I came across an interesting article about how too much information makes us avoid unpleasant and uncomfortable issues. An example the author gives is one of the recent Time magazine covers with 18 years old Afghan girl whose nose and ears have been cut off as ruled by a local Taliban judge. This Time’s cover story has for example not reached high media coverage like the story of a flight attendant (steward) who got feed up with a rude passenger.
The idea behind the article is that with too much information around us we are more likely to filter out and avoid such news while our sensors will remain focused on light news we feel comfortable with. We are more likely to miss the whole picture of the world and focus on stories that are not a threat to the humanity.
There might be other reasons (besides information overflow) why our societies avoid such news:
- In the past (before Internet age) such news were less likely to come to us and maybe we still do not care much about places far from us. My grandma used to say that there are too many bad things going on in the world after watching news on the TV every day and that she will not watch news anymore. I always replied that this kind of stories were not shown on the TV a few years ago, and if she doesn’t like them just avoid them and stick to her old habits.
- Media has become more and more driven by capitalism and politics, that even in the so called developed world where the right of speech is thought of as one of the main rights, it might not be so. We might be bombarded with so much unimportant stories to divert our focus from serious issues to more pleasant stories. Military has also become more skilled with media wars as they were in the past!
- There are also so many people that try to exploit every possible people’s tragedy and natural disasters with fake news and fake money raising web sites, and fake people going from door to door that we maybe try to avoid scamming (or not care about these stories). I still receive emails about the same people that had an incurable cancer 10 years ago. And even if we donate goods to "right" organizations often these goods do not reach the people in need.
- Maybe we are just to fearful (and a bit selfish). Although I would not like to say this but we are likely to avoid serious issues even in our close vicinity. I was listening to a BBC radio 2 show a few months ago about how to help friends who were diagnosed with a lethal disease and so many people called in to tell first hand stories of how they avoided their friends in the time of need and were later very sorry (often too late).
- A also read a study about how people tend to rely on news from newspapers, TV channels and web sites that are in favor of their political party, vision of the life, world and such. We do this to be more happy as we are likely to be more happy to read a news story that we like than the news we dislike – which has nothing to do with information overflow.
Maybe there are other reasons as well. But on the other hand we do not fear horror movies, violence and blood in Hollywood mainstream production. Is is because we know these are not true stories? Maybe.
Overall I still think a lot of people do not avoid this kind of stories. To have a bigger picture of e.g. the war in Afghanistan we do have to get information from various sources (even the mentioned NPR article) with different insights and opinions (do not fear opinionated stories). We cannot be well informed if we do rely on one source of information only. This is why information overflow on the web is also good. And this is why reading comments on stories is good as well (Web 2.0 really changed the way information is delivered and disseminated). Who wants to get well informed has a chance to do so, while others will remain focused on whatever they think is important to them. We have options and this is what matters. Even if we miss a TIme’s cover we can still know (or think to know) the whole picture of the war in Afghanistan.
touchscreens and buttons with pictures are not the right direction in a vending machine design. it’s very important to see real physical product you are going to buy, not photoshoped / ill scaled picture of it.
I could not agree more with you! But we are becoming more and more used to buy things we cannot touch over the internet. Is our mind changing?
Returning to the vending machines. I do not see any added value of touch screens or biometric scanners in vending machines. Except that they have the “cool” stamp to it and might economically burst up sales (read people using it just for fun). That’s why I wrote “stupidity” in the intro sentence.
I just wonder why we don’t have more machines of the first type: button mapped with a product (and not some random code).
I agree about “button mapped with a product” vending machines and the best example in my opinion is the one from year 1952.
As for internet shopping – it have some significant advantages over traditional one (at least when shopping for tech), like – ability to compare many products of the same type by specifications / product reviews (from different sources). Not being limited by time, making decision in the comfort of your own home. And what’s important – ability to check pricing. Have nothing to do with snacks from vending machines though. 🙂
Internet shopping actually teaches us to learn more about the product we are going to buy, than less!
Hi frukc,
nice point of view.
I know that buying tech over the internet has many advantages (to tell the truth I buy most of the things – and not only tech – over the internet). But the “touch and feel” is still missing on many occasions.
For example I had to buy a small compact camera for my wife’s purse. We are both used to (D)SLR but they are too big for everyday use. The important thing to me was that the camera would actually take a photo without a time lag between the button being pressed and the photo taken (a way to many compact cameras have this problem!). How do you test this over the internet? I ended up buying a compact camera that had good reviews on this “press and shoot” issue but it is a big compact camera and my wife was not really happy with it :).
Another example was buying a TV. TVs of different brands have very different colour schemes and I’ve no idea how the resolution and size of the screen go together (talking about 5 years ago with no real HD around). So (to exaggerate) buying an 81 inch TV with 800×600 resolution might not produce the best user experience. I ended up doing a research over the internet about different model prices and functionalities and went to different regular stores to compare the pictures (colour & resolution) between brands and how different screen sizes look from the distance of 2.3m (the distance between my couch and the wall). It is impossible to see this over the internet.
This is also why there are many images of mobile phones in people’s hands on the internet so the user can compare the size to one’s hand.
But I don’t need to touch/see/feel the RAM (memory) or a kitchen blender. It all depends on a product I’d say.
It is also true that people get used to what they get out of the vending machines if they use the same ones regularly. Coffee vending machines for example don’t show any product on offer. But people try a few different types of coffee a few times and re-order the same one over and over. So the machine needs to be used a few times to uncover the mystery behind the front plate. Again I’m not advocating such machines. I just wonder why vending machines can’t be more intuitive and provide that touchy or a better “see me” feeling for new buyers.
Thanks for sharing.
PS: this comment deserves a post on its own 🙂