I had a conversation with a friend the other day. “I can hardly get my head around consumer branding.” He replied: what do you mean? “Consumer branding is the essence of societal manipulation. Consider GAP, for instance. Their three most recognized brands are Old Navy, Gap Stores, and Banana Republic. In ascending order, each ‘brand’ distinguishes itself from the other by way of its luxury appeal. At the end of the day, their items are manufactured at the same plant, packaged in the same facilities, and delivered in the same trucks. It’s quite entertaining to contemplate the extent by which these corporations define want, need, and societal status. It seems like a large responsibility to me: to develop a notion of desire.”

I frequent a coffee and bagel shop that never fails to lure my attention when I’m in the mood for a nice, warm cup of coffee: Noah’s Bagels. My go-to “neighborhood” blend at Noah’s is the vanilla hazelnut drip coffee.  Since I’d moved to San Francisco, I’d taken interest in this particular blend as it’d been vaguely reminiscent of another blend I’d frequent during undergrad at a very similar bagelshop: Einstein’s. For over a year, I’d marveled at the parallels between Einstein’s and Noah’s: the variety in coffee, breakfast selection, and marketing design. I pondered: did Einstein’s own Noah’s? Did Noah’s own Einstein’s? Following a cursory search, I discovered that Einstein’s acquired Noah’s New York Bagels in 1995, and following bankruptcy in 2000, the two were acquired by New World Coffee. The consolidated entity traded on the NASDAQ using the ticker “BAGL” until 2014, when it was taken private by JAB Holding Comapny for $374mm. JAB controls a majority stake in Peet’s Coffee & Tea as well as the Caribou Coffee Comapny and D.E. Master Blenders.

The JAB Holding Company profits from efficient allocation of capital, corporate expansion, and marketing efficiency. Not only that, JAB is the beholder of the breakfast experience. I’m lured to the shop precisely because of the parallels I draw upon the aroma and taste I associate with their coffee: I’m reminded of the wonders of discovery and exploration I’d pondered when I was still in school.

I spent 630 days in undergrad (this figure excludes vacation time, etc). It’d be impossible to recount each and every day. There’s a simple explanation for this.  From an evolutionary perspective, very exciting (ie – painful, happy, etc) events are vividly recounted and remembered to communicate with our brains the significance of a specific event to enable an individual to recount the context surrounding an event to recall the appropriate actions in response to an event in the future. Our sensory responses react to stimulus (hot stoves, arousal, cold weather) in order to input in our “internal” databases the best means by which to optimize survival (put simply – Avoiding action A to avoid result X; or conversely, to repeat Action B to attain result Y). Similarly, different regions of our brain are activated when posed with tasks we’ve repeated numerous vs. new challenges. When an individual does something familiar, the basal ganglia fires a sequence of commands without much conscientious thought. Alternatively, when posed with decision making that requires a solution to a problem, the prefrontal neocortex is activated – the region of the brain which controls logic and rational thinking. This is how habits are formed. When an action is consistently activated, the basal ganglia begins to generate a known pattern and suppresses alternatives. As a result, the prefrontal cortex is left to contemplate other matters. This is why famous business people like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg are acclaimed for limiting choice in their lives: it enables them to address larger, more pressing problems, or, as Rob Rhinehart once put it “the automation of basic tasks frees the mind to focus on higher arts.”

At its root, every species has a single objective which is grounded in survival. Studies have demonstrated that in the modern era, human society has developed with such rapid velocity that the environment in which our brains evolved are mismatched with the current environments we exist in. As a result, humans are easily manipulated to form addictions to sweets (which formally signaled the presence of complex carbohydrates mostly found in fruits), fats (which formally signaled the presence of nutrient dense lipids + proteins), pornography (which takes advantage of our reproductive instincts), or TV (which replicate social interaction). These “rewards” are much more commonly found and exploited as a result of technological innovation. As a species, these stimulus are exacerbated and exploited (mostly at the hand of consumer capitalism; eg – McDonald’s, Brazzers). Consider the following: have you ever wondered why television sitcoms and movies cut from shot to shot with such a high level of frequency? The reason for this is that humans are conditioned to notice swift and abrupt actions (which formerly presented risks in our evolutionary environments). It is difficult for one to sustain focus during long, dreary, drawn out scenes. In the present day (at least for those in most developed countries), survival, for the most part, is a given. Life becomes routine and mundane, and it becomes difficult to develop an idea of “significance.”

We’ve discussed the meaning of “significance” on a physiological basis – novel experiences trigger a dopamine response in reaction to a violation of expectation; or, put simply – the mismatch between reality and one’s perception of reality. Recall: when an individual travels down a familiar route, the basil ganglia fires an exact sequence of commands without consciously having to think about it; alternatively, an unfamiliar route activates the prefrontal cortex enabling us to consider several operations: (should we turn left or right? Which street will have the most traffic?). We are armed with memory consolidation to recall the context surrounding puzzling activities to learn how to react in the future. As a result, memories are most vivid when our expectations of reality are violated. This, in turn, has given rise to new (or not so new) subcultures in the modern era (think foodie culture: which enables individuals to experience otherwise “untraditional foods”; the deep house movement: which celebrates the freedom of movement and complexity of rhythmic design; or the desire to seek thrills: skydiving, bunjee jumping). Because these outlets enable individuals to break from the drear of daily dispositions, individuals enable themselves to participate in novel experiences, which become significant to memory, and enable a semblance of significance.

It is important to consider that memory is malleable. We recall “significant” events in our lives because these events (on a rudimentary basis) equip us with the tools for survival. We remember the context surrounding these events because our memories have consolidated the details such that we understand what actions to repeat or avoid in the pursuit of an anticipated outcome. For instance, the significance of vanilla hazelnut coffee ignites a semblance of enthusiasm associated with the prospect of wander and discovery, enabling me to control my mood; and more often than not, improving it. This memory came as a result of the activation of my five senses both during the times these developmental memories were formed, and at the time of recollection: the taste (of vanilla hazelnut coffee), the touch (of the warm cup as my hands envelop the drink), the smell (of freshly ground, smoothly roasted coffee beans), the sight (of familiar deep oak liquid), and sounds (of busy people coming to and fro Noah’s – or Einstein’s – Bagels). My expectation of reality: that a cup of vanilla hazelnut coffee will make me happy, is confirmed, whenever I take the first sip and am “brought back” to those days in undergrad which I associate with those memories. Memories, and expectations, I have personally crafted.

While it may be difficult to develop a construction of significance in the modern era (where people in most developed countries need not try very hard to guarantee survival), understanding the physiological basis associated with human reactions to external stimulus enable one to understand with greater depth the motivation associated with particular wants or desires.

I stumbled across the GNU/Linux Distribution Timeline when I was reading about forking. I’ve considered the importance of transparency of communication for some time now and have identified that a primary attribute of the internet which underscores its value is that it enables people to evaluate and criticize the legitimacy of thoughts/ideas/projects in order to identify weaknesses in thought construction in order to foster the progression of stronger arguments/theses/final products. That information is (virtually) available to any individual, it is possible to learn concepts quickly and work off other projects, such as where people left off.

David Wheeler outlined the four possible outcomes of a fork:

1. The death of the fork. This is by far the most common case. It is easy to declare a fork, but considerable effort to continue independent development and support.
2. A re-merging of the fork (e.g., egcs becoming “blessed” as the new version of gcc.)
3. The death of the original (e.g. the X.Org Server succeeding and XFree86 dying.)
4. Successful branching, typically with differentiation (e.g., OpenBSD and NetBSD.)

Forking is an interesting framework by which to consider the trajectory of thought processes as well as the trajectory of human relationships, their value, and consequences of investments in different networks. When we consider the distribution of GNU/Linux, individuals developed technology that were beneficial for variable amounts of time allowing new technology to branch from it. When we think of the value of the accumulation of human knowledge, it works in much the same way. Each individual learns and specializes, building upon the effort and achievement of others, utilizing intelligence and charisma to propel the advancements of values/ideas. The velocity of these ideas advance only to the extent that the background behind these ideas are transparent. The internet is a great tool through which to organize one’s intellectual real estate – it allows individuals to analyze and criticize another’s ideas and framework for thinking, enabling a quicker progression of thoughts/ideas/projects.

To digress (slightly), it is possible for one to ask oneself the value of maximizing utility, and the relevance of identifying and constructing terminal values; to what ends are we working? Why are we working? To maximize utility and efficiency can be dangerous or subservise if one does not define end goals (an interesting read related to this concept is one of paperclip maximization; also related, is a quote by Paul Graham shared here).

Elaborating on the concept of open source distribution timelines; a thought can be made clear: the cumulative sum of human effort enables the effort of individuals in the future to advance further. A quick end I have identified, at least for myself, is that my life is not, and has never been, hard. However, it is for many people in the world. The collective sum of efforts for the privileged can beneficially impact the lives of those who are less fortunate (fortune being defined as the ability to sustain food, clothing, and shelter for oneself or for those dependent on oneself).

From mid 2005 onward, children, teens, and adults have been privileged the experience of social media. The means by which people consume media has rapidly evolved. Unlike times past, the consumer is faced with relatively unhindered choice of consumption not relegated to the discretion of media moguls or out of touch network executives who (in my opinion) are motivated by profit first and foremost. While this is not a poor motivation, the primary drawback associated with this pursuit lies in the necessity of pleasing the lowest common denominator of consumers. This is a problem because the easiest means by which to achieve this goal presupposes that one must offend, or alternatively, please, the greatest number of people. This complicates the development of depth of reasoning because in order to achieve the aforementioned, it is necessary for one to only assemble media devoid of intellectual depth, thematic nuance, and critical thought, inevitably depreciating the quality of content assembled for the viewer. Therefore, a balance exists between reaching a targeted, sometimes provocative audience, or constructing information that is accessible and digestible for the greatest number of people.

With the introduction of social media, the barriers to achieving access to content creation is relatively null when compared to periods past. The democratization of internet content has, and continues to, shape this generation, society, and civilization in its entirety. Today exists the prevalence of instantaneous network connection with anyone, anywhere, all the time. We define media consumption littered through timelines (Facebook), news feeds (Twitter), albums (Instagram), and search engines (Google). Technological innovation has re-shaped the structure of society, and these changes have given rise to various opinions of the current generation (Generation Y, or the Millennial generation)s sometimes resonating with condescending, dramatic themes outlining its inability, selfishness, or lack of focus.

The primary focus of shared media lies in sharing experience. The means by which we do so today is convenient, but not necessarily conducive to elaborating upon the nuances, tones, or underlyings of a specific experience. Sharing, liking, and posting take little thought by which to express an idea. These ideas are muted and diluted, sometimes only quantified in value by share calculations or number of re-posts. It is a beautiful thing to share experience, and social media is an excellent means by which to do so.

(pause)

This post has been in query for a while, about three weeks now, as of today. I left off with:

(resume)

“A perspective on the prevalence of social media derives from the effect of internet addiction on our daily lives, and how these …”

I had planned to draw out the derivative of our social media obsessions by explaining the the biological processes that influence us. I’d begin by elaborating upon my pedestrian understanding of neurological processes – serotonin response, neural pathways, addiction, happiness, desensitization, so on and so forth.

I’d stopped mid-thesis after stumbling upon a photo of an old friend. The photo passed nonchalantly by as I (yes, am guilty to admit), caught myself mindlessly scrolling through my Facebook news feed. The photo passed, I continued to scroll, slowly migrated from the trackpad to the keyboard with a quick CTRL + UP, and reoriented my focus on the few lines I typed just moments before. It is a beautiful thing to share experience, and social media is an excellent means by which to do so.

At that point in time, I realized that I had to reconsider my primary assertions. How could I justify that the maximum potential behind capturing a moment consists of capturing the essence of the moment, almost always – candidly? I took a break and challenged myself to synthesize the two ideas. It occured to me that a photo could be just as powerful, regardless of the formality of the photo (the nature of the subject positioning or illustration of landscape ambience).

I realized that ultimately, I wasn’t writing about the nature behind constructing a powerful photograph. It wasn’t about capturing a photo designed to spur the emotions of audiences that fall within the bounds of the lowest common denominator. I came to a mode of self-realization. I found myself trying to make sense of the passage of time and the evolution of the cumulative relationships that define my present self.

The photo of my old friend reminded me of the past and our experiences with one another. It was a photo of an old friend at the present time, a period of time detached from the reminiscent past.

I come to this point in my essay reaffirming an old but important theme – time is a precious resource, the most important factor ruling each aspect of our lives.

Generation (x-1: parents; x-2: grandparents, etc) scorns ours, contemplating that our lack of dedication, persistence, and short-attention spans are functions of information-overload. I will agree to an extent. Logging in to Facebook the moment one fires up his/her laptop is not healthy, nor is mindlessly scrolling through a digital assortment of photos and filters. Our state of existence is defined by push of a button accessibility.

Perhaps these tools represent a truism: expression in the past was limited to availability of resources, and skill. In the 1920’s, literacy was nowhere as common as today. In the 1930’s, the average person didn’t have access to photography like one does today. In the 1940’s, people did not have the luxury of sharing stories over the phone because of a simple expense. Even in the 1990’s, widespread information broadcasting was limited to those who had access to televesion networks, which is primarily a function of monetary resources.

Today, people have the ability to capture, create, and share ideas, feelings, and moments in time as a means of expression, enabled by easy access to the tools that are available to the masses (think Instagram, Tumblr, Snapchat). Sure – it can exist as a societal detriment – the prospect of merging the digital world with the physical; however, it is not difficult to argue that it has done more good than harm to our society.

As a result of these criticisms of our generation, social phenomena have materialized in an effort to challenge the negative perspectives on our generation. Some refuse to touch their cell phones during social gatherings, others utilize applications that limit time spent on specific sites, while a select few depart from the digital world of sharing almost entirely. This signals a consciousness of a rapidly evolving world altering the face of a generation.

These realizations underscore the value of time. It enables one to identify personal intentions – “do I want to go on this hike because I look forward to the physical benefits of climbing 5 miles up the side of a mountain and the visceral ecstacy that will ensue as I overlook the valley below?” or.. “am I doing this to post to Facebook to seem urban and trendy?”

The value of a photo, to me, is synonymous to the function of an hourglass. At the beginning of time, few grains of sand line the bottom of the hourglass. Over time, the grains accumulate, substantiated by slow but deliberate additions of other grains over periods of time. Eventually, the bottom of the hourglass is full and bottom heavy – the converse of the beginning of time.

Each grain is symbolic of accumulative experience. The passage of grains through an hourglass is an elegant sight, reaffirmed by an air of certainty and deliberation. Similarly – each relationship shared with another person is similar to the function of an hourglass. During specific periods of time, the hourglass drops grains of sand steadily and surely. However, the accumulation of these sands is dependent upon an external force – an individual’s decision to contribute to the energy that forces the sands to fall. Each grain, on its own, means little. The spectacle exists in the falling of sand, and the cumulative nature of its current presence.

The significance of human relationships does not derive from capturing people as they once were or where they were left behind. The significance of each relationship is defined by a simple understanding of how accumulative experience contributes to the present.