Societal Homogeneity — August, 2007
This thought actually expounds upon an earlier thought—Hostages Guide To The Galaxy. If you have not yet read that thought, please do so first; this one will then make much more sense. ~ Thank you.
In Hostages Guide To The Galaxy, I made the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Google™ had a fabulous tool for helping us make everyday decisions in our lives, and that we could remove some of the stress of making these decisions by giving over to the power of Google™. That tool, Google Trends®, creates graphs on a timeline that show users how popular one Internet search is in comparison to another—insofar as Google™ is concerned. I argued that people search more frequently for those things that are on their minds more frequently. With this logic, I argued that Google Trends® could tell us which things in life are more popular than others. I believe that's pretty powerful information, and something people may find helpful when exploring options in life.
Of course, like most other sources of highly-concentrated power in life, I think there's a dark, sinister side to using Google Trends™ to make decisions. The darkness isn't hidden all that deeply, either.
When you use Google Trends™ to check the search popularity of two (or more) items, Google® creates graphs showing you the relative frequency with which others search for the same things. In this manner, you can check to see which thing is more popular (all-season radials or snow tires, for instance). Hopefully, if you're a wise web wizard, you're not only going to check Google Trends™ and then make a decision. Hopefully you're also going to search Google® for information on the choices you're contemplating. But in so doing, you're influencing the popularity of searches on Google®.
You may be thinking, "So What?" Well, if you use Google® to do research and then use Google Trends™ to shore-up or solidify your decision making, you create a dangerous set of circumstances—especially if many other people are doing the same thing. If people seek decision support from Google®, and also research the details of their decisions on Google®, then this behavior creates a recursive process in which the search for advice influences the substance of that advice. This is scary. Carried out long enough, and across a large enough sample of the population (which Google® has), this behavior could influence the masses toward making increasingly-similar decisions, introducing an eventual homogeneity into society that wouldn't exist if people made their own decisions. I don't know about you, but I prefer a society in which some people have all-season radials and others have snow tires (even in July). It's just more fun that way.
So please, beginning immediately, stop using Google Trends™ to aid in your decision making. It's OK to use it to settle bets. Or perhaps you could design a new drinking game around it. But it's not safe to use for making decisions in life. It simply isn't.
I greatly prefer this painting...
"Grand Rapids Fusion" — Mic Carlson — Oil on canvas
...over this one.
"I don't know what I want, but I know I don't want this" — topher — Acetylcholinesterase on synapse
~ topher
Footnote:
Here is a graphical representation of the recursive loop not-so-hidden in Google Trends™. The dark grey arrows depict decision-making confidence. The light grey arrows depict paths of influence. Scenario 1 depicts a confident individual making a decision without an external advice-lending entity. There is no recursive loop present. Scenario 2 depicts a less-confident decision maker using Google Trends™ as an external advice-lending entity. Each step in the process increases the individual's decision-making confidence. But you can see that the process of doing research and seeking advice actually influences the advice-lending tool. The process is recursive, and I'm afraid, dangerously so.
