Skilluminati Research

Superstruct Review: Unplayable, Unwinnable, Still Awesome

Posted Dec 02, 2008 4 comments

Although I was disappointed with Superstruct, that's mostly because of my own expectations. My first impression made me think the game was a much Fuller system -- more grounded in simulations based on actual data, more complex and testable. This is partially my cognitive biases at work, filling in details based on my own ideas. It's also because of the blog echo chamber that amplified the project in stature, from a cool narrative online experiment to a serious attempt at fixing world problems.

I'm writing a Brainsturbator article about the game that Superstruct should have been -- a game that still needs to be designed. I also think it would be unfair to focus on Superstruct too much during that article, so I'm publishing my short review here instead. Superstruct is not an Earth simulator, and in no way resembles an updated version of R. Buckminster Fuller's "World Game." On it's own rights, and by it's own modest goals, Superstruct was a valuable success.

As Sean Ness clarified for me, though, Superstruct was never promoted as a MMOG -- a Massively Multiplayer Online Game, which involves a continuous environment that's "inhabited" by thousands of players who all occupy the same space.

Unplayable and Unwinnable

First problem: the Superstruct website is a usability nightmare. Don't think I'm a grumpy critic, though: the background and layout was truly badass, very cool looking. It just didn't work. For instance, if you'd like to browse people's submissions, which include detailed plans for solving specific global problems, you'll need to navigate this:

Frame nightmares are easily avoidable -- and if you're paying someone money to make a website, this should not be happening at all. To scroll through all the contributions, you need to scroll down the frame to the left, then click on the "Struct" you'd like to read. Now, unfortunately, you're going to read it while it's crammed into the frame at the right.

Considering user-generated content is main attraction and asset for this website, I'm amazed that the designers went through such pains to make it inaccessible and unappealing. I know there's ways for competent Internets Users to get around that, but it shouldn't be necessary to out-smart bad web design in the first place.

The scoring system is downright cynical. Basically: get a bunch of people to sign up on our site and we'll declare victory. If that sounds like an unfair summary, here's how they describe it:

A three step process? Sounds complicated, which usually means it's not. "SEHI" is just their term for a user profile page, and "survivability points" are just based on SEHIs. So basically, they rename "number of users" three times and call that a process. Perhaps I should be writing this review at Pizza SEO, because there is surely some good business advice to be found here. In terms of the seed content, there was actually very little on the table beyond a few videos and enthusiastic word-of-mouth promotion. Fortunately, that's all they needed to launch a remarkable crowdsourcing project, which brings me to the subject of What Actually Worked.

Still Awesome

The reason I opened this with the Nick Douglas joke -- aside from the fact I thought it was funny -- is the fact that all of the best content from the Superstruct project grew outside the original petri dish. Most of the best brainfood wound up growing on the Tumblr platform, which makes sense...I would especially recommend The Gupta Option.

In fact, the Superstruct information works so much better on other platforms, I'm kind of confused why they'd take the time to code up a clunky site in the first place. Check out the Reconstruct Ning page -- it handles every aspect of usability and information design better than the actual site. Much like the Obama campaign, the best thing to come out of Superstruct is the community that it created. To me, that's awesome enough to still give Jane McGonigal, Jamais Cascio and the rest of the folks at IFTF credit for a job well done.

Please hire better web designers next time, though....or just use Ning. It works.

4 comments

Filed in: Future Tech

The Unlikely Green Revolution of the US Military

Posted Nov 14, 2008 3 comments

The best argument for "green" anything has never been morality -- it's just better business. When environmentalist genius Amory Lovins started his consulting group, the Rocky Mountain Institute, he probably never figured his clients would include Wal-Mart, Monsanto and Lockheed Martin. Massive scale leads to massive costs, though, and corporations are learning that their bottom line improves as their waste gets eliminated.

When it comes to massive scale, nobody beats the United States Military. Maintaining over 700 bases with 577,000 buildings worldwide and waging two simultaneous wars consumes over a trillion dollars per year. Despite a reputation for corruption and $900 toilet seats, the US Military is actually a very efficient machine. Through subsidiaries like DARPA and the Army Engineers Corp, they're also no strangers to experimental and fringe technology. If something works, they'll be interested -- and it's increasingly clear that gas power is not working out:

The rising cost of fuel has the Pentagon pressuring the four branches of the armed services to cut their energy bills wherever they can. It's easy to see why—every US $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the Air Force, for example, an extra $600 million. The Army, Navy, and Marines, too, are tearing through their budgets. In response, energy managers at bases across the country are reevaluating how they light, insulate, heat, and cool their buildings. The most ambitious of these managers have begun aggressively adopting renewable-energy technologies. Together they have emerged as a distributed network of clean-energy advocates...

This movement is even more impressive because it's decentralized. As consultant Thomas Morehouse bluntly states: "There is no energy policy. There is no coordinated Defense Department program for renewable-energy deployment and no single office in the Pentagon that tracks it."

The proposals outlined are remarkable: massive computer-controlled solar plants at Nellis AFB, "tactical biorefineries" that convert food waste into fuel and energy, wind power investment throughout the US, and one of the world's largest geothermal stations in the Chocolate Mountains of California. The military's timeline is more ambitious than anything the civilian government would attempt, too: several of the bases profiled in the article plan on being completely self-sufficient by 2015. More importantly, it's working. McGuire AFB in New Jersey has cut their electricity usage by 14% in a single year. As these small breakthroughs get high-profile attention, expect to see a snowball effect as bases around the world try to emulate the domestic trailblazers.

As Don Juhasz, chief of energy and utilities for the U.S. Army, puts it, "There are enough of us deep within the DOD who see that, long term, if we're going to be here 50 years from now, we need to be leaders and drive the country towards the future we want. We need to set the example."

Source: IEEE Spectrum, one of the best science magazines today.

3 comments

Filed in: Future Tech

“Changing Images of Man” in PDF Format

Posted Nov 13, 2008 11 comments

UPDATE 11/11/08: Apologies to those readers who've been trying to get ahold of this fascinating document. We switched servers recently and neglected to transfer a lot of PDF files -- entirely my mistake. This is the single most-requested item in the Library, so here's an OCR scan of the 1974 forgotten classic:

DOWNLOAD PDF NOW

Changing Images of Man is the stuff of legend -- but the actual document is way more interesting than the conspiracy theory that surrounds it. It's an undeniably weird document, though, and even the most airbrushed versions of it's origin and history make for mind-expanding reading.

Changing Images is especially interesting today because the "future crisis" it was written to avert is now coming to pass. The Stanford Research Institute gathered a diverse group of brilliant thinkers and asked them to imagine how to change the entire world. Today it makes for occasionally challenging but rewarding brainfood.

When I first got ahold of this document, I thought it was the blueprint for world government and Willis Harman's beloved "Global Mind Change." There's no secret formulas here, and no admissions from the secret society. There is a robust and still-valuable body of work about how to change human culture for the better -- I'd like to think that's more useful. Let me know if you agree.

11 comments

Pentagon Red Teams: Get a Job Overthrowing the Government

Electromagnetic and Acoustic Weapons: Knowledge is Power

The United States is the Least Free Nation in the World

The Rosetta Stone of US History: Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope”

Filed in: Social Control

Newt Gingrich on Using Language for Social Control

Posted Oct 27, 2008 7 comments

NOTE: this is all verbatim from GOP documents

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We Are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates, we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used....

...third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)

--source link

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... "compassion" is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...

endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant...

stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it."

-- Edward Bernays

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

share... change... opportunity... legacy... challenge... control... truth... moral... courage... reform... prosperity... crusade... movement... children... family... debate... compete... active(ly)... we/us/our... candid(ly)... humane... pristine... provide...

liberty... commitment... principle(d)... unique... duty... precious... premise... care(ing)... tough... listen... learn... help... lead... vision... success... empower(ment)... citizen... activist... mobilize... conflict... light... dream... freedom...

peace... rights... pioneer... proud/pride... building... preserve... pro-(issue): flag, children, environment... reform... workfare... eliminate good-time in prison... strength... choice/choose... fair... protect... confident... incentive... hard work... initiative... common sense... passionate

Editor's note: this could easily be re-titled "A Guide to Sarah Palin's Entire Working Vocabulary." It's worth sitting down with Wordle and a couple of her speech transcripts. For example...

7 comments

Filed in: Social Control

Edward R. Murrow on Television, Entertainment and our Doomed Culture

Posted Oct 15, 2008 4 comments

50 years ago on this very day, Edward Murrow gave a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association. Murrow was simultaneously ahead of his time, and far too old-fashioned for television. Although he won many awards in his lifetime, journalists and television executives were always wary of Murrow, because his primary allegiance was to Truth, not his employers, not his profession. In this speech, he passes a sadly accurate warning to the current and future newsmen of 1958 about the real effects of entertainment journalism on American culture. It's unfortunate that he was proven so totally right.

What follows is the most insightful and prescient highlights from his rather long speech -- the full text of which is available here.

Edward Murrow, October 15th, 1958

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

Further Reading for Curious Primates

The classic Brainsturbator article on the neurological effects of television (it's ugly) -- More Dirt on the Demon Box: TV Science -- actually got me more angry email than the article mocking the 911 Truth movement did.

Speaking of prophetic dead guys, also check out Marshall McLuhan's legendary, and unusually lucid, Playboy Interview.

4 comments

The Irreversible Problem of Dangerous Information

The 2008 US Election is Not About the Issues.

SYME: The Heart of 1984

Charles Tart on “Consensus Trance” and Normal Human Consciousness

Filed in: Social Control