R1- Response to Readings

Contemporary Data and Storytelling

A common distinction made in our readings was between the possible outcomes of our increased access to data. According to Schmidt and Slaney, all of this information is either going to be humanity’s savior or ruin. The possibility of devastation from excessive amounts of data makes humanity’s future appear to be some kind of dystopia, maybe an episode of Black Mirror.  People will lose their humanity, a person’s identity will be misrepresented in datasets, too much data to sift through will make all data uninteresting. Frankly, these pessimistic theories are too melodramatic. Though a fun sci-fi theory, the issues associated with large amounts of data that cause “information anxiety,” should not be a major concern.  As Slaney pointed out, for ages humans have been “… collecting data related to those events and then editing it for presentation based on the intended audience”(Slaney, 1).

So Schmidt’s handling of buzz words about society’s “paradigm shift” and “big data” giving humanity an abnormal amount of power is also an over-exaggeration. Though Jim Stikeleather wrote guidelines for storytelling as if telling stories is a new concept, Slaney explains that “people have always…told stories.” Stories have and always will be made, independent of the amount of data at our disposal.

Ultimately, we are presented with two reactions to our infinite potential stories. We might be so overwhelmed with info that we can’t distinguish what matters, or we can choose to find meaning in analyses. The point put across by Schmidt and Slaney is that we must take on the responsibility of smartly utilizing this massive amount of information. Those of us who decide to “glue” data together to form a story must pick and choose what matters. Jim Stikeleather gives a systematic outline of how to effectively do this. Schmidt advocates artistic approaches to translating data into worthwhile stories. I think that stories must be told somewhere between systematically and artistically. And I think that this equally calculated and creative take on storytelling is what has always been done, only with different information. Not much has changed.

The only thing that has changed is the amount of stories being told. As Slaney points out, there are now “micro” and “macro” stories. Everyday we share information, and over time we analyze the actions of large amounts of people. Everyone has access to all these stories. This brings to question the point of storytelling. If everyone can and does tell stories, what’s the point? What can this form of understanding accomplish? Isn’t storytelling simply a rearranged format of data? This is where human judgement comes in, the responsibility described by Schmidt that all people have.

In order to give the data sets purpose, we must apply the “nuances” and “humanness” that can’t be contained in the data sets themselves. If people have and always will tell stories, then people have and always will react to stories. Stories are the recount of history, and human’s reactions to these stories are history itself. Our reactions are in the form of actions, no longer sharing information, but creating new products, organizing people to change their communities, making connections between ideas to create progress.

No one should worry that Millennials are doomed due to their overuse of the internet, their over-sharing of irrelevant information, their narcissistic storytelling. Though today we have access to more data and therefore more stories, humans can’t be static. We can’t only keep ourselves absorbing these data and stories. Though we are curious and inclined to learn more, we are also naturally inclined to act and create.