The language of science, can transform, like a superhero, with a costume. Like Batman out, from the cave, springing onto the city, ready to catch some, troublesome guys, that foul language, with their imprecise, definitions and every day, senselessness. But underneath the costume, sometimes you'll find, similar-senselessness, of purpose, and weird looking socks.
When you see fancy words it is usually worth trying to make sense of them. As I first read the word “phenotype”: something like a measurable trait that comes from genes interacting with the environment. And then “digital phenotype”: some measurable traits that are recorded digitally coming from genes interacting with the environment. But in some cases, you will find, “digital phenotype” is more like measuring something about who you are from an analysis of multiple streams of data: where you go, how fast, when, etc… So the word “digital phenotype” could mean “measuring everything of a person to decide something about them”? Maybe with a subtle focus on their health, or identifying key patterns that might relate to their gene expression?
The problems with this use of language are really quite frustrating:
- The Gene as a bit of code that defines you is too simple
- The Gene interacting with Environment appearing as patterns of your daily routine is a bit far fetched and also too simple.
- The measurement of daily data sources, and “Big Data” analysis of where you walk, to identify “Digital Phenotypes” seems improper: could be junk, could be unrelated to Genotype.
What are we saying with these twists of language? Could it be we are trying to convince people there is power and opportunity to be gleaned from evaluating everyday routines of people? If so, I am not quite sure this is the spirit of scientific enquiry.