Could predictive text spell the death of poetry?

Predictive text and autocorrect have not just brought us innumerable laughs from fails like these, but they have made typing on mobile devices a lot easier. Just the other day, I had to rewrite a message after accidentally closing the application before pressing send. And, lo, I only had to bother with the first letter of each word and predictive text took care of the rest, sometimes even suggesting the next word before I had time to type anything! Wow - tech today is amazing, I thought.

But the magic in my mobile then made me wonder: if my communication device acts like a helpful butler for the brain, spoon-feeding my every next word, how will it affect my writing and my mind?

A lot has been said and written about the so-called the Filter Bubble. The term describes how Google, Bing, Baidu, etc personalise our search results through sophisticated algorithms that mine our previous online interactions in order to make the next one more relevant. Search engines thus act as the gatekeepers to what we see in the World Wide Web, directing us first and foremost toward content that they think we will like, rather than all the relevant results. Of course, from a User Experience perspective this makes complete sense and it is quite helpful, but the result is that our online experiences are becoming ever more atomised, and we are less likely to come across surprises or materials that could jolt our reflective equilibriums.

Likewise with our increasing use of social media. Facebook, Twitter and co. are great at reflecting back to us that which we already think. In these public spaces, where content is curated by our friends and those we "Like" or "Follow", we can comfortably bask in the pleasant glow of having our opinions validated because what we see and read is, after all, provided by those whose beliefs and views we have already  vetted as being in tune with our own. Moreover, consuming content (be it articles, videos, cats, what have you) via social media is becoming ever more pervasive. Not only is offline media in seemingly terminal decline, but the Homepage has been declared dead while pull- is fast being replaced by push media.

So a paradox and regrettable irony of our time is that, while we have never had as much information at our fingertips, search engines and social media are pushing us toward ever narrower silos of information – and we seem to love it.

This is far from news, but I hadn't previously given much thought to the possible repercussions that predictive text could have on the next generation in particular. As the use of mobile devices becomes ever more pervasive, children will no longer have to learn how to write by hand, nor will they even be required to know how to spell full words. Correct writing goes out the window if a computer does it for you – just like knowing how to use the gears in a car becomes redundant if you only learn to drive an automatic. 

Studies have already found that predictive text makes children more likely to make mistakes and act impulsively. Handwriting has also been shown to be more beneficial to learning than typing as it requires a greater degree of planning, anticipation and accuracy. Writing an essay is all too easy when you can cut, paste, copy, delete and start again. That is why those advocating holding school and university exams with computers rather than pens miss an important point: it is far more demanding having to write in one swoop a first and final draft, even if the resulting 'pen strain' makes the poor students' hands sore. (How weak have we become that there is such a concept as 'pen strain'...)

But, if its use becomes the norm, might predictive text also cause a narrowing of what is written, perhaps even confining what is thought in general? Assuming it is used and there is no conscious effort to avoid one's previous patterns of writing, predictive text can transform into a powerful valve, translating our thoughts into type, and the more often we use a certain phrase or word, the more likely it will be offered back to us and be used again. Therefore, the text we produce becomes shaped to a considerable degree by previous input – making our output ever more constricted by what we have written before. 

However, the road to excellence, innovation and genius was surely not paved by familiarity. How can literary art flourish if linguistic innovation, a surprising turn of phrase and a novel word become ever less likely? Can poetry survive and would Shakespeare have thrived in such an age where the effort involved in using words offered by our Brain Butler is so much less than coming up with something new?

The danger is that, as our horizons become smaller, so will our minds. As Henry Ford, the creator of the first mass produced automobiles, quipped, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Indeed, it is outside our comfort zones where the magic happens – and it seems to me that predictive text and social media might actually be building psychological barriers that could impede us from accessing our creative sweet spots.

To finish with some wise words from John Stuart Mill: 

"In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time." 

These words are perhaps even more pertinent today than when they were written.

Election debates à la Finland's channel Nelonen

The Finnish presidential election takes place next week and, as an expat, I need to catch up on politics in dear old Pohjola. Luckily, though, I just got a bit of help from my good friend, Joe, who sent me this video of Timo Soini (True Finns) and Pekka Haavisto (Greens). It's from a series called "Alone at last!", and each episode shows two presidential candidates going head to head in a debate on defence, employment, the Euro, foreign policy, etc. The format is simple yet ingenious: a 35 minute informal discussion without a moderator, with no breaks or any other outside interference.

I'd never seen an "election debate" like this before – and it sure was refreshing. It could hardly be more different from the extravagant set pieces seen in American presidential races, where such is the intensity of the limelight that candidates resort to making $10,000 bets on policy issues. There was no spectacle in Nelonen's debate, no lights, fireworks nor music. Just two candidates talking like normal people, albeit ones with highly formed opinions on current affairs.

This novel format was also a lot more interesting than the largely artificial debates that took place for the UK's general election, where none of the candidates really said much of substance for fear of upsetting some portion of the electorate. Britons were simply offered platitudes and play-doh politics with the same things being said, regurgitated, refashioned and repeated with a slightly different twist, over and over again, ad nauseaum.

Perhaps the best thing about Nelonen's "face-off" format is the way it takes away from the politicians the comfort of breaks, when the cameras are on their adversary, for example, during which to regroup their thoughts. A constant conversation with a single interlocutor also forces them to keep up with the game without recourse to notes. While they've no doubt prepared and been given some kind of framework for discussion and topics they are expected to cover, a lesser politician could easily find themselves in trouble having to perform, discuss, debate, argue, retort, provide evidence and, simply, be cool, natural and approachable for over 30 minutes without any respite.

It's a bit like the difference between rugby and the NFL. The former is a drawn out affair that flows on its own momentum, providing few chances for the team to revise battle lines or change tactics once play has begun. The latter, by contrast, requires action in bursts, with the game stopping every few seconds, giving both sides the opportunity to redraw formations and revise strategies at every possible turn.

Now, which would you say provides a better approximation of real life and the real world: a constant flux, like rugby, or dispersed events with precise intervals, like American football? Well, I would argue that both life and politics are in a constant state of movement and change. Anyone wanting to succeed in either best keep up with the blooming buzzing confusion or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Anyway, watching this debate, I soon realised that I'd never before seen politicians behaving in this way: like normal people discussing stuff mano a mano and debating policies over a cup of java. It was in stark contrast to how we are used to seeing our elected leaders: in the spotlight at press conferences, being interviewed, giving speeches, or electioneering on the campaign trail – all of which are situations that we the public don't have much experience of.

Indeed, as a result of its familiarity, the mundane set up made it far easier to gauge these two candidates, and not just their politics but also their personality and character: are they easily flustered or do they come across as arrogant? Are they able to provide facts and figures to support their arguments? Do they stay on topic or do they try to weasel their way out of questions? Do they resort to ad hominem attacks? In short, do they stay cool under sustained fire from their opponent and do they know their stuff?

As long as the participants don't conspire to agree their conversation in advance – but as they represent different parties and are all after the same position, it wouldn't make much sense for them to do so – dare I say this new format might even be better for democracy. 

Firstly, it forces our decision makers to actually engage their competitors one-on-one and, as we see in this video, to their surprise, the pair find themselves agreeing on more than they previously thought. Second, as it's an organic discussion, there is less chance of others influencing the proceedings, whether it were the Party, the network airing the debate, or lobbyist who may be able to sway the process of picking questions and/or the audience. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it sheds our elite of at least some of their trappings of power (stage, lectern, spotlights, audience, prewritten speeches, etc.), and shows them for what they – and we all – are, just normal blokes and lasses.

So, good on you Nelonen – and other channels take note.

***

I certainly won't be voting for Timo Soini, so repulsive are many of his views and so short-sighted are the majority of his policies. That said, one has to give the man credit for his uncanny ability to create easily digestible nuggets of political propaganda that will surely appeal to a whole lot of Finns. Mr Soini is remarkable in his ability to encapsulate complex issues into commonsensical soundbytes, but they are, however, nearly always factually incorrect or incomplete, and often morally reprehensible. As a result, watching this video makes me even more nervous that he might win, but I trust the majority of us will see through him and the shallow worldview that he and his close minded ilk represent.

Pekka Haavisto comes off well in the video. His grasp and experience of foreign policy shines through strongly. He may yet become a surprisingly strong contender. 

... but needs must I continue catching up on the other candidates, starting with the conversation between Sari Essaya v Eva Biaudet from the same series. And here's Sauli Niinistö v Paavo Väyrynen. And here's Arhinmäki v Lipponen.

London going up in smoke?

Let's recap the events of the last few days, shall we. In a nutshell, London was almost flushed down the toilet by spoilt brats who thought they were deserving of new flat screens, sneakers and mobile phones and then went out to get them by any means necessary. The good news, however, was that the majority showed us what civilized people do, but we'll get back to that later.


The spark to this madness came from Tottenham when, last Thursday, a Met officer fatally shot one Marc Duggan in a sting operation. His family, understandably in shock and grief, admitted that he'd been "involved in things", but maintained that he had never been violent. The guy did, however, have a gun on him - and as tragic as the loss of a young life is, if you carry a gun, you run the risk of making a bad situation worse, which is what seems to have happened in this case. The Met initially said that he had shot the officer in question, but this has since been proven to be a fabrication. To fake such an incident is a crime for which the officer(s) involved should of course be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, to say that Duggan was wholly innocent is untrue, after all, he had a gun in his posession.


On Saturday, then, the bereaved family organized a peaceful protest in his memory and against police brutality. All fine, that - and admirable to be sure. People should go the the streets and voice their concerns if they think it will improve matters for their community. It's called participation and taking an interest, and it should be commended because there are few things more dangerous for society than lethargy, of not being bovvered. But, unfortunately, this peaceful protest, mourning a young man who had died violently, mutated quickly into a full blown riot as a result of it being hijacked by people out to create havoc.


 And so these thugs set off to work, demolishing Tottenham High Street. Shops were looted, buildings, cars and buses set on fire - in short, jungle rules for the demented. The police were caught off guard, and the situation escalated rapidly. The crowds swelled and the fever began to boil over as kids texted their mates to join in on the "fun". With such large crowds in the way, fire trucks were unable to access the area, as a result of which dozens of buildings were reduced to heaps of burnt wood and glowing metal. Businesses ruined, people made unemployed, homes burnt to a crisp... Tragedy heaped upon tragedy. The family Duggan were quick and right to condemn the rioting, so any pretext thereafter that this was about demonstration and solidarity with the dead man was rank, adding insult to such sad injury.


It didn't matter to the rioters of course and the next night, then, was to be a rerun, only this time in other parts of London as well. Enfield, Brixton, Camden and so on. The media began talking about similarities with the '81 riots, about the underclass letting off steam. Some bleeding heart liberal on Sky News was even crying that this was the fault of society, that "these young people have nothing", and that's why this is happening... Such incredible naivety, placing the blame on anything and everything except the criminals who perpetrate crimes. These were nothing more than vandals, criminals and jerks intent on destroying property, intimidating and attacking bystanders and stealing to their (probably drunk, maybe stoned, but certainly cold) hearts content.


By Monday night the trouble had spread to Clapham Junction, to Ealing, to Barking; the list goes on. What was happening to this city?!


On Tuesday morning, after another night of mayhem and destruction, while buildings smouldered and innocent people were left wondering what had they done to deserve their livelyhoods or homes (perhaps both) being shattered or reduced to ash, an article in the Guardian purported to contextualize these riots but in so doing attempted to shift responsibility for these events on the Coalition government. I was gobsmacked. To absolve criminals of their responsibility due to some perceived greater injustice is exactly the kind of mindset that brought up kids like these in the first place.


It should've been obvious from the nature of the riots that these disturbances had nothing to do with politics. There were no banners, no chants, no slogans, no organized walks. Instead, there were baseball bats and crow bars and balaclavas: everything you need to anonymously smash things up with. These youths were organized, as they demonstrated by the cunning use of BMB messaging in their bling, bling Blackberries to rendezvous in specific locations - ironically, this service is called "Support Community Forums", and it is untraceable by the police and free to boot, thus highly popular amidst those who partake in tearing communities apart. Their instructions on where to meet and what to bring were disseminated via social networking tools, and the messages spread like wildfire. Some of the trouble makers had, it must be said, also shown considerable foresight, like in this Tweet: "For anyone heading to places where riots are: 1) Mask up properly, not just a hood. 2) Bindmans solicitors if you get nicked: 02078334433". If only they had displayed this level of initiative at school. (Bindmans, incidentally, specializes in defending angry idiots who are filled with a sense of victimhood and/or righteous indignation, the most recent example being that wannabe comedian Bobo Jonathan May-Bowles, who assaulted the 80-year old Rupert Murdoch on account of disagreeing with how Mr Murdoch runs his media empire.)


These riots were all taking place on high streets for a simple reason: there are no Currys, PC Worlds, Carphone Warehouses or such in Westminster village. And this type of folk don't really do historical artefacts, paintings or books, as those working at Waterstones were no doubt relieved to find out. I'm still undecided, by the way, about whether this was a good or bad development: burning books is demonstrative of a dangerous mind, but, on the other hand, those who place no value on books are poor souls indeed.


To imply that these misguided young 'uns were only lashing out because they are a) disenfranchised, or b) poor, or c) angry at not having opportunities is therefore farcical to an Orwellian degree. Firstly, this country is not like apartheid South Africa, nor like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (funny, isn't it, how the least democratic states always insist on using that word in their name), or Zimbabwe, or Myanmar - the sad list goes on and on. People do have a vote here. They have the opportunity to get elected into Parliament, if they set their minds to it and do the work required. We can also demonstrate freely, write and think and shout whatever we want - as long as we don't incite violence, of course. In short, these youths could participate and affect how this society is run, if they chose to do so. I suspect, however, that they are too busy getting drunk and playing Grand Theft Auto: Sin City. Nothing wrong with that, for youngsters - only don't then complain if you're not happy about how things are. And certainly don't go around wrecking property, being violent and stealing the more recent GTA: San Andreas.


Second, they are incredibly spoilt, these kids, and far from poor. They have mobile phones, Playstations, TV's, Ipods, bicycles; all those niceties of modern life that make Western being so unbearably light. Many if not most of these kids have more stuff than we as kids could have dreamt of. If, however, there were any in their midst who are forced to deal with pangs of hunger when going to bed, than that's another issue - one often debated in Ethics classes - any thoughts on that, anyone? But for the vast majority of these selfish brats, they know nothing about what poverty really is. They probably don't even bother watching the news or factual programs where they might see people around the world, infinitely less privileged than they are, starving, or living in makeshift tents, or walking 10 miles for water, or rummaging for food in waste dumps. These kids should try living on $2 a day. That's the reality of poverty - and there but for the grace of God go each and every one of us.


And, third, angry at not having opportunities? Bull. They have free education. Granted, it may not be the best in the world, but each kid here can, if they work hard, gain the basic tools to do something constructive with their lives. They also have the internet, often even on their snazzy smart phone. Instead of playing games and loitering on Facebook, however, they could be using it to learn more about our world. They have free health care. There are also libraries in most communities, and even if there is none in their area, in London, they have easy access to more knowledge than people of any other city in the world, for our museums are free, and they provide more learned information than most schools in the world, for those who are interested to use them. And the under 16's even have free bus travel passes with which to get there, for peeps sake.

So, to say or imply that this is the fault of society totally ignores the fact that, at the end of the day, it is about choice and willpower. Some people do get it easier, but then that's just life. Deal with it. Also, what people tend to forget is that those kids who are privileged today most often come from families who have worked hard in the past. The family that owned the House of Reeve's in Croydon, for example. They probably lived quite nicely, their kids may or may not have even gone to private school, but that's only because the family had put thousands if not millions of hours into making it a success, ever since 1867. And now, as a result of these idiots, it's a smouldering wreck, all that work gone up in smoke, and some 15 staff facing an uncertain, quite possibly, unemployed future.

But the above incredibly thick girls in Croydon say that they're "showing the rich we can do what we want" and that it's their fault for having businesses in the first place - they demonstrate perfectly what happens when life is too easy and people begin to expect things in return for nothing. The girls obviously had no idea about where money comes from, namely sweat, toil and tears. The idea of a "work ethic" must be as familiar to them as that of the Mandelbrot Set. These "ladies" believe, instead, that they deserve that mansion from Cribs just for gracing the planet with their perfect existence, so they went out to take what they want because they, like, so deserve it, innit.


Well, that's just not how life works, or should work. Deserving comes from doing something, making an effort, from working hard, trying to turn bad luck into a blessing in disguise; becoming the best you can be. There's a saying that excellence isn't a skill, it's an attitude. Sadly, the people who terrorized our wonderful city seem to think that they deserve what they want by virtue of being born. But, to paraphrase the excellent Nic Dawson Kelly, parents should teach their kids that potential is good but it must be backed up by drive. The reason the Reeves' probably do have bigger houses than these two idiots is that they thought big, and over several generations worked their assess off to make it happen.


In another example, a local man who filmed some of the looting in Clapham Junction asked two people why they were doing it. Their answer, without showing their face, unsurprisingly, was "we're getting our taxes back". Without getting into whether or not they've paid any taxes, what incredible idiocy backed by delusion and wrapped up in selfishness of the highest degree.


At the end of the day, life is not fair, it's difficult and more than often incredibly tough going. That's the unpalatable truth. We are all responsible for each decision we take, for every action we make and for the life that we lead. These riots had nothing to do with politics, they were about people wanting everything for nothing, wanting it now and breaking the law toward this end. But the people striving to make it political are only pouring fuel on the fire and asking for a repeat because many of these kids, who may have had difficult childhoods and probably parents who keep telling them "you deserve the best and don't let anyone tell you different", these kids will only feel more victimized as a result and, by extension, more justified in their unjustifiable actions.


There is no such thing as Equality of Outcome, nor should there be, because human beings are, in my view, inherently lazy, and therefore we need some incentive to work harder. We must strive for Equality of Opportunity in our society, of course, by educating people and providing them with the tools needed to succeed, even if to become great they'll need to sacrifice other aspects of their lives, like free time and party. What these kids need, therefore, is good schooling, and most importantly, good parents who instill in them the values of honesty, responsibility and work. 


Moreover, to imply that people living in deprived areas are somehow condemned to poverty and ignorance totally brushes aside the great accomplishments of those amazing people who manage to turn things around and be successful in life. They do this by sheer determination and hard work, and bucketfuls of both, much more than most us have to, and certainly more than those sent to Eton, for example. These heroes should be applauded - while the law breakers should be punished.


As a start, those who were caught taking part in this madness should have all their toys taken away from them so that they could begin to understand how lucky they are in the grand scheme of this planet (temporally and culturally). If they receive any state benefits, they should lose them until they have shown that they have made up for the damage - why should others pay for people who turn around and punch them in the face? They need to be taught that nothing comes for free, that there is no free lunch, and you have to work hard if you want a bigger sandwich. Likewise, even if you do, you might not make it to where you wanted to, because there might be someone who's better at it then you are. But that doesn't make you any less, as long as you are a good person and make the most of yourself. That's the rules, and if you don't like it, then you have to live with what you are given.


Now for the good part. My friend Matti put it well, when he was interviewed about this for our local paper back in Finland. He said that "everyone condemns these riots except those who took part in them". And those people, however loud, brash or violent, they are still, thankfully, the overwhelming minority amongst us Londonders. After things quitened down, the locals came out to clean up the almighty mess left by the eejits. Did they ask or complain about why they should pick up the pieces after someone else had acted the maggot? No, they just sucked it up and did what was best for us all. Likewise, the mother who turned her daughter in to the police for having taken part in the looting. Fair dues - I hope all other parents are as principled. To the people who were brave enough to confront these hoards in order to keep their communities safe, respect.  And the grieving father who's son was murdered by these savages,  but who still calls for calm instead of recriminations. Inspirational.


That's what most of us are like: civilized, helpful and thoughtful. We should thank our parents for bringing us up so well, and our grandparents, and backwards. In a city the size of London, it's always heartening to see how well people behave toward each other, strangers and friends alike. That's how civilization works - the other option, of which we got a bitter taster this last week, is always waiting outside the doors of an orderly society, and we mustn't let it in anymore than we already have. So, get your broom out everybody and let's get to work.