Too Wild

I did love The Wild Robot.  But for me, it would have been a great stand-alone.  The Wild Robot Escapes is the sequel and I hope that will be it.  But for people who really enjoy a lot of descriptive action scenes, this might be much more enjoyable.  At first I really liked it but then it just seemed to go overboard with the action scenes.

Robots in the Wild

If I had a Newbery pick it would be Wild Robot.  This was not (yet) on the list for the goodread group I follow, but I hope it will be, or at least considered.  In addition to being different, totally fresh, well written and pretty much amazing, kids would really enjoy it, too.  

The Final Exit

If I had to read Alone Together again, I believe I would read and follow the instructions of the Derek Humphry book mentioned above instead.

Finally I have struggled my way to the end of Alone Together. The second half of the book is long. Oh so long. It recounts story, after story, after story, after story, after story of people who are tied to technology, worried about the Facebook profiles, texting all of the time. It was such an abrupt shift from the robot-rant and it is so poorly edited (come on, do you need that many of the same type of stories with no real solution).
We all understand now. Yes we get it.
My friend Joanie and I used to make fun of people who talked on their cell phones in the mall. We once took a landline, cord and all and walked in the mall talking on it, just to...I don't know, just to be weird! Now I talk on my cell phone all of the time in the mall and even fake talking on it when I'm near those kiosks for hand cream or perfume where the sales people chase you down and won't let you go. You've seen them. If I have to hear, "Pretty lady, let me show you this..." One more time....I am NOT a pretty lady and that is harassment, I just want to walk through the mall!
Years later after cell phone use had become so popular, Joanie and I decided that the only people who complain about people talking on cell phones (as long as they are polite about it) are people no one wants to talk to. Now that probably isn't true, but it is worth putting out there.
When I was in Johannesburg in 1994 everyone had cell phones. It was the most reliable ways to make and receive calls. It was weird to me, but I could see that they had adapted very well and the whole cell phone drama was no big deal.
Remember that the good ole days weren't always good. Remember that human nature never changes. There will be bright sides, there will be darkness.
This whole book of Turkle's is way too simplistic. She talks and talks about all of these social ills, but blames technology. Very little attention is paid to the reality that humans harm other humans. Again in the last chapter, Necessary Conversations, she tells of a disabled man who would prefer a robot to care for him because while many of his care-takers have been great, some have been cruel. She pays very, very little time and attention to this, especially when you reflect upon the 153 story of a high school junior who can't live without her cell phone.
Couldn't Turkle have spent a bit more time on the reality of human cruelty, about which she says, when talking about her disabled friend, "he makes the best possible case for robotic helpers when he turns the conversation to human cruelty." (page 181)
At that point I thought she would take a LITTLE more time to talk about this. A paragraph? No we don't even get that. Turkle goes on to say that he friend was dragged and had it hair pulled, but at the end of the day, even this sadist human had a story. I admire this man for forgiving his abusive caretakers. I do. I pray I would do the same and realize that an abuser probably has also been abused. But you know, that's a heck of a lot easier to do when you are the one who was abused. That's your own right to forgive the abuser.
But what if that person who was abused was my child? Or Turkle's friend's elderly mother? Do I or does Turkle's friend have the right to then say that the abuser is forgiven?
I submit to you that we are much more able to forgive a harm done to ourselves than a harm done to those whom we love, or even a stranger. As I read about the abuse that Turkle's friend suffered, I thought, I was outraged. I don't even know the man. But, even if we do forgive a caregiver who harms our child, parent or friend, do we have the right then to just let that continue? Or to force or child, parent or friend to forgive? Turkle says that her disabled friend, "Although he would not want his life endangered, he prefers the sadist to the robot." (page 182)
I, Too may choose the sadist. But would I choose the sadist for my 2 year old? For my 89 year old mother? This, Ms. Turkle, is a necessary conversation as well.
Alas, not one we will have, as immediate after that Turkle goes back on her relentless and repetitive reminder that robots don't feel. Yes. We know. We know.
And if a robot had babysat Caylee Anthony, she might still be with us. Ah, Turkle and her friend would say, "but Caylee Anthony's killer had a story". So true. And because of it, Caylee's story is now ended.
All I wanted was a bit more intelligent dialog from Turkle about human nature, human cruelty. Why didn't I get it? Not for the sake of brevity. And further more, the book's subtle implies that we will talk about this! The "and less from each other".
This book was required reading in a graduate school course in an MLIS program. I would have loved to know what kind of discussion it prompted. While no book is perfect, unless it is written by Robert B. Parker, this book is a shallow and deviously flawed tome.

However, if you did like this book, you may also enjoy...What to Do When the Russians Come.

Oscar

So today I met Oscar. As you can see, Lobster met him as well. I don't care what Turkle says, I want to marry Oscar! Emery-Pratt says that they are "the nicest people in the book business" and Oscar is the nicest robot in this business. He is wonderful. Here's a nice video of him at a conference last year.

Stupid am I? Yeah, I'm Stupid! Stupid Like a Fox!

Instead of spending any time (so far) addressing issues in my last post, Turkle introduces us to one of the most buffoonish men in the world.
His name is Tony and he is a fifty year old high school teacher.
At this point I ask for prayers for Tony's students. They are so screwed. This man is...well, let's let good ole Tony speak for himself!
So Tony's mother-in-law is in her mid-80s. She has the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease and it is looking like she might have to come and live with Tony and her daughter. Tony weighs the pros and cons of a robot helper for his mother-in-law. Reading his remarks it is clear that....well, no. Let's let ole Tony speak for himself.
"Well if I compare a robot with having an immigrant in my house, the kind of person who is available to take care of an elderly person, the robot would be much better."
An immigrant? Tony, did you really say that? Tony, were your grandparents, parents and are you, Cherokee? Hopi?
"The kind of person" - what kind of person is that, Tony?
He continues with his brilliance, his wise words, "It [the robot] wouldn't be rude or illiterate or steal from you." (p. 143) (Like who would, Tony? An immigrant?)
Ms. Turkle, is this man for real? Have you NOTHING to say about his comments? Ms. Turkle, would you say that THIS man is someone you'd like to spend time with as opposed to, oh I don't know, a Furby? Because I'll take the Furby.
But wait! There's more!
He then goes on to say that the guy who works down at the bank isn't even "from the
neighborhood" (page 145) This guy really doesn't like outsiders. I am so glad he is teaching impressionable children! Better they learn from him than from Cog.
I found it bizarre that Tony quoted radical feminist Marilyn French in his reasoning that a robot might be good to care for children, for the "s*&t-and-string-beans" part. (page 144) I mean who would have thought that this guy's favorite book is probably TheWomen's Room!

He is a man of mystery.

Is that all you have to say?

I'm nearly halfway through Alone Together. Coincidentally, I am a little more than halfway through the Book of Genesis as part of my Bible in a Year program. Genesis really shows people in a very interesting light. Brothers killing brothers, stealing each other's birthrights, daughters getting their dad drunk and sleeping with him so they can have a child. Brothers selling another brother into slavery. I've read Genesis many times, but these tales never cease to surprise me.
Of course I'm not saying that robots are better than people. They aren't. People have souls, and have the ability to have a relationship with God and, because of that relationship with our Loving God, we can serve God and others in a loving way. We can care. We can love.
We don't as often as we should. We as sinful and fallible humans often hurt one another. We do terrible things to each other. We have done so from the time of Genesis.
It is surprising to me that Turkle dismissing this so easily. So that's why I'm hoping as the book comes to a close she will address the larger issue here. The "expect less from each other" part of her book's title.
It isn't enough to just mention and move on quickly from the truth that humans to irreparable (in this life anyway, God will heal all in Heaven) damage to one another.
When talking about robots caring for the elderly she writes this, "Robots," says one writer, "will not abuse the elderly like some humans do in convalescent care facilities.' (page 123).
That's all she says. I don't understand why she hasn't addressed this truth at least a BIT more. Would you rather have David Harvey checking in on your grandma or Nursebot?
Why, why hasn't Turkle given equal, or even a bit more time to questions such as this?
She seems to be trying to combat a larger social ill- the wrongs that we do to one another- by blaming it all on robots. Her arguments fall flat and yes she does, at times seem to be quibbling with semantics.

It was a depressing time.

Now I really understand where Turkle is coming from. Man. I hear her.

Now I really understand where Turkle is coming from. Man. I hear her.

She attended a symposium called "Caring Machines: Artificial Intelligence in Eldercare" and "I asked participants -AI scientists, physicians, nurses, philosophers, psychologists, nursing home owners, representatives of insurance companies- whether the very title of the symposium suggested that we now assume that machines can be made to 'care.' Some tried to reassure me that, for them, "caring" meant that machines would take care of us, not that they would care about us. They saw caring as a behavior, not a feeling. One physician explained, 'Like a machine that cuts your toenails. Or bathes you. That is a caring computer. Or talks with you if you are lonely. Same thing."Some participants met my objections about language with impatience. They thought I was quibbling over semantics. But I don't think this slippage of language is a quibble."

She is so right! Here's what happened to me. I am in the drug store. I look up and see that sign up there- the image I posted in this post- it CLEARLY says "Personal Care" in that aisle. I had a problem I wanted to talk about and I thought, "personal care" that's where I go! I waited. And waited. I was hoping for an intelligent, kind, physically attractive researcher or someone to come up and give "personal care.". Did they? No.
Then my foot was hurting. The aisle over was CLEARLY marked "Foot Care." Sure there were all kinds of products there, but no one came to care for my feet. I took off my shoes. Socks. Nothing.
Ridiculous. Right on, Turke!

Also has anyone ever received a "Care Package" while at college or serving in the military? You open the "care" package to find that it is just full of objects! There is no one in there to "care" for you at all! Quibbling? I think not.

You're Killin' Me, Smalls

When I gave up the nasty habit of smoking in May of 2010, my blood pressure eventually decreased to normal and so I was taken off of my blood pressure medication.
I fear that Alone Together may result in me needing to go back on the Lisinopril.
Turkle is now sharing details of her experiments with robot pets and the elderly. She is quite sad and upset that the elderly warm up to these robots and that it decreases their loneliness and agitation and makes them feel useful because, the robot isn't real and so they are being tricked. I must ask here: is the robopet tricking the elderly? Did the robopets show up on the doorstep of the nursing home, demand to be let in and then Turkle and her gang heard about the robotpet infestation and thought, "Let's go study what happens!" Or did Turkle and the students give the elderly the pets in the first place? She doesn't really say, so I am just asking.
If the robopets came to the nursing home on their own, yes, Turkle is right. The robopets are tricking this vulnerable group of people. If Turkle and her team provided ther robopets, I need to rethink my answer.
Turkle then goes on to say that sometimes it seemed as though the elderly just put up with the robopets so that they could talk to her "intelligent, kind and physically appealing research assistants." Another question here, do you have to be good-looking to be on Turkle's team? I'd never make it!
Well apparently at one nursing home, there was a lot of grief over the robots and "one young man in particular" - one that brought out "bawdy tones" from the female residents, so the nursing home said that they needed to discontinue the study. The robopets and the "intelligent, kind and physically attractive" researchers left. The residents were sad and alone again. Turkle says, "It was a depressing time." (page 105)
Bummer.
But wait, surely the researchers came back and volunteered their time at the nursing home, right? Giving love like only a human can, right? Isn't that what we should have expected?

Are You Kidding Me?

In today's Alone Together reading Turkle shares the results of a study done with children meeting "social robots" from MIT. As I mentioned before, I wasn't even quite sure if giving an AIBO to a child was ethical. Here children meet Cog and Kismet, robots who are even more "life-like." We read about Estelle, 11 who was so excited to meet a robot in a college. She dressed up for the day. She remarked that no one in her family had even been to a college before- she was the first one to ever go into one, today.
Well on that day, Kismet the social robot was malfunctioning and wouldn't respond to Estelle. The girl was so upset she started to binge on the snacks and clearly, she was hurt and let down. She had so looked forward to the day.
Turkle writes one of the most ironic sentences in her book thus far. I had to read it three times to make sure it was really there. She and the researchers asked themselves, "Can a broken robot break a child?" (page 97)
Now who is seeing robots as "real"?
If a robot can't love, and we know it can't, then a robot can't break a child.
But can researchers who place such a robot with a child, break a child?

Isn't that the real question?

Ahhh the good ole days....

Turkle suggests that a new mythology is coming into existence. She says that it used to be that inanimate objects that came alive like Frankenstine and Chucky were scary. Now we have R2D2 and the boy from A.I. who are seen as every kids' dream and a help for a grieving mother.
"An emerging mythology depicts benevolent robots." (page 68)
A couple of questions, Child's Play came out in 1988 when R2D2 was eleven years old. Also, did anyone really see A.I.? And does anyone remember The Jetsons? Was Rosie evil? Well...there is that picture of her abusing the Radio Shack guy. I guess she was.
I might be nit-picking, but I am thinking that Turkle must be singing this song and so I immediately want to reread and recommend one of my favorite books The Way We Never Were.

I am being nit-picky. I know it. I mean I am big fan of OTR and I've heard the cautionary tales from the good ole days about robots. Hmmm...wait a minute...some of them sound a lot like....Alone Together!

Oh Have You Seen My Dear Companion?

Fantastic song. The Trio album, the first collaborative album between Dolly, Emmylou and Linda Ronstadt, has got to be one of the best albums ever made. I wore this out on LP and cassette. I have the CD and I've now got it on itunes. Great stuff.
In the chapter True Companions, Turkle talks about AIBO pets and two college students who have them. She is dismayed at the relationships these young men have with their robots and goes on to talk about the fact that "The first thing missing if you take a robot as a companion is alterity, the ability to see the world through the eyes of another." (page 55)
She talks about Heinz Kohut who said that people with narcissistic personalities turn their companions into selfobjects- just another part of themselves, in tune with their own self-centered world. Turkle says that is what we are in danger of doing if we take on these robot pets that can be trained to mirror our personalities.
I totally agree with her. That is just ridiculous and awful and thank goodness I could never be tempted to get one of those things.
Here is my point to ponder though. Have you ever been made into someone's selfobject? I have. Granted it isn't a devastating when you break up with them because you are glad to be out of that toxic relationship, but still, it can hurt anyway. I bet a lot of people have had that experience, sadly. Ask yourself, have you ever had a friend or boyfriend or girlfriend who was a total narcissist? I bet you have!
So why not just let the narcissists have the AIBOs! Why not? It would save a lot of people- the folks they would make into selfobjects- a lot of trouble! Why not let the people with the, as Kohut says, "fragile inner states" have their little toys and get out of the dating and relationship pool altogether? Would this not avoid the whole Fatal Attraction thing? Then the rest of us could just get on with meeting people with less "fragile inner states" and no need to make selfobjects out of people!
Mostly Turkle talks about the way in which children relate to robotic pets. I think it is kind of unethical that researchers even gave AIBOs to children to begin with, but they did. With the robotic pets some children come to see that a robotic pet might be better than a real pet. You can love the pet when you want to. Ignore it when you want to. It is "easier" and you don't have to worry about it dying, as you would a real pet.
Not all of the children draw these conclusions I guess, because she just quotes a few. This raises another question for me. Is it the child's experience with the robot pet that makes the child prefer an "easy" robopet with no strings? Or are the children who feel that way, would they be the kind of folks who would grow up like the people kohut talks about with the "fragile inner self" even if they never had a robot pet?
Are children with more empathy, more alterity, less likely to be enamoured with the robot pet?
Who knows, but it is worth thinking about. In any case, no way should kids be given AIBOs if they develop those kinds of ideas about relationships from the use of them.

Alone Together - Maybe what my problem is

I think I realized that maybe I disagree with Turkle sometimes because she is a big believer in psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, etc. and I have my doubts on the effectiveness of talk therapy. I'm not one of those militant anti-psychiatry people. It's just that man...I've known some pretty.... well...not so great therapists. Some therapists who probably, really, should be IN therapy instead of offering therapy. I do believe that psychiatric drugs can be very, very helpful when used correctly. I am a firm believer in that. Someone who needs an anti-depressant needs that just as much as a diabetic needs diabetic medication. It's just the therapy part that I have trouble believing in, because yeah...there are a lot of nutty therapists out there. And a lot of therapists who just aren't so bright. There's nothing wrong with being not so bright! I'm not so bright! But I'm not a therapist, trying to help people figure out their problems!

So while Turkle laments that talking to a computer about one's problems is not the same as talking to a therapist about one's problems, because the computer isn't "real" and doesn't "care," I have to say that I know a lot of therapists- human ones- who don't care. They joke about their clients behind their backs, they get paid to listen to people and some won't see a client when the money runs out. So a computer.....well....they aren't really keeping their eye on the clock or checking the checkbook balance, right? So they at least have THAT going for them!

Now I know, I know there are probably a TON of great, caring, wonderful therapists out there. But man...there are quite a few who are far less than that. Some therapists I know remind me of the emotional vampires (literally, you have to read the book - I'm not using that term as a pejorative) in this great book by Patrick Jones.

But now that I think about this, and write it out, Turkle probably wouldn't argue with me on this point. She would probably say that we expect too little of our therapists, so we see computers as a better alternative. And she'd be right in my case. So maybe my point is, instead of turning to computers for therapy we need to make sure that only the best of the best become therapists. That therapists themselves have to see a therapist. That they have to prove and continue to prove that they are bright enough, caring enough, social enough to really be a GREAT therapist. I say GREAT because remember, good isn't good enough.

Tamagotchi Love

Did you have a tamagotchi? I did. I had a few. I loved them! Apparently they are still around! Turkle talks about tamagotchis in her book, but I haven't gotten that far. I just looked them up in the index. One thing she doesn't talk about in her book is Robert D. Romanyshyn's book Technology as Symptom and Dream. She talks about technology being a symptom and a dream, but she doesn't reference the book, which as I recall was a pretty good book. I read it when it first came out. Maybe I should read it again. I remember liking it. Even though it was required reading!

Alone Together - Are Robots Ever Capable of Love?

Turkle is quite clear that robots are not capable of love. That's true. I mean, they are robots. This interview here is really good and explains a lot of what Turkle believes, if you haven't read the book.

A question that came to my mind, as someone who grew up a Calvinist and still has some Calvinist leanings...."are humans capable of love?" I would reference The Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 3 to answer this question.

Granted none of this means that robots can love. I'm just saying, Turkle probably isn't a Calvinist. I'm not either. I'm just pointing out that human nature isn't as glorious as we might think. If it was, people wouldn't need robotic animals in the first place in nursing homes. 

Another question...is that the pointiest beard you ever saw? Wow! Dude! He could dip it in ink and write with it!

DUDES! This just in! Sherry Turkle spoke at Calvin College in January! I gotta find out what she said! That is so cool!

Alone Together - The Robotic Pet

I am still in the introduction portion of Alone Together, but there's so much here!
Right now I need to talk about a part that made me a little mad.
Turkle interviews an old woman in a nursing home who is completely alone. She's had a big fight with her son, no one comes to visit her. Her friends have all passed away and so she's on her own.
What she does have, however, is Paro, a smart robotic harp seal. She takes him everywhere. He responds to her touch and her responses to him. Turkle readily admits that she gets comfort from this robot seal.
Turkle thinks that is terrible. She says that it would be therapeutic if the seal were a real person. She says she doesn't know if real animals can intuit a person's feelings, but she knows that this robot seal really can't.
So I am left thinking, what would Turkle have us do? Take the robot seal away lest this little old lady have nothing at all to comfort her? Is Turkle going to come and visit the lady every day? Well, Turkle is a therapist! Maybe she will! (for the right price, and if her insurance is good).
I guess I just don't understand the harm. It seems that it would be far more harmful for the lady to be without Paro. Unless of course, Turkle is planning on volunteering her time to take Paro's place and some, "profound theraputic potential" to use Turkle's words. Maybe she is! Maybe she is there now!

Here's more about the robot seals.

Alone Together - Running Commentary

One of the best things about Alone Together is that Judy sang a song by the same name. You can hear it here, from her huge, amazing night at Carnegie Hall.

I'm reading the book as part of a book group and work assignment. The book's full title is Alone Together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other and it is written by Sherry Turkle. She's no relation to Studs Terkel nor, to my knowledge anyway, was she in inspiration for the Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons song. Contrary to popular belief, she is no relation to Cher, either.

I'm not that far along in the book but already it is making me think and that's a great quality in a book!

I'm really looking forward to talking to others about the book already. Please note that is just a running commentary...not a full review...I'm not done reading it, so I don't know where the author ends up on a lot of the issues.

So far though, she seems to be more anti-technology than pro-technology. Now I know, I know...I am sure she isn't either one. She's probably one of those folks who says, "Technology is neither good nor bad, it is neutral. It is what people DO with technology that helps or hurts." Yeah, yeah. We hear that all the time. I got it. I'm just saying, so far, she has a lot more negative things to say about, okay, the way we use technology than positive. The book reminds me a bit of Nicholas Carr's The Big Switch: rewiring the world from Edison to Google, which I read before I started this blog and which I really enjoyed. I still think a lot about his points and I share them a lot when in discussions about technology.

She starts out talking about a time when she was asked to comment on robots having relationships with people for Scientific American magazine. She was asked to comment on David Levy's book Love and Sex with Robots and she said that while robots are going to be really awesome and help people in huge ways, there will never be, nor their should be love and relationships with robots, because well, she believes it is simply not possible.

More to come!