Defending Avant Guard Technology

Hello
I started this thread not knowing if a sticky one with a similar title already existed or not. Admins: Please Advise.
This thread continues an interesting thought started by someone on the LED Forums > VIP thread.
The core of the discussion is that the world of technology users seems to be divided into an Avant Guard camp that is driven towards the most cutting edge technology solution at almost any cost and a world of middle-of-the-road users & consumers that are baffled by the almost cult-like fanaticism of an underground avant guard technology culture. An example of this paradigm would be a discussion between myself- a card carrying technologist that's willing to pay a premium for useful tools that extend my capabilities to the current attainable limit - versus my house-mate who is comfortable at the lowest limit of enablement.
What are your thoughts on this subject ? Does the excentricity of our enthusiasm cross the line of the reasonable into the obsessive and if so, what might the downside of that be? - Are we the drivers of beneficial long term value and change in society or merely spoilt kids? How do you define "reasonable excentricity" ? Should we all be satisfied with a $2.00 flashlight? Is $400 too much to pay for a so called - "every day carry" flashlight? What defines a middle road. In otherwords, what exactly do you believe the relationship between price, value, technological virtuosity and excessiveness to be and why do you believe that?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif

Both niches are important. Inexpensive, mass-market products are the natural end result, but they would not be possible without risk-taking pioneers who experiment with new technology and sell innovative products to a small subset of buyers.

For example, there is no way that LED flashlights would have been introduced, out of the blue, via the UK 4AA eLED being available for $20. The very existence of reliable Luxeon emitters and regulation circuits--to say nothing of the low price--was made possible by early sales to a small number of Arc and Surefire customers at high prices. As technology improves, yesterday's expensive cutting edge becomes today's inexpensive mainstream, while the cutting edge moves even further ahead.

Sterling observations that echo my personal sentiments. Yes, I believe that "trickle down" cannot occur without some brave souls being the technological innovators and thier first customers the early adopters. Once a product or technology reaches the point of escape velocity then inertia should scale production up and bring costs down and adoption should then widen.I'm struggling to understand why however, the Internet has not gone beyond the point of escape velocity to the next level. In fact, some of us fear that we may be slipping back due to a backlash. In the area of 'gadgetry' AKA "personal tools - stores like the Sharper Image. Discovery and Brookstone are reporting a shift from tech-tools to just updated personal appliances such as the personal air filters, massagers CD/DVD and so on. Is it that Gen X is back in school, the slowed economy or a backlash against tech tools? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

I don't want to move the discussion off your topic and thread because it's an interesting interpretation of the comments (mine?) in the other thread to which you allude.

I think the "avant guard" nature of flashlights, particularly LEDs, is a driving force in our hobby. I quietly laugh (actually quite loudly and maniacally these days with the arrival of the VIP) to myself when I think of what 99% of people consider a "flashlight" and what I currently possess and use. But my original thoughts were far from this philosophical discussion of technology (it hadn't even occurred to me, frankly). I was just repeating what is a common experience for many people here and I attribute the attitudes faced primarily to lack of interest in tools in general (knives, flashlights, etc.), lack of interest in craftsmanship, and the ubiquity of the lowest cost, disposable alternative.

In reality I find the interest in knives, flashlights, and other tools, though they may utilize the most technologically advanced materials and techniques, touches upon the earliest of human needs. The custom-made flashlights we see reflect the spirit of skilled craftsmen more than they do the mass-produced society in which we currently live.

Do I have a point? I don't know. Hope I haven't derailed more useful discussion.

Humn..thought provoking ideas indeed.
" I attribute the attitudes faced primarily to lack of interest in tools in general (knives, flashlights, etc.), lack of interest in craftsmanship, and the ubiquity of the lowest cost, disposable alternative." There was no lack of interest in craftsmanship of any and all man-made goods from 1995 - 2000 !
As I mentioned- Sharper Image/Brookstone and Hammerschlemmer ( can't spell that place!) did explosive business in types of things that are now not supposed to be of interest- Suddenly after the IT boom vanished, the gadget boom vanished as well.
Then..."In reality I find the interest in knives, flashlights, and other tools, though they may utilize the most technologically advanced materials and techniques, touches upon the earliest of human needs. The custom-made flashlights we see reflect the spirit of skilled craftsmen more than they do the mass-produced society in which we currently live."
That I agree with all the way. So what I believe you're saying is that exposure to skilled craftsmanship is a need and high quality craftsmanship gives us relief from our mass produced cookie-cutter world. I agree ! As a person who evolved from Art & Craft to technology I see that in my own history . I wonder though if there's any underlying motivation that may be associated with a new form of greed? I mean- How many of the same categories of quality goods do I need in order to satisfy my innate drive towards craftsmanship -in technology tools? One, Two or Five or More?. I believe I may have a sickness because of what happened with me and the obsession with high quality Texas Toothpick knives in '03. was looking for one iddy bitty little bit of craftsmanship and ended up with a collection!. This year, in serching for a $15 LED solution to a real need- I end up with hundreds of dollars of personal lights that I adore but eventually may have to continuously upgrade, like my computers- So now high quality near custom flashlights have caught my fancy. OK. So can one flashlight fulfill this new need? Seems not /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif so where is it going to end? I think much of this type of exageration was originally feuled by the computer industry making people feel inadeqate if they didn't upgrade HW & SW every 6 months! It worked as MS will attest. Now the whole consumer electronics business and marketeers seem to be on the ego-bashing/ego-boosting bandwagon as well. I realize custom Flashlights are different- but i'm just emoting for a moment. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

It's interesting that with this form of communication we can continue to have a thought-provoking discussion even though it seems like we're interpreting things differently. I didn't think of the desire for craftsmanship as a need, but I suppose that this is true as is the "greed" aspect of it. I got carried away with flashlights as well as other things where I ended up with a big collection. The "basic human needs" I was alluding to (and I should have expanded upon this because even though the connection was clear in my mind, only I know what I'm thinking!) was the need for basic human tools like the knife and the torch (be it fire or a new LED flashlight). It seemed that carrying a knife or a flashlight remained part of the human consciousness over the millenia. I personally feel the importance of having a cutting tool at my disposal and now, because of CPF, also a light tool to dispatch the darkness. It just feels like I'm tied to my ancestors with their knapped knives and fire-making skills even though I didn't make my tools and instead bought them over the internet. It's fascinating that when it comes to modern materials and techniques we are still improving (or attempting to improve) our basic tools. This isn't a particularly profound thought; I'm sure others have expounded upon such things before, but it seems that even in the act of buying a VIP flashlight we are linked to our earliest beginnings as a species. Tool development!

As far as your initial premise it seems like there is always an avant garde element to emerging items, whether it be CD players, computers, or LED lights. The additional costs of being on the cutting edge are mostly expected now; a plasma screen TV for $6000 in 2004 will yield to a better plasma screen TV of the same size for $2000 in 2006? Maybe not those exact figures, but probably. Are those who pay the prices to forward the "revolution" along "reasonably eccentric" or merely part of conspicuous consumption in a wealthy society? Hmmm...maybe best not to ask the eccentric! I don't know. I might use the supposition that I'm assisting technological development and society to justify my next purchase(s).

Ah! This pull-quote is what strikes at the heart of my original thought ....."Are those who pay the prices to forward the "revolution" along "reasonably eccentric" or merely part of conspicuous consumption in a wealthy society?"......
I believe the answer is that they are both! That luxury you see, has always been the province of the minority Upper Class- in past times. With the invention of a Middle Class (an allegedly 'vanishing' class ) in the '50's the province of the Upper Classes expanded to this new Middle Class. Industrialists and our Western societies have obviously benefitted from this expansion. The side-effect, if it can be called that, is that when there is an increase in disposable cash, the increase in frivolous discretionary spending goes up out of proportion to even the basic need to enjoy the priviledge of early adoption. What that does in effect is turn every Middle Class citizen with surplus cash into an early adopter and without restraints- an excentric spendaholic.The underlying psychology that marketeers use is one that creates an association between happiness, self-realisation and the constant need to upgrade to try the best of the best- even if it's frivolous*. Which is probably one explantation for how we Americans manage to live such a high standard and can quickly turn a deficit economy into a surplus. The ugly side of this rosey picture is that we seem to be willing to mortgage our financial security in exchange for serial short-term satisfaction - in hope that sometime in the future, the 'Fisher King' will appear so that we don't ever have to pay the fiddler or that the poop will not hit the oscillator! Its what I've termed LaLaLand Economics /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif

*Frivolous - outside the boundaries of the reasonable and into the realm of the un-reasonable.

Now you've involved an area in which at least I have a little more knowledge (book knowledge only) than I do in others: economics. Of course, lack of knowledge hasn't stopped me from talking before, but at least this time I'm a little less ignorant.

Value-loaded words like "frivolous" are generally not used as economists like to stay in positive (describing what is) rather than normative (describing what should be) analysis. The situation you describe would be discussed in terms of income and utility curves at the micro level and maybe some kind of aggregate demand and production possibilities frontier at the macro level. I think economists rightfully stay out of value judgments when it comes to spending. How does one decide that a particular purchase is frivolous for oneself, much less someone else? Is a mag-lite frivolous? How about a McLux? And isn't eduation at some point frivolous (you don't really NEED a postdoctoral degree, do you?). Who gets to decide reasonableness?

Economists can, however, describe what is likely to happen as consumers borrow against their future (large credit card and other debt loads) and with low savings rates make it difficult for themselves (less financial security in retirement) and society (lower savings rates leading to higher costs of raising money for investment capital).

With respect to the psychology of buying and its relationship to self-fulfillment and happiness, it sure seems like a lot of us, including myself, are guilty of "frivolous" spending to this end. Really, does anyone require dozens of flashlights or knives, or the very latest Pentium chip or video card, highest resolution digital camera, or loudest and most annoying cell phone with 1000's of ring tones to choose from? Funny, I was thinking about that line from "Fight Club" this morning: "The things you own end up owning you." What if I gave you an economist's answer: "My choice of goods purchased maximized my utility subject to my budget constraints." Whether an individual's rational response (in the economic sense) is truly rational (in common sense) or whether society is better off are more difficult questions.

For me, the title of this thread is WAY too sophisticated. I believe that all this is really the result of craving pleasure and these toys provide pleasure. The pleasure 'buttons' stimulated are somewhat varied but I wouldn't say they are all that complex. One of the buttons is the 'avante garde' button. It really doesn't matter how 'technologically advanced' or 'high quality' something is, if the 'avante garde' (I think this really means 'envied' ) pleasure button is craving stimulation then a petrified rat turd endorsed by the upper eschalon becomes highly desireable. The seller of the rat turd will even supply some very sophisticated justifications that completely obfuscate the very base human behaviour that makes it desireable ('It's one of a kind' , "It contains bacteria that may yield a cure for cancer' etc.).

Every decision we make is like this. This isn't news to any of you (I hope). We're trying to make ourselves feel good and avoid feeling bad. Maybe the reason we like knives and lights is because they have proven themselves as aids in this quest.

The reality is that 'Quality' has nothing to do with how well something is made or not made. 'Quality' evokes and satisfies desire. 'Quality' really IS desire. 'Value' is the same thing. That's why economists stay away from value laden words because once you get onto that level and you see the behaviour of people in an economy and you see the motivation behind it you realize that all this massively complex , dramatic and painful behaviour is all based on the trivial pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

"The things you own end up owning you." Absolutely. Want to teach a rat to run a maze put a little cheese at the end and start out with him good and hungry.

So I suppose that this is really why I spend crazy money on 'avante guard' technology. It is silly, frivolous,and yes addictive or at least habit forming. I've quit drinking, drugs and recently smoking , I hope to stop using food as a source of pleasure and use it only as needed nutrition and yes I hope to quit using 'stuff' as a buzz. Lots of cheap lights will be available then. I suppose that really the only way to defend a purchase of 'avante guard' technology is if you don't want it when you buy it. Like if on saturday morning I'm useing my computer to read my horoscope (and I'm really into horoscopes (yeah, right)) and a surge blows my computer so I send my butler to go "get me another damn computer so I can read my horoscope" and the butler goes out and buys a computer that, to all of us , is the macdaddy king of machines. The butler sets it up, I read my horoscope, get up and walk away barely acknowledging that anything but access to my horoscope has just been purchased. If I desire 'avante guard' technology then It is a form of self gratification and not defendable as otherwise. It is defendable by saying 'yeah, I got my rocks off when I bought it and it was damn expensive, you got a problem with that?'.

We need help no doubt. I can not buy the best car or the best house or best boat or best whatever. I am not rich at all so I buy other stuff flashlights and knives. If I sold all my Knives and flashlights at replacement cost,I could buy a car. A good car /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Topper /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Topper said:
If I sold all my Knives and flashlights at replacement cost,I could buy a car. A good car /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Topper /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya. It's almost better not to add up how much you have invested in knives and flashlights. But thanks to Aten_Imago I can say that I'm helping advance technology and bettering society.

There are other mechanisms for "bleeding-edge" technologies to reach the mass market other than enthusiasts creating a niche market to springboard into a mass market - military and government-funded R&D spring to mind.

There are also scads of industrial technologies never envisioned for personal use (such as general-purpose computers) that have made it into the mass market largely by accident (arguably, with no small push by enthusiasts).

Early-adopters... other than bankrolling/proving the existence of a market for new gear, what do they get? Sometimes a fundamentally new product, sometimes a substantially better product than is on the market, often just something different that gets them kudos from their peers and some degree of admiration from those in the general public that recognize their novel product...

My 2 yen.

[ QUOTE ]
Aten_Imago said:
.... The core of the discussion is that the world of technology users seems to be divided into an Avant Guard camp that is driven towards the most cutting edge technology solution at almost any cost and a world of middle-of-the-road users & consumers that are baffled by the almost cult-like fanaticism of an underground avant guard technology culture....

[/ QUOTE ]

The most that I can add to this thread is that I personally fit the "Avant Guard" camp regarding whatever my current hobbie is (such as flashlights) and the "a world of middle-of-the-road users & consumers" when it comes to things like computrers and cell phones.

I guess it's really a matter of ones personal passions.

OK Topper,now we're getting warm. If I'm interpreting what you said correctly, your personal acquisition of knives and flashlights is at a level of quality that you're not able to currently attain in bigger ticket objects.This is very normal and understandable. Now please help me understand why you're comfortable not owning " A good car" in exchange for a very good knife and flashlight collection? Please select from the following choices:
A) Upgrading your transportation is not as important as enjoying the ownership ( and I presume- USE) of high quality knives and flashlights.
B) Your need to use flashlights and knives has a higher priority than your need to get around in a good car- which you can do later.
C) You feel your flashlights and knives will appreciate whilst a car will depreciate
Another key question.
How many flashlights and knives does it take to make you feel satisfied and why? This is actually the part I have trouble understanding in myself- that's where I can't seem to resolve my personal greed factor. I'm not this way with clothes, food, housing, cars, TV's, Stereos or anything else. Just Knives and flashlights. One or two should do. So why do I feel I need "one of each kind" -a collection ? Fear of incompleteness? Redundancy makes the heart happier ? Maybe I feel that my collection is like a family that wants to be and stay together? Yea! Maybe that's like an 'extended family' of sorts ?
What do you think ?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Topper said:
We need help no doubt. I can not buy the best car or the best house or best boat or best whatever. I am not rich at all so I buy other stuff flashlights and knives. If I sold all my Knives and flashlights at replacement cost,I could buy a car. A good car /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Topper /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

We're all basically kids and want toys. The cooler, the better. Ok, maybe its just me. If I didn't spend so much on toys I'd probably have a fair portfolio. However a piece of paper with a bunch of numbers on it isn't nearly as exciting as a good firearm or flashlight. And who's to say that one day the paper won't be worthless and all the toys will be worth more. I know I'm going to starve in my old age. But I will have a good light.

I believe that, to a large degree, the drive for the "biggest thickest hottest latest" is partially related to the maturity of the individual. This has certainly been true in my life as I look back from the perspective of my 5th decade. With the exception of my ARC4+, I'm now more enthralled with things that are relatively simple and that work well for their intended purpose rather than lots of flash (sorry), bells and whistles. For example, I have a standard plain vanilla Colt .45 ACP model 1991A1 with fixed sights that I wouldn't take any amount of money for cuz it works every single time I pull the trigger and hits what I aim at. A fancy Wilson or Kimber would be nice, I suppose, but I no longer feel the need for them.

If I may be so bold as to extend this thought, I think that maybe those of us who have struggled, and seen our parents struggle, for what little comforts we have in life, appreciate things to a degree that may be surprising to individuals who have come by their comforts via the "silver platter". Even though I may now (by extending myself a bit) be able to afford some of the more extravagant "avant garde" technologies, I now have the wisdom to realize (gratefully) that it is not always a good idea. There's a reason they call it the "bleeding edge".

OtherMutt- very helpful self-searching. I'll assume that "portfolio" refers to "financial investment portfolio".What I learn from your message is that Men may have a basic need to make, own, play with, trade and collect objects that 'do something' or are part of something that does something, and that thier value is emotional and psychological. In contrast, financial holdings or assets do not give the same pleasure, psychologically. I wonder if Women have a similar/same need or is a similar drive directed differently in them?
sotto- I'm approaching my 5th decade and the drive to minimalism is growing in me. I can tell you al that appart from my professional interest in technology ( tools not toys ) my personal interest ha sto do with my interest in invention- particularly Ground Breaking Invention ( AKA Innovation). So I wonder if there is an innate drive to innovation and whether this drive is satisfied by ownership as much as it's satisfied by being the inventor themself ? And again, what if any is the difference in how different genders and ages experience innovation?
*If you're wondering what possible motive I may have in creating this thread- it's simple. I study how humans interact with technology. That study is not so much about technology as it is about how humans extend themselves and thier senses through technology. The discovery I've just made through some of your replies is that we may have evolved a pavlovian paradigm, wherein we are so hungry for the experience of novelty and innovation that goal and purpose seem not be nearly as important in times past, but rather that Skinnerian conditioning is all we are actually capable of living and experiencing. That explains a lot about commerce- especially in America. I now understand what a comprehensively addicted society we've become. Not all of this is bad but one wonders how much longer it will take before we totally loose interest in the object that works 'simply'. Why do computers have to be imbedded in everything-including flashlights?

Flashaholicism is an obsessive compulsive behavior. Plain and simple. Luckily, the cost of the habit is self limiting. You don't think there are photon addicts stealing soley to support their flashlight habit do you? Probably not. If I have the dough, I'll buy some mo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Aten_Imago said:
The discovery I've just made through some of your replies is that we may have evolved a pavlovian paradigm, wherein we are so hungry for the experience of novelty and innovation that goal and purpose seem not be nearly as important in times past, but rather that Skinnerian conditioning is all we are actually capable of living and experiencing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have to admit that this morning when I saw that N cell 1 watt luxeon pocket light that TNC Products was pedaling over in the LED Forum, I started salivating. When my spouse rang my bell, however, I recognized the imminent onset of negative reinforcement and responded by altering my behavior (e.g., I didn't click on the "Order" button). Fortunately, she has me on an intermittent reinforcement schedule and occasionally I am rewarded.

So there you go./ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

WARNING!!! ~ Chick Point of View to follow...

I have been called a snob many times over by some of my friends and even my own mother because I like nice things and I buy them. I pay someone every two weeks to do my nails. I pay someone every two months to do my eyebrows. When I'm feeling especially snobbish, I pay someone else to paint my toenails. I buy my shoes and purses online from designer websites. I don't buy my bathing suits at KMart. I don't buy Maybelline make-up, I buy L'Oreal. I don't use Suave shampoo, I use Pantene. And at least once a year, I go on an extravagant mini-vacation at a 5 star resort with just the girls and we get massages and pedicures and get served Citron lemonades, pitchers of ice water and fresh fruit platters while sitting beside a pool that is made of mother-of-pearl. (we're taking our cruise in lieu of that this year but we will be just as self-indulgent). And I buy Surefires instead of Mags.

So why do I do all this? Because I can. And because I have worked hard all my life and done without and settled for less and made many many sacrifices to get where I am today. I LIKE nice things... there IS a difference. I can pay $9.99 for a pair of sandals at KMart and it will take me at least 10 wearings and three sets of blisters to "break them in"... and then they will have worn out and will need to be tossed after just one season. Or I can buy a pair of Doc Martens for $54 and they will fit my foot like a glove the minute I slip into them and I will never get a blister and chances are I will get tired of wearing them before they ever even begin to show signs of wear. So which shoes do I want on my feet if my car breaks down on the way to Las Vegas and I have to start walking? There is a tad bit of practicality to my snobbishness... but there's also simply because... I can... and I'm worth it... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif