Oh, how many times have I thrown my hands up in despair, mere mental inches away from deleting my Twitter account forever. Sometimes, despite my best intentions and the interests that drove me to consider communications as a career in the first place, I just want to escape.

It’s the politics, the unstoppable gold rush for new followers and retweets, likes and hearts. And yes, I play the game. Interest in SEO and Web analytics means that I spend hours looking at where people are coming from, how long they’re staying and how engaged they are – thinking of ways to achieve more and reach further.

And yet, sometimes I have to close my eyes and mentally drift away …

According to Sarah Lacy, I’ve lost the plot or at least have a tendency to drift. In her excellent article this Monday over at Tech Crunch, “If You’ve Got Social Media Fatigue, UR DOIN IT WRONG,” Sarah gives her view on those who are just sick and tired of all clicking and updates.

She makes two main points, in my opinion:

1) There are those who want to love social media in a purer form, but can’t deal with the fact that not everyone sees it their way. (Me, at times) These individuals may indulge in talk of ye olden days of social media (around 2008) with a heavy heart. These people are doing it wrong.

2) Social media is easy love. It’s not hard to reach 1,000 friends or accumulate Twitter followers if that’s what you’re trying to do. Retweets and Likes don’t always signify a “sale” – the commitment is too easy. In fact it’s almost no commitment at all.

That ease of communication and connection is what makes social media seem like kind of a bloated concept at time, but it’s also what Sarah believes makes these sites so worthwhile.

“What made social media a phenomenon were moments like these. Passively connecting in-and-out of a persistent conversation with people you know and see everyday, people you know but have lost touch with, and people you don’t know but share interests with. People who in a more efficient world, you might have known. It’s about making relationships more efficient. My parents know what I’ve been up to by reading my Twitter feed, so when I call home I don’t have to answer a vague question like “What have you been up to?” I answer a specific question like “What country are you traveling to now?” If a friend is looking for a job at a given company, I can’t always remember who I know who works there, but with LinkedIn, I don’t have to. And seeing what an old flame looks like on Facebook never gets old.”

I don’t think there is such a thing as social media abuse. In almost every situation, you have the power to turn off communications. And in the end, if what you’re getting out of it isn’t feeding into your life in some sort of worthwhile way, then you probably don’t need that input to begin with.

Plus, it makes sense for some people and organizations to have massive followings on Twitter and other social accounts. For example CNN tweets the news, David Lynch tweets the weather, some brands tweet product updates and sales … the same for Facebook, Tumblr, Posterous, Ning, etc. There is no one “honest” way to use social media, but I do think that there are different approaches that are more or less genuine for certain users.

Either way, whether it’s a moment of excitement when Justin Bieber retweets you or a digital signifier of your commitment to Spam, you set the rules when it comes to social media. If you’re tired of feeling like you’re in a race for relevance, then, as Sarah would say, “UR DOIN IT WRONG.”

It’s a little old (2009) and not completely on the same topic, but anything Merlin Mann has to say about social media is worth opening up to. In my opinion, that is.

(image via Venture Beat)

In 1983, David Chambers asked a group of children to draw what they believed scientists to look like. He compared the children’s perception to reality and recorded his findings  in the article “Stereotypic Images of the Scientist.”

Recently, researchers at Illinois State University repeated the test, this time substituting “scientist” with “robot.”  Psychologist Corinne Zimmerman and engineer Kevin Devine presented 143 schoolchildren, between six and 10-years-old, with the proposition, “Draw a picture of a robot doing something robots often do.”

What the children drew, according to Zimmerman, showed a “clear stereotype of robots.” The children drew robots that were square and autonomous, engaging in activities such as household chores and homework (keep dreaming, kids). Around 30 percent of the children drew robots engaged in “robo-boogieing.”

29 of the children involved in the study were then pulled aside and taught about what robots currently do in the “real world.” These lessons included a trip to see an industrial robot in action. Later asked to redraw their vision of a robot doing robot things, 28 of the children sketched robots more akin to the industrial mechanoid they had seen.

Three months later, those 29 children were asked again to complete a drawing. For the most part, the change in perception had stuck and a majority of the children drew industrial, human-operated machines.

Zimmerman claimed that the lessons had shortened the distance between fantasy and reality for the children. She opined that the acceptance of realistic robots would “help students move into related careers.”

However, not everyone is excited about Zimmerman’s opinions on converging realism and creativity. Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield in the UK, worried aloud about the “damping of ideas” and was doubtful whether acclimating children to the realistic robots of today would inspire them to build the robots of tomorrow.

Surely, the Wright brothers dreamed of wings before they ever flew. I would also be willing to bet that more aeronautical engineers were inspired by Buck Rogers than the WWII rockets that formed much of the foundational research that they continued. Surely, the future is defined more by the impossible than the possible.

For that reason, I say don’t let the robots stop dancing.

(image via Metro.co.uk)

“Each year hundreds of words are dropped from the English language. Old words, wise words, hard-working words. Words that once led meaningful lives but now lie unused, unloved and unwanted.”

As means of communication change, the words used to actually communicate change with them. In a far cry from ye olde days of long, scrawled epistles to friends and lovers and epic masterpieces of novels, 90% of everything we write today is communicated by a mere 7,000 different words.

While this may seem sufficient, it’s actually pretty sad, when looked at in the context of the English language as a glorious whole.

The  Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, 47,156 obsolete words and 9,500 derivative words included as subentries. Over half of these words are nouns, about a quarter adjectives, and about a seventh verbs; the rest is made up of exclamations, conjunctions, prepositions, suffixes, etc. This suggests that there are, at the very least, a quarter of a million distinct English words. And that, sadly, 90% of our communication as human beings is being defined by a paltry 2.8% of the fantastic vocabulary available to us.

Each year, lexicographers track the frequency of word usage in popular culture and media to decide which words will go into the dictionary. (This year, ‘defriend’, ‘tweetup’, ‘bromance’, ‘chillax’ and ‘frenemy’ were some of the lucky winners to make the cut.) Along with the up and comers, though, these professional wordsmiths also track the falling popularity of words and opt to remove them.

Save the Words, a lovable initiative of the Oxford English Dictionary, has set out to ensure that these less-lauded words don’t follow the same path as the dinosaurs. The website allows you to browse a wall of rare words, be given a random word, or search for a word to see if it’s in danger of extinction. Once you find a word to your liking, the fellow word nerds behind the site encourage you to adopt the word, finding room for it in everyday conversations and written communication, and even to say vows regarding your new foster word.

“I hereby promise to use this word, in conversation and correspondence, as frequently as possible to the best of my ability.”

The logic behind this is that every time you use the word, you’re keeping it alive and well in the English language. So don’t be a banal snollygoster – go explore the site, fall in love with a word and use it gaudiloquently.

As Robin Marantz Henig points out in her recent New York Times article, “What Is It About 20-Somethings?”, there is no set definition of responsible adulthood. You can vote at 18, drink (legally) at 21 and rent cars hassle-free at 25. Is this just the way things shook out, or is it illustrative of a certain confusion around those entering conventional adulthood – a confusion born of the need to set the ages of 18-29 apart as a separate developmental stage, complete with its own allowances and expectations?

In the article, psychology professor Jeffry Jensen Arnett references something he likes to call “the age 30 deadline.” One assumes, after reading said article, that this is the final buzzer on some cosmic clock, after which your future begins to calcify at an increasing rate.

This “deadline” is mentioned in passing, an offshoot of a much longer discussion on the much-debated developmental stage Arnett refers to as “emerging adulthood”.

In Arnett’s idea of “emerging adulthood,” the much-ballyhooed “20-somethings” bounce back and forth, collecting life experiences, learning how to make their own decisions and defining themselves in a world that has not only changed since their parents’ time, but continues to change at an increasingly rapid rate. He views the ages between 18 and 29 as a very specific developmental stage, much like adolescence.

This is all played against things like the rising numbers of “emerging adults” moving back in with their parents, the high turnover rate in burgeoning careers and the varied legal definitions of what age one must reach before he or she is determined to have sufficient sensibility.

The question is, do these young adults need room to roam? Is it healthier to take some time to discover at the expense of getting a start on the rest? More importantly, in regards to Arnett’s point, does this decade deserve unique classification?

Personally, I’m ambivalent as to whether or not these things happen, but don’t believe that they can only happen (and count) between 18 and 29-years-old. I can think of plenty of people who have continued to discover themselves past 30, 40, 50, etc. To me, the question is less about whether people change a lot during their 20′s and more about whether or not they continue to evolve past that. If we accept that the 20′s are something special, in need of unique social and psychological amenities and allowances, then it seems as if we must also devalue the time that comes after them.

What do you think? Is there something about those restless 20-somethings, or is it just another attempt to quantify the unquantifiable?

This week, Brain Food ran the gamut. We had motion-sensing computers, comic book heroes and the weather – not necessarily in that order. Without further ado …

Gesture-based computing takes a serious turn (New Scientist)
As much as the computers in “Minority Report” have been touted as the future of online interaction and digital interface, the G-Speak system from Oblong Industries is as close to a full realization as I’ve ever seen. I could wax poetic, but the video below is probably more to the point.

Back Story: Books vs. E-Books (Newsweek)
Who will win in the epic battle between bound books and electronic downloads? Hardcover books sold over 200 million more copies than electronic books last year. Still, with more readers coming out, the latter’s reach will only be extended. Do you side with Team Jobs or Team Gutenberg?

Seeing with Sound (New Scientist)
By using a tiny microphone attached to a pair of sunglasses, Peter Meijer is letting the blind see – with sound. The vOICe system utilizes sound waves, much like a bat, helping the blind person  navigate via a sort of echo-location.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The Animation (Adult Swim)
“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” might be one of the best movies I’ve ever seen and is definitely one of the most fun. It inspired me to shop for electric guitars and seek out the original source material. Will my axe skills push the future of rock ‘n’ roll? Doubtful … but it may push future roommates to the brink of insanity.

A Location-Aware Music Video (PSFK)
Lissie’s music video for “Cuckoo” might be the first geo-specific music video ever made; it’s at least the first one I’ve ever heard of. (Maybe not as much of a litmus test as I think it is?) When you go to the Lissie’s website, you will be asked if it’s all right for them to locate you. If you say yes, the music video will play – backdrop specific to the weather you’re experiencing.

Textbook-based learning is great and all, but I highly doubt that my current worldview or creative inclinations were inspired by an American History textbook. Despite many wonderful teachers, this is the system. It can be more or less interesting depending on the ship’s captain, but it is still very “checklisty.”

Rather, I like to think that my path (whatever it is) was set by my dad reading “The Gods of Mars” to my brother and I before we went to sleep, by the radio plays my brother and I taped onto cassette when we were little, and the horror movies I stayed up late to watch under my parents’ noses …

The House of Fairy Tales is an artist-led initiative in the UK, focused on creating “parallel worlds where learning is play and play is directed learning.” Through a sort of interactive, traveling roadshow; the artists, philosophers, storytellers, educators, filmmakers and other creatives who make up House of Fairy Tales spin yarns and engage both young and old in stories and spontaneous creativity.

Why fairy tales?

“They allow children to explore the complex minefield of these hopes, dreams and fears on a self-lead journey. Fairy Tales are, in short, a perfect vehicle for our educational principles!”

The House of Fairy Tales fits into the right-brain-centricity espoused by people like Daniel Pink, who believe that the more well-rounded, more prepared individual will also be more creative. The ability to tell a story, engage an audience and connect with others on an richly emotional level transcends age, race, nationality and gender.

If advancement is only limited by the breadth of our imagination, then we need people who are willing to put the time and energy into stretching it.

When you really get down to it, having fun is pretty serious business.

(via Forgotten Hopes)

When Paul McCartney penned “Can’t Buy Me Love” in early 1964, he touched on a topic that scientists continue to discuss more than 40 years later. It was not a new idea; hundreds of years ago, Beast learned the hard way that all the money in the realm can’t convince a beautiful belle that she loves you.

In much the same way that money cannot buy love, it seems to fail in purchasing happiness. In a recent article for Scientific American, entitled “Can Money Buy Happiness?” Sonja Lyubomirsky discussed the mounting evidence that money actually prevents us from feeling happy. She notes that, once we can pay for more than simple pleasures, we often find ourselves looking for the next high.

This may explain the growing pile of books in my “to-read” list, currently gathering dust on the floor. Books I was thrilled to find for sale at Magers & Quinn or Booksmart quickly lose their intrigue and sift to the bottom of the pile under new books that I just had to purchase.

When going to the library was thrilling, I usually tried to read what I was bringing home before going back for more. Still, for the record, I do plan to read all those books …

Like higher and lower pleasures in Mills, once we’ve tasted new books, it’s hard to be as happy with those new books when they’re old. Once you’ve had Surly, it’s hard to enjoy a Miller Lite.

As Lyubomirsky points out, “having money raises our aspirations about the happiness that we expect in our daily lives … Unfortunately, raised aspirations don’t only lead us to take things for granted and impair our savoring abilities. They steer us to consume too much, tax the planet’s resources, overspend and undersave, go into debt, gamble, live beyond our means, and purchase mortgages that we can’t afford.”

In short, spending becomes a high that we just can’t get enough of. Consumption becomes the joy, not the actual product.

So what makes us happy?

That’s exactly what documentary filmmaker Roko Belic has spent the last four years or so trying to determine. “Happy – The Documentary” should be coming out soon, but as a non-profit project, can always use help from generous investors. You can donate to the cause on the project’s website, or simply enjoy the trailer.

Welcome to the second week of our Brain Food roundup! We’ve got everything from David Lynch to vintage industrial expo posters this week. Enjoy!

Never-Before-Seen Twin Peaks Photos Go Behind the Scenes of Surreal Show (Underwire)
If any television show pushed the future of entertainment, it was “Twin Peaks.” Combining David Lynch’s undying weirdness and Mark Frost’s storytelling smarts, “Twin Peaks” was the perfect blend of murder mystery and sideshow. Paula K. Shimatsu-U worked as a publicist for the short-lived series and now, nearly two decades after the finale, she is preparing to release a book of never-seen images from the show.

The Universe: Beyond The Big Bang – Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Who Are We? (The History Channel)
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson briefly discusses humanity’s origins and its connection to the stars. It’s a short, but fascinating bit of possibility and a humbling look at our place in the cosmos.

Heart Chamber Orchestra (We Make Money, Not Art)
With ECG monitors hooked up to their hearts, this 12-person ensemble not only plays music – they visualize it. Their hearts beat during the performance (we hope) and this information feeds into a computer, which uses algorithms to visualize the heartbeats in time with the music.

Brainless Slime Mold Makes Decisions Like Humans (Discover)
Most would perhaps assume that humans are the only creatures who can properly “weigh their options.” However, this mindless, single-cell organism determines a course in much the same way. How can a glop of slime with no mental facilities weigh pros and cons? Read on …

Vintage Japanese Industrial Expo Posters (Pink Tentacle)
What was Japan building towards in the 1920′s, 30′s and 40′s? These beautifully designed industrial expo posters give a brief glimpse of a past future right before the dawn of World War II.

Orangutans Use Charade-Like Communication (Discovery News)
Much like me, if I ever travel to a foreign country, orangutans use gestures and act out detailed scenarios to get their point across. Much like many humans, orangutans will also feign weakness to get others to do things for them …  though they haven’t quite mastered the proper deception needed to get pretty girls to tutor them in math.

Peeking Inside the Mind of a Piglet (Futurity)
Scientists are using piglets to get a better idea of how certain stimuli and deficiencies affect the development of human brains. Another link between humans and pigs, perhaps, though we’re still a little ways from mutant armies of pig men … that we know of.

Scientists from the University of Hertfordshire recently unveiled Nao — the first robot allegedly capable of both developing and expressing emotions. This sensitive robot is the result of Feelix Growing (Feel, Interact, Express), a project aimed at socially situating robots in our society. According to Dr. Lola Cañamero, the computer scientist who is running the project, “Emotions foster adaptation to environment, so robots would be better at learning things.”

Nao is the emotional equivalent of a one-year-old child, showing emotion through non-verbal clues like posture and gestures, rather than more advanced facial or verbal expression. Non-verbal clues from actual human beings, body language and distance in particular, are also what guide Nao’s reactions and feelings. The robot learns from human interactions, can remember faces and is programmed to form close bonds with people who treat it (him? Pronoun struggle.) with kindness. This basic understanding of human body language, along with a programmed set of basic rules about what’s “good” and “bad” for it, allow Nao to indicate how it’s feeling.

This originally made me think that Nao is just another basic robot, BUT found out that while the actions used to display each emotion are preprogrammed, Nao decides by itself which feeling to display, and when. (Robot agency!)

Hunching its shoulders when it’s sad and raising its arms for a hug when it’s happy, the robot really does emulate the physical expressions of a very young child. If frightened, Nao will only stop cowering in fear when soothed by gentle strokes on the head. Along with happiness, sadness and fright, Nao can also express anger, guilt, excitement and pride.

Beyond just being a novelty, Nao has several projected practical uses. The FEELIX team members in charge of creating Nao’s emotions believe that robots are absolutely going to act as human companions in the near future, and that responses from the robots will make it easier for humans to interact with them.

“If people can behave naturally around their robot companions, robots will be better-accepted as they become more common in our lives.”

In addition to being an ambassador for the ideal everyday companions of the future, one of the immediate aims of FEELIX’s project is to provide 24-hour companionship for young children and the elderly in hospitals and to provide support for their parents, carers, doctors and nurses. He would be capable of helping out with therapeutic aspects of their treatment, as well as providing companionship and helping their emotional well-being.

I don’t think we’re anywhere close to the point where robots will replace actual human attention, but they could be a great helper, when no one else is available. The public might not be ready for robot companions  with a mind of their own, but the technology is here, it’s consistently improving, and it can’t be ignored.

(All seriousness aside, I think my favorite thing about Nao is that he happens to be an awesome dancer, bringing a whole new meaning to ‘The Robot’.)

“Action is more generally understood than words. Like the Chinese symbolism it will mean different things according to its scenic connotation. Listen to a description of some unfamiliar object—an African wart hog, for example. Then look at a picture of the animal and see how surprised you are.” – Charlie Chaplin to Time Magazine, 1931

It started with a trickle, but with 60 planned over the next two years, 3-D movies certainly seem here to stay. Companies like Sony and Panasonic are betting on them sticking around after the theater, too, and bother companies already have 3-D television sets on the market.

Early 3-D films like “Beowulf” may have proved that such technology could get people to the theater, but James Cameron’s “Avatar” proved that it could scale. It seems almost a given at this point that any animated feature worth its salt will release in 3-D. While not the norm yet for live-action films, that too seems only a matter of time.

Is there room for 2-D purists in an industry bent on throwing the kitchen sink at the medium (not to mention the audience).

Last week, The New York Times covered the “2-D Résistance” in Hollywood. Directors like J.J. Abrams, Christopher Nolan and others have shown themselves unwilling to make the transition. Abrams, for one, has been very vocal in his opposition.

Are they risking obscurity in the face of progress? As Cecily has pointed out at many a Push meeting, we are inherently scared of change. We enjoy comfort, knowing what’s next and how to get from point A to point B.

When point A suddenly leads to point J, we grasp for what we know. Is it okay to just pick and choose your adaptations?

Maybe, but perhaps at the risk of irrelevance. Technology is communication, in many ways, and a lack of fluency can leave even the smartest people behind. To effectively interact, you have to be willing to do so on the same level as everyone else.

In 1931, Charlie Chaplin told Time Magazine that he had no desire to do “talkies.” The words just weren’t as expressive. In 1940, he released “The Great Dictator,” his first picture to feature speaking roles.

As for me, I don’t really care for 3-D movies, and I’d rather have a solid book than an iPad.

Still, I’m reconsidering the firmness of my stance. Who’s with me?