And we’re not stopping; in fact, the next few years will be a very exciting time. A spex manufacturer just demonstrated some new technology that could change everything. They’ve figured out a way to fit somatic positioning beacons in a pair of spex, custom-calibrated for a single person. That means no more helmet, no more office visit needed to reprogram your neurostat; you can just put on your spex and do it yourself. That means you’ll be able to turn your calli on or off, any time you want.
That means we won’t have the problem of people feeling that they have to give up beauty altogether. Instead, we can promote the idea that beauty is appropriate in some situations and not in others. For example, people could keep calli enabled when they’re working, but disable it when they’re among friends. I think people recognize that calli offers benefits, and will choose it on at least a part-time basis.
I’d say the ultimate goal is for calli to be considered the proper way to behave in polite society. People can always disable their calli in private, but the default for public interaction would be freedom from lookism. Appreciating beauty would become a consensual interaction, something you do only when both parties, the beholder and the beheld, agree to it.
From a broadcast of EduNews:
In the latest on the Pembleton calliagnosia initiative, EduNews has learned that a new form of digital manipulation was used on the broadcast of PEN spokesperson Rebecca Boyer’s speech. EduNews has received files from the SemioTech Warriors that contain what appear to be two recorded versions of the speech: an original – acquired from the Wyatt/Hayes computers – and the broadcast version. The files also include the SemioTech Warriors’ analysis of the differences between the two versions.
The discrepancies are primarily enhancements to Ms. Boyer’s voice intonation, facial expressions, and body language. Viewers who watch the original version rate Ms. Boyer’s performance as good, while those who watch the edited version rate her performance as excellent, describing her as extraordinarily dynamic and persuasive. The SemioTech Warriors conclude that Wyatt/Hayes has developed new software capable of fine-tuning paralinguistic cues in order to maximize the emotional response evoked in viewers. This dramatically increases the effectiveness of recorded presentations, especially when viewed through spex, and its use in the PEN broadcast is likely what caused many supporters of the calliagnosia initiative to change their votes.
Walter Lambert, president of the National Calliagnosia Association:
In my entire career, I’ve met only a couple people who have the kind of charisma they gave Ms. Boyer in that speech. People like that radiate a kind of reality-distortion field that lets them convince you of almost anything. You feel moved by their very presence, you’re ready to open your wallet or agree to whatever they ask. It’s not until later that you remember all the objections you had, but by then, often as not, it’s too late. And I’m truly frightened by the prospect of corporations being able to generate that effect with software.
What this is, is another kind of supernormal stimuli, like flawless beauty but even more dangerous. We had a defense against beauty, and Wyatt/Hayes has escalated things to the next level. And protecting ourselves from this type of persuasion is going to be a hell of a lot harder.
There is a type of tonal agnosia, or aprosodia, that makes you unable to hear voice intonation; all you hear are the words, not the delivery. There’s also an agnosia that prevents you from recognizing facial expressions. Adopting the two of these would protect you from this type of manipulation, because you’d have to judge a speech purely on its content; its delivery would be invisible to you. But I can’t recommend these agnosias. The result is nothing like calli. If you can’t hear tone of voice or read someone’s expression, your ability to interact with others is crippled. It’d be a kind of high-functioning autism. A few NCA members are adopting both agnosias, as a form of protest, but no one expects many people will follow their example.
So that means that once this software gets into widespread use, we’re going to be facing extraordinarily persuasive pitches from all sides: commercials, press releases, evangelists. We’ll hear the most stirring speeches given by a politician or general in decades. Even activists and culture jammers will use it, just to keep up with the establishment. Once the range of this software gets wide enough, even the movies will use it, too: an actor’s own ability won’t matter, because everyone’s performance will be uncanny.
The same thing’ll happen as happened with beauty: our environment will become saturated with this supernormal stimuli, and it’ll affect our interaction with real people. When every speaker on a broadcast has the presence of a Winston Churchill or a Martin Luther King, we’ll begin to regard ordinary people, with their average use of paralinguistic cues, as bland and unpersuasive. We’ll become dissatisfied with the people we interact with in real life, because they won’t be as engaging as the projections we see through our spex.
I just hope those spex for reprogramming neurostat hit the market soon. Then maybe we can encourage people to adopt the stronger agnosias just when they’re watching video. That may be the only way for us to preserve authentic human interaction: if we save our emotional responses for real life.
Tamera Lyons:
I know how this is going to sound, but… well, I’m thinking about getting my calli turned back on.
In a way, it’s because of that PEN video. I don’t mean I’m getting calli just because makeup companies don’t want people to and I’m angry at them. That’s not it. But it’s hard to explain.
I am angry at them, because they used a trick to manipulate people; they weren’t playing fair. But what it made me realize was, I was doing the same kind of thing to Garrett. Or I wanted to, anyway. I was trying to use my looks to win him back. And in a way that’s not playing fair, either.
I don’t mean that I’m as bad as the advertisers are! I love Garrett, and they just want to make money. But remember when I was talking about beauty as a kind of magic spell? It gives you an advantage, and I think it’s very easy to misuse something like that. And what calli does is make a person immune to that sort of spell. So I figure I shouldn’t mind if Garrett would rather be immune, because I shouldn’t be trying to gain an advantage in the first place. If I get him back, I want it to be by playing fair, by him loving me for myself.
I know, just because he got his calli turned back on doesn’t mean that I have to. I’ve really been enjoying seeing what faces look like. But if Garrett’s going to be immune, I feel like I should be too. So we’re even, you know? And if we do get back together, maybe we’ll get those new spex they’re talking about. Then we can turn off our calli when we’re by ourselves, just the two of us.
And I guess calli makes sense for other reasons, too. Those makeup companies and everyone else, they’re just trying to create needs in you that you wouldn’t feel if they were playing fair, and I don’t like that. If I’m going to be dazzled watching a commercial, it’ll be when I’m in the mood, not whenever they spring it on me. Although I’m not going to get those other agnosias, like that tonal one, not yet anyway. Maybe once those new spex come out.
This doesn’t mean I agree with my parents’ having me grow up with calli. I still think they were wrong; they thought getting rid of beauty would help make a utopia, and I don’t believe that at all. Beauty isn’t the problem, it’s how some people are misusing it that’s the problem. And that’s what calli’s good for; it lets you guard against that. I don’t know, maybe this wasn’t a problem back in my parents’ day. But it’s something we have to deal with now.