• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Spencer Critchley

  • Home
  • About
  • Media Appearances
    • Broadcast Appearances
    • Print & Web Coverage
    • My Reporting & Commentary
    • Podcast
    • “Saving Democracy” Events
    • News: Real or Fake?
    • Hallmarks of a #BadArgument
  • Music
  • Photos
  • Subscribe
  • Contact

Spencer Critchley

The World Isn’t Flat, It’s Hollow

March 7, 2015 by Spencer Critchley

Originally published at the Huffington Post: Back in 2005, Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat made a persuasive argument that the globe was coming together on a level playing field, thanks to the equalizing forces of technology and peaceful economic competition.

But nearly 10 years later, it looks instead like the world is falling part. Among the most disturbing signs:

  • Vicious gang violence afflicting cities and towns across the U.S.
  • Mass killings happening roughly every two weeks in this country
  • A new terrorist threat that some experts say is worse than al Qaeda
  • Russia abandoning the 21st Century and expanding its borders by force.

Each of these phenomena is frequently described as “senseless.” And yet here they are.

What’s going on?

Here’s one possible explanation: While for some the world may indeed be flat, for many others it’s hollow.

Think about how you succeed in the flat world. If you’re highly educated, technologically adept and culturally flexible, you can do very, very well. You have a place in history’s richest global economy. You’re a candidate for the 1 percent.

But if you aren’t those things? You’re being left out and left behind.

For many, this means relative poverty. But what may be even worse, for some, are the alienation, humiliation and meaninglessness that come with it.

In the flat world, many people feel homeless.

That feeling may help explain otherwise senseless behavior.

Blood In The FieldsFrom the outside — and from above — joining a gang looks insane. You’ll likely make less than minimum wage to shoot people who are a lot like you, and you end up in prison or dead. But to young recruits, a gang doesn’t look crazy at all — it looks like family. In a gang (they’re led to believe), they’ll belong, they’ll be respected, and their life will have meaning.

One of the best books I’ve read this year — and a must-read for anyone who wants to understand gang violence — is reporter Julia Reynolds’ Blood In The Fields: Ten Years Inside California’s Nuestra Familia Gang (disclosure: I know Julia Reynolds through my work on reducing gang violence in and around Salinas, California). As Reynolds recounts, while the true business of Nuestra Familia is selling drugs, what draws and binds its Norteño street soldiers is the myth of The Cause, a highly distorted version of the nonviolent United Farm Workers movement:

Mando [a gang recruit] learned that while the Norteños’ war was going on in the prisons, all that Cesar Chavez stuff was going on in the fields. The northern inmates adopted Chavez’ symbol — the Aztec-style huelga eagle — because Chavez was taking a stand… Chavez’ beliefs were pretty much the same, Mando decided. If you looked at history, Chavez wanted equality. He wanted respect [my emphasis]. It was just a different situation. [Page 62, hardcover edition.]

Although the disturbed loners who commit mass shootings look different from gang bangers, the two groups’ apparently insane behaviors have similar roots. As Ari N. Schulman wrote last November in the Wall Street Journal, mass killers are seldom mentally ill:

Instead, massacre killers are typically marked by what are considered personality disorders: grandiosity, resentment, self-righteousness, a sense of entitlement. They become, says [State University of New York director of forensic psychiatry Dr. James V.] Knoll, ” ‘collectors of injustice’ who nurture their wounded narcissism.” To preserve their egos, they exaggerate past humiliations and externalize their anger, blaming others for their frustrations. They develop violent fantasies of heroic revenge against an uncaring world [my emphasis].

Compare this to what draws young men to ISIS, aka ISIL or the Islamic State. An unnamed diplomat cited Sunday by Fareed Zakaria puts it succinctly:

The most dangerous aspect of the Islamic State, this diplomat believes, is its ideological appeal. It has recruited marginalized, disaffected Sunni youths [my emphasis] in Syria and Iraq who believe they are being ruled by apostate regimes. This appeal to Sunni pride has worked largely because of the sectarian policies of the Baghdad and Damascus governments. But the Islamic State has also grown because of the larger collapse of moderate, secular and even Islamist institutions and groups — such as the Muslim Brotherhood — throughout the Middle East.

In other words, however deluded all these people may be in devoting themselves to murder and suicide, what’s driving them is the desire for belonging, respect and meaning.

What’s the connection with Russia’s invasions of Crimea and Ukraine? The immediate cause of this aggression is the bad luck that Vladimir Putin is in charge. But how do we explain Putin’s popularity at home, which has recently topped 80%? State control of Russian media certainly plays a part. But the fuel for Putin and his media is nationalism, which grants belonging, respect and meaning to citizens.

For the cosmopolitans who are succeeding in the flat world, nationalism can seem almost quaint, a fading background to the global pursuit of rational self-interest. (Friedman described it as the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention.)

But for those who are failing, as Russia has been for a long time, nationalism can feel like all they have. Others turn to a gang, revenge, or a twisted form of Islam.

None of this, of course, remotely excuses invasions, gang violence, massacres or terrorism.

But it may be a warning that we can’t just flatten the world.

We also have to find ways to fill it up.

Filed Under: Politics & Society

Shopping Made Psychic: No-Content Marketing Marches on

March 7, 2015 by Spencer Critchley

Originally published at the Huffington Post:  A while back, I predicted the coming of no-content marketing: what comes next after the sheer volume of content drives its value below zero. That’s the point at which we start paying to avoid content, no matter how compelling, shocking, funny, or celebrity- or puppy-laden.

That point is here. The latest sign: In a piece in the New York Times, Cass R. Sunstein describes a recent study he conducted in which he asked people if they’d be willing to, in effect, let robots shop for them:

…companies can predict people’s purchases, often with uncanny accuracy. In the near future, they might even use those predictions to enroll you in special programs in which you receive goods and services, and are asked to pay for them, before you have actually chosen them. Call it predictive shopping.

Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and former Obama White House official, asked about 500 people what they thought of the idea of predictive shopping. Among his findings:

I asked, would you approve of a system in which the home monitor automatically, and without your explicit consent, bought goods for you and billed your credit card?… nearly one-third would approve.

But in an informal survey of university students, he found this:

…for household staples, there was a large difference: 69 percent approved of automatic purchases by the home monitor, even without consent.

So in other words, the cohort coming up may be much more open to letting software robots do their shopping for them. They would thus win back time otherwise spent consuming marketing content and wandering the mazes of store displays, whether IRL or on the web.

Does this mean marketing itself will go away? Unlikely, but it will change.

Content marketing emerged from traditional marketing, after all the promotion finally became overwhelming. The idea is that instead of pushing your message on people, you pull them to you with content that’s entertaining or useful.

But what happens when there’s too much content?

Code.

By using web stores like Amazon, we already rely on software to make recommendations for us, much like a personal shopper would. The next step is simply for those recommendation engines to be granted permission to buy.

At that point, consumer goods as a whole will experience the transition we’ve already seen in the music niche. Instead of shopping for songs or albums, more and more of us let iTunes, Pandora or Spotify just stream it. Next: we’ll “stream” our groceries, shirts, socks and toothpaste.

Filed Under: Communication, Digital Media, Social Media, The Web

Are Nonprofits Designed to Fail?

June 13, 2014 by Spencer Critchley

Originally published at The Huffington Post. There’s a story often told in nonprofit circles to inspire hope. It’s the one about the starfish, which in one version goes like this:

A man is walking on a beach and comes across a little girl tossing stranded starfish back into the water. Seeing the multitudes of other starfish, he asks, “Does that really make a difference?”

“It does to this one,” says the little girl, and another starfish sails over the waves.

I hate that story.

Yes, I know that it’s meant to encourage individuals to act, and of course that’s good.

But here’s what gets me: it also masks failure as success.

Too often, the starfish story is told to justify a charitable effort that’s not making real change. When our starfish rescuer shows up for work tomorrow, there’s going to be a whole new batch of starfish. Time spent saving a few is time spent not solving the underlying problem.

There are some who think that describes much of the nonprofit sector.

Peter Buffett, the philanthropist son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, recently wrote a New York Times op-ed called “The Charitable-Industrial Complex”. In it, he suggests that many nonprofits actually enable the suffering they’re intended to reduce:

Inside any important philanthropy meeting, you witness heads of state meeting with investment managers and corporate leaders. All are searching for answers with their right hand to problems that others in the room have created with their left…

It’s what I would call “conscience laundering” — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity.

But this just keeps the existing structure of inequality in place.

To the Buffett family’s credit, they put their money where their mouths are. In 2006, as Peter Buffett relates, his father “made good on his commitment to give nearly all of his accumulated wealth back to society.”

But as Peter also recognizes, it may end up being futile, unless the donated billions are used to change systems, not symptoms.

The nonprofit sector is growing rapidly — faster by some measures than the business and government sectors, according to the Urban Institute. And yet many of the challenges it addresses remain — poverty, violence, hunger, poor health, and on and on — and often appear to be intractable.

It’s a dilemma that many of the people who work in nonprofits know all too well — and some are working hard to solve it. Nonprofit executives Bill Shore, Darrell Hammond and Amy Celep address it in an article called “When Good Isn’t Good Enough” in the Fall 2013 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review:

Many of the fastest-growing nonprofit organizations begin with well-intentioned interventions and relatively naive ideas about the magnitude and complexity of the problems they aim to solve. Share Our Strength and KaBOOM! are no exception. By some measures our organizations were successful US nonprofits — growing rapidly, engaging numerous partners, and improving the lives of tens of millions of children.

Yet all the while, the problems we were tackling — hunger and the lack of opportunities to play — were getting worse and even accelerating in recent years as the economy took a downturn.

Shore, Hammond and Celep realized that they were in effect saving starfish:

The foundation on which many nonprofits are built is flawed and simplistic, focused on a symptom rather than the underlying set of problems, developed in isolation rather than as part of an integrated system, and organized to administer a narrowly tailored program or benefit rather than generate sustained, significant change for a person or community. As a result, change is incremental, not big or bold enough to make a lasting and transformative impact.

What to do?

If you truly believe that starfish shouldn’t die on the beach, you don’t just throw a few of them back.

You mobilize a response powerful enough to save all the starfish. Or, even better, you stop them from being stranded in the first place.

How to do it?

More on that next time.

Filed Under: Politics & Society Tagged With: nonprofits

I Want a Desk Like a Super-Villain’s: Will Intelligent Agents Give Me One?

June 5, 2014 by Spencer Critchley

First published at the Huffington Post, 8/29/13. Every super-villain has a lair.

And in every super-villain’s lair, there is a gorgeous companion, a weird sidekick, and… the desk.

The sleek, perfectly uncluttered desk, from which our super-villain will rule the world. On it may be a sleek computer, the desktop of which is itself perfectly uncluttered, aside from the Go button for the orbiting death ray.

I want that desk. (I don’t need the death ray.)

Not just the desk, of course, but the fantasy it represents: power over all the little stuff that wants to clutter up most people’s lives — power enough to banish it.

The trouble is, the power required to banish the little stuff appears to be roughly the power it takes to destroy the world.* I’ve never seen anyone except super-villains with desks like that.

As for the rest of us, our lives are buried in little stuff. And the Internet is growing more of it at a geometrically increasing rate — tweets, posts, pins, podcasts, etc, etc, and etc-squared.

What to do?

Rephrase that. What would a super-villain do, what with the super-clean desk and all?

The answer: minions, of course. “Let my minions deal with it!”

And in fact that’s what we all may be able to do, soon. We’ll delegate our clutter to minions — not human ones, but a software version, also known as intelligent agents.

Intelligent agents are apps that are endowed with not just instructions, but goals, along with some amount of freedom — agency — in pursuing those goals.

To some extent, we have access to them now.

Here are some current examples:

1. Google Now. If information is the cloud, Google Now seeks to make it rain at just the right time and place. It promises to provide help “before you even ask.”

Among many other possibilities, that can include:

  • An alert that it’s time to leave for your restaurant reservation, after Google Now notices it on your calendar and calculates travel time from where you are now, allowing for traffic
  • A notification when a movie you’re anticipating hits local theaters, an opportunity to buy electronic tickets, and the display of those tickets as you and your date enter the theater.
  • Conversational interactions: Google Now will respond to natural language questions like “How’s the weather?” and commands like “Show me a picture of Bermuda.”

2. Apple’s SIRI and related services. Like Google, Apple is connecting your space and time information with personal preferences and more, and giving it all a natural language interface.

3. The Personal Shopping Assistant prototype by IBM Research. This app uses data, machine learning and augmented reality to speed and simplify a shopping trip. From an IBM blog post:

Have you ever found yourself in the supermarket staring at a shelf full of different cereal boxes, wishing someone could just point out the one with the best price, lowest sugar content, and the best reviews?…

When shoppers use their smart phone or tablet video camera to pan over products on the shelf, the application will instantly display recommendations and offers based on their specific preferences.

4. The Nuance persona. Nuance started out in speech recognition technology and now defines itself as a builder of intelligent systems (I was once the consulting creative director for speech tech firm BeVocal, which was acquired by Nuance in 2007). As Mark Hachman points out at PCWorld (“How Nuance is building a digital persona that loves you“), Nuance is focusing not just on data but on relationships:

While Apple and Google are attempting to create intelligent agents, Nuance is aiming to build an intelligent persona. Its emphasis is on “person,” and the technology is powered by the speech-recognition and natural-language tools that Nuance has bought or developed over the years.

“For me to be in the car, listening to the 49ers game, it’s halftime, I arrive home, I tell my TV to ‘put on the game’–that shouldn’t be that big of a deal,” says Gary Clayton, the chief creative officer at speech pioneer TellMe Networks, who holds the same position at Nuance. “This notion [of] where the intelligence comes from: It’s a system we can interact with in a conversational way. Because once you start interacting with the system in a conversational way, there’s almost an understanding that there’s a sentient being on the other end of the conversation. And the closer you can get to that point, the deeper the faith, and the stronger the relationship.”

As I’ve written earlier, I think intelligent agents are part of a coming form of marketing that I’m calling no-content marketing. They’ll spare us from much of the content we currently have to deal with in our lives, and in some cases will even conduct transactions on our behalf.

As they evolve, they promise to give even us non-super-villains our lives back.

As long as they don’t take over, of course.

*Maybe the two are related? Note to film students looking for thesis topics: “The Super-Villain as Extreme Neat Freak.”</code>

Filed Under: Digital Media, Technology

Why Meaning is the Future of Marketing — and How These 3 Companies Are Pointing the Way

August 19, 2013 by Spencer Critchley

Also published at the Huffington Post. Recently, I’ve been thinking about what comes after the current rage for content marketing. As I argue here and here, I think that over the long term, the over-abundance of content will lead to “no-content marketing.”

But even now, we’re seeing the next step along the way: what we can call “meaning marketing.”

Meaning is what people really seek in most of the content they consume. (The writer in me hates the idea of “consuming” content, but I guess we’re stuck with that term.)

Meaning marketing aims to give them more of it. Here are three examples of companies that practice meaning marketing. [Read more…] about Why Meaning is the Future of Marketing — and How These 3 Companies Are Pointing the Way

Filed Under: Communication, Digital Media, Social Media, The Web

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 29
  • Page 30
  • Page 31
  • Page 32
  • Page 33
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 41
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search This Site

Broadcast Appearances

Spencer Critchley on Spectrum News 1 LA

Book

Patriots of Two Nations by Spencer Critchley
Kindle & paperback at Amazon. Audio book at Audible. EPUB format here.

New Music: Jailbreak

Cover image for the song "Jailbreak:" a ruined motel by the side of a lonely desert road.

Podcast

Dastardly Cleverness in the Service of Good

Social Media

Substack

YouTube

Music: The Critchleys

The Critchleys: Owen and Spencer Critchley

About Me

Spencer Critchley

Jump to Recent Posts

New Music: The Desert Mothers

The True Crisis

Outside in the Rain

The Liberal Backbone

Slowly and then all at once

On the Podcast: A Letter to a Friend Voting for Trump

“The War of the Worldviews” at TedX Pugwash

Recent Comments

  • terry rankin on “The War of the Worldviews” at TedX Pugwash
  • Spencer Critchley on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address
  • Spencer Critchley on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address
  • Scott Sexton on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address
  • Anonymous on Why Biden was right to link MAGA, the Confederacy & the Axis in his SOTU address

Photos

Spencer Critchley on Fox News' Cavuto
Barack Obama photo by Spencer Critchley
Bruce Springsteen photo by Spencer Critchley
Jay-Z photo by Spencer Critchley
Tiny American flag in crowd at political rally
Director Elizabeth Thompson & Composer/Audio Producer Spencer Critchley with the Emmy for the PBS documentary "Blink."

Find more photos here.

Privacy Policy

Learn how this site collects information and how you can control that.

© 2005–2026 Spencer Critchley