Povilas Godliauskas on Emotional IntelligenceFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
For many, "Social Dilemma" (2020) has been an eye-opening experience. For me though the most eye-opening fact was the overblown reaction to the film. 😶 It's not that we never realized our data was (ab)used for marketing purposes, social media was addictive, or engineers were not the most avid users of their products. It's that many knew (at least deep down) they shared a bed with the devil. However, suddenly some people stumbled upon a visually pleasing (but super predictable) documentary and now the world looks different. To me, the overrated reaction is a reminder of how persuasive a technology-driven product can be, whether it's a "world-changing" app, social media, or a dramatic flick by Netflix, guilty of the same tactics their film is attempting to criticize. 💩

Appreciate
Comment
Share

Ruan Maritz
Good insight. I fully agree with you. Two points that also stand out for me are: 1) The irony that almost everyone I know is now using Facebook to discuss the topic and 2) Our opinions and ideas have been manipulated for centuries already. Two examples that jump to mind are religions (wars, genocide, radical views and opinios of other people etc.) and even diamonds for wedding rings (billion dollar industry built on a marketing campaign by De Beers).
25 days ago
Povilas GodliauskasFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
Dominykas Rimša, I had the feeling that the use of reenactments was one of the reasons why people were so shocked, as of someone would in real time manipulate your decisions. However, this is how metaphors work. I guess, if less people will start using less social media, the technique worked.
25 days ago
Dominykas RimšaProduct & UX Designer
Povilas imho even if we assume that less people using social media is a positive thing (even though our social fabric is much more complex than wether one is on or off social media), I can see it also having a negative impact on how people view technology and trust innovation, hence burning of 5G towers and loads of other bullshit driven by ignorance and susceptibility to fear mongering.
25 days ago
Povilas GodliauskasFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
True! No middle ground...
25 days ago
Robert PožarickijTech & Software
Speaking of manipulation of decisions mentioned above. Today I stumbled upon a website which presents a slightly different angle of the issues arising from extensive use of social media and data collection in general: https://www.socialcooling.com/ TLDR: People tend to change their behaviour because of its potential effects on their digital reputation (which might have direct impact on their non-digital reputation). Disturbing quote: "When doctors in New York were given scores this had unexpected results. Doctors that tried to help advanced cancer patients had a higher mortality rate, which translated into a lower score. Doctors that didn't try to help were rewarded with high scores, even though their patients died prematurely." Such things give me flashbacks of the Black Mirror's Nosedive episode.
25 days ago
Povilas GodliauskasFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
Robert, interesting phenomenon! Would like to see more scientific data on it. Couldn't find any studies specifically on this concept. However, it makes sense, especially where tracking is "legal" and people are fully aware and somewhat acceptant of the fact that they are being watched. I don't think though it's that common in the US or Europe. People do stupid things on the Internet and they don't care. You just need to look at comment sections of many sites.
24 days ago
Elinor Smith
I think the point of the documentary was that techniques used by social media come from good intentions, the problem is mainly that the algorithms have found an exploit on bad sides of human nature, naturally attracted by negativity, which makes it worse That's why it's a bad thing But manipulation techniques aren't necessarily bad Works of art make heavy use of manipulation techniques to keep your attention: movies, books, paintings I'm in an art school and we are taught these techniques right away: how to catch the eye, to keep the spectator engaged for as long as we need, etc These techniques aren't bad in themselves But when they're used for religion's wars or exploited by an algorithm to show negative things to people because it keeps them engaged, that's bad That's why I think it's not so ironic that the documentary itself makes use of these techniques: I think that, if it actually woke people up, and made them talk about it, it was the point That's a step towards a better world where people are aware The documentary is not perfect of course but I don't think it was pointless or a bad thing though
16 days ago
Povilas GodliauskasFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
Elinor, thanks for your comment! - 'Algorithms have found an exploit...' Algorithms or rather creators of these algorithms? Algorithms themselves are nor guilty. They cannot be, as they do not have autonomy or agency. Machine learning engineers should be able to predict the outcomes of their statistical models. - 'Bad sides of human nature...' This happens when algorithms are created by people who lack integrity and basics in human psychology. Of course, I am glad that some engineers realized that and now they are taking about the problem, but it does not seem that they are taking responsibility for their actions. - 'Manipulation techniques to keep your attention...' Not sure if we agree on the def of manipulation. I see it as a way to influence someone's feelings or attitudes without the realization or consent of the subject of manipulation. Art, unless it is created for marketing purposes (a lot of content marketing), is not manipulative, but sure, it can have an impact. - '...and made them talk about it...' How's that useful? In my view, the point was to criticize competitors, their products, and business models. Also, to encourage people to watch more Netflix-funded content and basically spend more time on their platform, fueled by recommender systems, barely criticized or discussed in the film.
16 days ago
Elinor Smith
Thanks for your answer! Actually, algorithms didn't "find it" like people find something But, for example, the designer put in the algorithm "show people something that is popular, because it's probably something good" something that is popular being something with many likes And also, show people something that they will like: if they liked this, they'll probably like that, because other people that liked this liked that too It's not statistics that the developers made themselves: it would be an overwhelming amount of work. It's something the algorithm compiles everyday with all the data it gathers It comes from good intentions: this way, people will see cool things that were appreciated, and stuff that they're interested by The "exploit" is that human nature tends to like more negative stuff And also, that this system makes people go deeper and deeper in their own opinions And this wasn't predicted because at first they didn't think it would evolve so much, and now it's hard to go back: how can you say "okay, now we'll recommend things that aren't necessarily good and that is probably not what you'll like because it is random"? A company that would do that now would probably just be replaced by another who would continue using algorithms, because people would say hey, recommendations are bad here, I'm not even into that, and why this shadowy video of a random person with eight likes is in my feed? So I don't think at first there was a problem with their ethics: they wanted people to see nice things. Well, now that there's a problem with that, it's not ethical to keep going and not look for a solution, of course, but the first makers of the algorithm weren't necessarily bad and actually, if you described only the principle of the algorithm without the consequences it has now to someone, they would think that it's great The other unethical thing is that now everything in this has to do with money, which of course doesn't help positive change if people keep making money in negative ways On manipulation techniques, actually, if we talk about manipulation techniques, they are quite the same in art: what you're saying is that it's different because it does not have the same purpose: marketing purpose or without the realization of the subject. Art wants to influence someone's feelings: it wants to pass a message and if possible to change people. I agree though there is a difference: the algorithm is blind, it just uses data and has no particular message for humanity: it feeds humanity what humanity feeds him. It does not conduct to change but actually to making people go deeper in what they already are, and of course going into extremes is always bad. While an artist has total control over his piece of art and they know what they want to say, and it does not depend on the viewer: people might agree or disagree. But if we talk about the techniques used, they are still the same: it's about different purposes. That's why the fact that the documentary uses movie-like manipulation techniques, which are analog to the ones used by social media, doesn't shock me that much. Many documentaries use them too. I had meaningful conversations with people because of this, so I think it was useful. Also, I don't think netflix is that bad, because you can always see the full catalog of what is there. It's not as heavy of a recommendation system. And the fact that netflix funds shows like that, and funds art in general, I think it's a positive thing to do. Of course they want people to watch it: you don't fund something expecting it won't work. But netflix isn't nearly as bad as any other social media I think
16 days ago
Povilas GodliauskasFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
"Show people something popular because it's probably something good" does not sound intelligent. No smart person would assume that popular = good. Furthermore, their job was to create products that increase profits. And they did. Of course, I am not blaming the engineers. They just did what they were asked, but that's in itself a problem.
16 days ago

Download Qoorio to talk & learn from other Humans
MORE INSIGHTS YOU MIGHT LIKE
Learn more by discovering other insights
Povilas Godliauskas on Emotional IntelligenceFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
Think twice before deciding which side you are on, while you are listening to other people trash-talking their managers, colleagues, or partners. ⚠️ According to a recent study, by siding with the interlocutor, we are just adding more fuel to the conflict, which discourages the interlocutor to forgive and make peace with the other party. To be supportive, we do not have to choose a side. The most important thing is to create a safe space for the other person to vent their emotions and collect one's thoughts. We can do it by asking open questions, such as: ✔️ What happened? ✔️ How does it make you feel? ✔️ Why is it important for you? ✔️ What is the next step? Remember that our goal as good conversational partners is not to condemn anyone but rather be patiently present with the other person. 👌 Link to the study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31464479/
6

Appreciate
Comment
Share
Povilas Godliauskas on Emotional IntelligenceFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
It's NOT limiting to have limiting beliefs. 🍀 We, coaches, often tend to identify them in our clients' thinking, dismantle their logic, or even subtly challenge their purpose. However, we should not forget that various limiting beliefs as well as cognitive biases are actually precious to people. Why? Because they help us survive. Or at least this is what our brains 'think'. 🧠 If let's say, John feared public speaking his whole life, as it prevented him from experiencing the nightmares of shame and ridicule, why would he suddenly want to give up his limiting belief? Limiting beliefs are OK as long as you (1) are aware of them, (2) you consciously choose to live according to their rules, and (3) you are happy about their function. ☀️ Unless we enjoy chaos, we don't have to open up or say YES to every possibility. What we CAN do is change our communication by putting the limiting belief in the beginning of the sentence and finishing with a positive one. Example: I fear public speaking, but I would love to learn it in the future! The formula is especially useful when we have to say NO to another person, but we want to maintain a constructive relationship. Life is complex, so we should better start enjoying the fruits of it. 😌
"Yes, but..." Usually what comes after 'but' is the limiting belief, the excuse

Appreciate
Comment
Share

Povilas GodliauskasFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
Mihaela S, exactly. ☺️
View 1 more comment
Povilas Godliauskas on Emotional IntelligenceFounder & Coach @ coach.lt
What does psychological research tell us about our motivation to ‘hook up’? 🔥 ♂️ If you are a young heterosexual male from the West who considers to hook up with someone, probably you are interested mostly in one-time sex, and that’s it (no strings attached). ♀️ However, if you are a female (same criteria), there is a high chance that you are interested in sex, as well as the prospect of having a relationship. And if you are a female and do end up hooking up with someone, it will most likely be your friend rather than an acquaintance or a stranger. Of course, this is just plain statistics, which does not say anything about individual cases or personality differences. More so, the study does not tell us if, how, or why we should hook up or not. 😶 Nonetheless, we should always be mindful of our biological drives and accept them for what they are instead of ignoring their existence and impact on our decisions. This is how we can increase our ability to respond rather than react and become more self-conscious human beings. 👌 Link to the study: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-28773-001
7

Appreciate
Comment
Share
Download Qoorio to talk & learn from other Humans
Become Open HumanFAQBlog
We use cookies to personalise content, provide social media features, and analyse our traffic. We value your privacy and only use the most necessary and analytical cookies. You can opt out at any time.