0:00:00.892,0:00:04.180
"Don't talk to strangers."

0:00:04.180,0:00:06.219
You have heard that phrase uttered

0:00:06.219,0:00:10.532
by your friends, family, schools and the media for decades.

0:00:10.532,0:00:13.444
It's a norm. It's a social norm.

0:00:13.444,0:00:15.802
But it's a special kind of social norm,

0:00:15.802,0:00:18.332
because it's a social norm that wants to tell us

0:00:18.332,0:00:22.796
who we can relate to and who we shouldn't relate to.

0:00:22.796,0:00:25.300
"Don't talk to strangers" says,

0:00:25.300,0:00:29.476
"Stay from anyone who's not familiar to you.

0:00:29.476,0:00:31.891
Stick with the people you know.

0:00:31.891,0:00:34.865
Stick with people like you."

0:00:34.865,0:00:37.217
How appealing is that?

0:00:37.217,0:00:40.442
It's not really what we do, is it, when we're at our best?

0:00:40.442,0:00:43.226
When we're at our best, we reach out to people

0:00:43.226,0:00:44.844
who are not like us,

0:00:44.844,0:00:47.711
because when we do that, we learn from people

0:00:47.711,0:00:49.980
who are not like us.

0:00:49.980,0:00:54.081
My phrase for this value of being with "not like us"

0:00:54.081,0:00:55.953
is "strangeness,"

0:00:55.953,0:00:59.853
and my point is that in today's digitally intensive world,

0:00:59.853,0:01:03.219
strangers are quite frankly not the point.

0:01:03.219,0:01:05.402
The point that we should be worried about is,

0:01:05.402,0:01:08.289
how much strangeness are we getting?

0:01:08.289,0:01:11.295
Why strangeness? Because our social relations

0:01:11.295,0:01:14.089
are increasingly mediated by data,

0:01:14.089,0:01:18.646
and data turns our social relations into digital relations,

0:01:18.646,0:01:20.995
and that means that our digital relations

0:01:20.995,0:01:24.797
now depend extraordinarily on technology

0:01:24.797,0:01:27.715
to bring to them a sense of robustness,

0:01:27.715,0:01:29.302
a sense of discovery,

0:01:29.302,0:01:32.572
a sense of surprise and unpredictability.

0:01:32.572,0:01:34.339
Why not strangers?

0:01:34.339,0:01:36.633
Because strangers are part of a world

0:01:36.633,0:01:38.898
of really rigid boundaries.

0:01:38.898,0:01:41.850
They belong to a world of people I know

0:01:41.850,0:01:44.364
versus people I don't know,

0:01:44.364,0:01:46.843
and in the context of my digital relations,

0:01:46.843,0:01:50.864
I'm already doing things with people I don't know.

0:01:50.864,0:01:54.082
The question isn't whether or not I know you.

0:01:54.082,0:01:56.586
The question is, what can I do with you?

0:01:56.586,0:01:59.195
What can I learn with you?

0:01:59.195,0:02:03.496
What can we do together that benefits us both?

0:02:03.496,0:02:05.858
I spend a lot of time thinking about

0:02:05.858,0:02:08.618
how the social landscape is changing,

0:02:08.618,0:02:11.090
how new technologies create new constraints

0:02:11.090,0:02:13.880
and new opportunities for people.

0:02:13.880,0:02:16.531
The most important changes facing us today

0:02:16.531,0:02:19.337
have to do with data and what data is doing

0:02:19.337,0:02:21.442
to shape the kinds of digital relations

0:02:21.442,0:02:23.906
that will be possible for us in the future.

0:02:23.906,0:02:26.139
The economies of the future depend on that.

0:02:26.139,0:02:29.058
Our social lives in the future depend on that.

0:02:29.058,0:02:32.090
The threat to worry about isn't strangers.

0:02:32.090,0:02:34.202
The threat to worry about is whether or not

0:02:34.202,0:02:37.194
we're getting our fair share of strangeness.

0:02:37.194,0:02:39.786
Now, 20th-century psychologists and sociologists

0:02:39.786,0:02:41.939
were thinking about strangers,

0:02:41.939,0:02:44.676
but they weren't thinking so dynamically about human relations,

0:02:44.676,0:02:46.045
and they were thinking about strangers

0:02:46.045,0:02:48.999
in the context of influencing practices.

0:02:48.999,0:02:51.747
Stanley Milgram from the '60s and '70s,

0:02:51.747,0:02:53.733
the creator of the small-world experiments,

0:02:53.733,0:02:56.687
which became later popularized as six degrees of separation,

0:02:56.687,0:03:00.199
made the point that any two arbitrarily selected people

0:03:00.199,0:03:03.921
were likely connected from between five to seven intermediary steps.

0:03:03.921,0:03:06.951
His point was that strangers are out there.

0:03:06.951,0:03:08.523
We can reach them. There are paths

0:03:08.523,0:03:11.209
that enable us to reach them.

0:03:11.209,0:03:14.978
Mark Granovetter, Stanford sociologist, in 1973

0:03:14.978,0:03:17.776
in his seminal essay "The Strength of Weak Ties,"

0:03:17.776,0:03:20.602
made the point that these weak ties

0:03:20.602,0:03:23.089
that are a part of our networks, these strangers,

0:03:23.089,0:03:26.081
are actually more effective at diffusing information to us

0:03:26.081,0:03:30.617
than are our strong ties, the people closest to us.

0:03:30.617,0:03:34.114
He makes an additional indictment of our strong ties

0:03:34.114,0:03:36.743
when he says that these people who are so close to us,

0:03:36.743,0:03:38.676
these strong ties in our lives,

0:03:38.676,0:03:42.103
actually have a homogenizing effect on us.

0:03:42.103,0:03:44.938
They produce sameness.

0:03:44.938,0:03:47.777
My colleagues and I at Intel have spent the last few years

0:03:47.777,0:03:50.393
looking at the ways in which digital platforms

0:03:50.393,0:03:52.264
are reshaping our everyday lives,

0:03:52.264,0:03:54.881
what kinds of new routines are possible.

0:03:54.881,0:03:56.177
We've been looking specifically at the kinds

0:03:56.177,0:03:58.888
of digital platforms that have enabled us

0:03:58.888,0:04:02.023
to take our possessions, those things that used to be

0:04:02.023,0:04:05.145
very restricted to us and to our friends in our houses,

0:04:05.145,0:04:08.967
and to make them available to people we don't know.

0:04:08.967,0:04:11.690
Whether it's our clothes, whether it's our cars,

0:04:11.690,0:04:14.313
whether it's our bikes, whether it's our books or music,

0:04:14.313,0:04:17.306
we are able to take our possessions now

0:04:17.306,0:04:20.737
and make them available to people we've never met.

0:04:20.737,0:04:23.548
And we concluded a very important insight,

0:04:23.548,0:04:25.336
which was that as people's relationships

0:04:25.336,0:04:27.877
to the things in their lives change,

0:04:27.877,0:04:31.321
so do their relations with other people.

0:04:31.321,0:04:32.729
And yet recommendation system

0:04:32.729,0:04:37.004
after recommendation system continues to miss the boat.

0:04:37.004,0:04:39.553
It continues to try to predict what I need

0:04:39.553,0:04:42.793
based on some past characterization of who I am,

0:04:42.793,0:04:45.089
of what I've already done.

0:04:45.089,0:04:47.593
Security technology after security technology

0:04:47.593,0:04:49.769
continues to design data protection

0:04:49.769,0:04:52.174
in terms of threats and attacks,

0:04:52.174,0:04:55.769
keeping me locked into really rigid kinds of relations.

0:04:55.769,0:04:58.265
Categories like "friends" and "family"

0:04:58.265,0:05:00.742
and "contacts" and "colleagues"

0:05:00.742,0:05:04.529
don't tell me anything about my actual relations.

0:05:04.529,0:05:06.773
A more effective way to think about my relations

0:05:06.773,0:05:09.465
might be in terms of closeness and distance,

0:05:09.465,0:05:13.285
where at any given point in time, with any single person,

0:05:13.285,0:05:16.776
I am both close and distant from that individual,

0:05:16.776,0:05:21.284
all as a function of what I need to do right now.

0:05:21.284,0:05:23.922
People aren't close or distant.

0:05:23.922,0:05:26.983
People are always a combination of the two,

0:05:26.983,0:05:30.703
and that combination is constantly changing.

0:05:30.703,0:05:33.143
What if technologies could intervene

0:05:33.143,0:05:37.120
to disrupt the balance of certain kinds of relationships?

0:05:37.120,0:05:39.081
What if technologies could intervene

0:05:39.081,0:05:43.492
to help me find the person that I need right now?

0:05:43.492,0:05:45.916
Strangeness is that calibration

0:05:45.916,0:05:48.135
of closeness and distance

0:05:48.135,0:05:52.038
that enables me to find the people that I need right now,

0:05:52.038,0:05:55.028
that enables me to find the sources of intimacy,

0:05:55.028,0:05:59.676
of discovery, and of inspiration that I need right now.

0:05:59.676,0:06:01.985
Strangeness is not about meeting strangers.

0:06:01.985,0:06:04.180
It simply makes the point that we need

0:06:04.180,0:06:07.462
to disrupt our zones of familiarity.

0:06:07.462,0:06:11.119
So jogging those zones of familiarity is one way to think about strangeness,

0:06:11.119,0:06:13.823
and it's a problem faced not just by individuals today,

0:06:13.823,0:06:16.053
but also by organizations,

0:06:16.053,0:06:20.576
organizations that are trying to embrace massively new opportunities.

0:06:20.576,0:06:22.682
Whether you're a political party

0:06:22.682,0:06:25.550
insisting to your detriment on a very rigid notion

0:06:25.550,0:06:27.938
of who belongs and who does not,

0:06:27.938,0:06:29.431
whether you're the government

0:06:29.431,0:06:32.129
protecting social institutions like marriage

0:06:32.129,0:06:36.022
and restricting access of those institutions to the few,

0:06:36.022,0:06:38.430
whether you're a teenager in her bedroom

0:06:38.430,0:06:41.618
who's trying to jostle her relations with her parents,

0:06:41.618,0:06:44.780
strangeness is a way to think about how we pave the way

0:06:44.780,0:06:47.254
to new kinds of relations.

0:06:47.254,0:06:50.612
We have to change the norms.

0:06:50.612,0:06:53.642
We have to change the norms in order to enable

0:06:53.642,0:06:55.580
new kinds of technologies

0:06:55.580,0:06:58.369
as a basis for new kinds of businesses.

0:06:58.369,0:07:02.102
What interesting questions lie ahead for us

0:07:02.102,0:07:04.773
in this world of no strangers?

0:07:04.773,0:07:08.579
How might we think differently about our relations with people?

0:07:08.579,0:07:11.700
How might we think differently about our relations

0:07:11.700,0:07:13.792
with distributed groups of people?

0:07:13.792,0:07:18.233
How might we think differently about our relations with technologies,

0:07:18.233,0:07:21.239
things that effectively become social participants

0:07:21.239,0:07:23.313
in their own right?

0:07:23.313,0:07:27.126
The range of digital relations is extraordinary.

0:07:27.126,0:07:31.683
In the context of this broad range of digital relations,

0:07:31.683,0:07:34.657
safely seeking strangeness might very well be

0:07:34.657,0:07:36.928
a new basis for that innovation.

0:07:36.928,0:07:38.398
Thank you.

0:07:38.398,0:07:43.291
(Applause)