing someone in the marketing department or a salesperson to work alongside a developer. This hands-on approach helps foster empathy and cooperation and builds leaders capable of working with everyone within the organization.

Advertisement

4. Leverage the power of product teams

Product teams serve the function of a bridge, which connects developer teams and business units and needs both parties to work together.

Advertisement

In an organization, a product team can act as a translator, converting technical complexities into something that derives business value and sales or marketing metrics into concepts that can be translated into code. When product teams function correctly, the divide is easier to overcome.

An example of this is San Jose-based tech giant Cisco Systems, which has managed to get siloed architecture experts and customer-facing staff working together by integrating them into self-managing, accountable, cross-functional teams, which, in the long run, have generated billions of dollars in value and made Cisco one of the best places to work in the United States.

Advertisement

5. Communicate without jargon

Business teams need to understand technological terms like tech debt, and IT people need to comprehend concepts like ROI and customer experience. Communication between teams should steer clear of any technical or business jargon and be as simple, clear, and actionable as possible.

Advertisement

If team members struggle to communicate what they need in simple terms, they can use tools like ChatGPT, which can facilitate the transfer of information in simple language until employees develop the capacity to communicate properly. This AI-assisted approach helps to eliminate barriers, enhance clarity, and nurture a culture of accessibility. The more open that both parties perceive each other to be, the more confidence they will have in approaching each other for any questions or clarification.

Communication is key, and to accomplish this, it is essential for both tech and non-tech teams to understand that they are on the same team and dealing with humans with whom they have more commonalities than differences. Once this collaboration is established, both teams will feel empowered to work together, and the company will substantially improve as a result.

Advertisement

Ivan Saprov is the founder and CEO of Voyagu, a US-based AI travel platform connecting travelers with advisors.

Encouraging dialogue, transparency, and shared decision-making can bridge divides between technology advocates and skeptics .

In summary, the 21st-century Luddites’ resistance to new technology primarily arises from fears about economic displacement, distrust and uncertainty about technologies and their societal effects, ethical and privacy concerns, generational divides, and psychological resistance to rapid change.

Understanding these reasons fosters a respectful workplace atmosphere where technology adoption is sensitive to human factors and social contexts, facilitating cooperation and trust.

Title:

Content: BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Future Of Work: Human Connectivity

George Alifragis is a Tech Executive and Cyber Security Global Alliance Board Member, catalyzing growth & digital transformations at scale.

The Covid-19 pandemic forever altered our lives, shattering traditional work patterns, blurring the lines between work and personal life and exacerbating the most significant loneliness epidemic in modern times.

Society is lonelier than ever. With 79% of young adults reporting severe loneliness, governments worldwide are seeking innovative solutions to address this crisis. Two-time U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, highlights the importance of human connection in his book, Together, revealing that chronic loneliness poses a major public health risk, even rivaling obesity and smoking.

Isolation increases the risk of many health issues. In professional settings, loneliness also profoundly affects performance, job satisfaction and productivity.

A Connected Community And Workforce

Worldwide, it's estimated that $154 billion is lost annually by employers from loneliness, causing absenteeism. As a result, organizations have challenged their leadership teams and created new functions such as the Chief Social Connectivity Officer (CSCO) and Director of Future of Work, whose mandate is to address this very issue as well as flexibility, culture, safety and wellness.

I believe that a focus on connected communities and workforces, rather than merely connected workplaces, is essential; four office walls do not define or create a culture. Instead, the focus should be on helping employees feel more connected at work, wherever that may be.

Organizations should prioritize employee connections to develop a healthier, more productive and more engaged workforce. This new era demands a work culture that inspires—not demands—attendance and engagement. When we're happy at work and feel connected to our colleagues as a part of a community, we tend to be healthier, more productive and more engaged.

Communities offer a sense of belonging and open avenues to help us connect with a greater purpose and reach both personal and professional goals. In order to bring about these communities within your business, look to prioritize empathy, outcomes and results over traditional work patterns.

Specifically, I recommend organizations embrace integrated communities. Integrated communities, which blend external and internal professional groups, create a more cohesive, collaborative and inclusive environment.

In hybrid and remote work settings, human connectivity is particularly crucial for marginalized communities who rely on social capital to access opportunities, build relationships and establish belonging in the workplace.

When it comes to driving change in business environments, I believe that culture and community are the most critical factors. By cultivating a culture of innovation and building strong communities, we can create an environment that is supportive, collaborative and transformative.

The Social Capital Advantage

Social capital refers to the value generated through social networks and the relationships, trust, collaboration and reciprocity that exist within them. It refers to the resources created and made available to individuals and groups as a result of these connections and interactions, including access to information, opportunities and support.

Imagine the connections we could make if we didn't let our own psychological barriers hold us back. Unfortunately, we often assume others aren't interested in talking with us, particularly when our backgrounds don't match up (e.g., we are in different career stages, industries and racial backgrounds). As Erica Boothby, a leading behavioral scientist at The Wharton School, suggests, dismantling these mental barriers and sparking powerful conversations can unlock the true potential of human connections.

As the urgency to meet the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) intensifies, organizations and boards should look to champion healthy lives, well-being, decent work and economic growth while tackling existing inequalities.

Some organizations have recognized the value of unlocking human capital. However, I foresee real game-changers intentionally looking to harness and create social capital. Companies that foster inspired conversations and meaningful connections can aid in transcending biases and diversity barriers. Harnessing the power of an enlightened workforce can help fortify your company culture while catalyzing groundbreaking advancements. Look for ways to facilitate shared ideas and collaboration between diverse group that may not have typically interacted before.

Technology To Accelerate Human Connectivity

As generative AI emerges, the conversation is shifting toward responsible, purpose-driven tech that can empower evolution and accelerate human achievement. I see HR, business leaders (like CxOs) and IT coming together to upskill their workforce and create the next generation of impactful roles. Embracing AI, automation and emerging technologies is no longer optional when it comes to building company culture—it's imperative.

Many technologies facilitate virtual connections, but I don't think they necessarily focus on true human connectivity. Technologies like Slack and Microsoft Teams offer solutions for employee collaboration in the virtual space, but a pressing need remains to bridge the divide between the physical and virtual worlds. While remote work is here to stay, there will always be tremendous value in real-life interactions and connections.

I've discovered a number of companies striving to bridge this gap, such as Meetup, which helps people host and organize in-person and virtual activities, and OOt, which helps build a stronger culture in hybrid work environments. There is also 10KC and Qooper, which bring people closer together through impactful and inclusive mentoring. I believe these technologies can help pave the way for meaningful relationships, vibrant cultures and cross-generational collaboration among colleagues.

In an ever-changing world, human connectivity, shared experiences, meaningful relationships and diverse viewpoints are what spark growth and innovation. I see the future of work as purpose-driven, automated, empathetic and deeply interconnected. We need to look to building adaptable, integrated environments where people can thrive and make meaningful connections.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

Follow me on LinkedInCheck out my website

This approach can help interns and supervisors find common ground amid differing views on technological change.