• by Kaila Colbin , Featured Contributor, February 1, 2008

Last week, fellow Insider Gord Hotchkiss began a fascinating two-part series called "Search, Transactive Memory and the Plastic Mind". In it, he discusses neural pathways and glial cells -- not typical fodder for a search column. Amongst a bevy of praisers, commenter Aaron Bynum was moved to confess:

 

Very interesting article... although I must admit, after the first few paragraphs, the "where is he going with this" notion filtered in a bit...

I have no special access to Gord's upcoming sequel but I can say this: the notion that a column on search should only talk about search is an illusion. This is because search is not about search. It is about people.

Consider a recent Australian study, which showed that online researchers are inclined to maintain their beliefs, even in the face of contrary information:

 

"Our research shows that, even if search engines do find the 'right' information, people may still draw the wrong conclusions - in other words, their conclusions are biased," UNSW Professor Enrico Coiera, said.

That conclusion isn't about algorithms or PageRank; it's about psychology and motivation, brain function and belief systems. In the case of the Aussies, the results were cause for concern; the people they were observing were searching for medical information, and failing to accept accurate information that didn't align with their pre-existing beliefs.

This sort of deep-rooted understanding of human behavior can have a profound impact on how we approach the next generation of search. The scientists in charge of the study, for example, used their new knowledge to tweak the search process, making it easier for novel information to bypass our psychological defense mechanisms:

 

To help people make sense of the information which they are presented with, Professor Coiera and Dr Annie Lau have developed a new search engine interface that they believe breaks down cognitive biases.

"The new search engine interface we have designed could be a part of any search engine and allows people to organize the information they find, and as a result organize their thoughts better," he said.

At VortexDNA, we regularly face a similar question: what does a conceptual framework based on purpose, values and intention have in common with the Internet? As Gord suggests, and as the Australians discovered, everything.

Back in 2004, Hugh Macleod described a hierarchy of capitals: from human, to physical, to financial, to intellectual, to emotional (the domain of the Love Mark). He then asked, "How do you out-Love-Mark the Love Mark?" and posited the following:

 

Expressive Capital. Our products make it easier for the end user to find and/or express meaning, narrative, metaphor, purpose, explanation and relevance in his/her own life than our competitor's products.

This is the job of the search engines, along with every other company in business today. When we say, "I Googled it," we aren't talking about the engine, we're talking about ourselves. We feel clever because we used Google. We feel resourceful. We feel up-to-date and down with the in crowd.

Some months ago, I participated in a debate about interfaces versus algorithms. I see now that the foundation of our debate was flawed. There is only one area for any search engine to focus on, and that is on the service of people.

I have seen the search engines, and they are us.