As I write this article, I am still in shock over the sudden and untimely news of John Nosta’s passing. It is difficult to write about someone who was both a friend and a mentor. I will try to focus less on my personal relationship with him and more on his professional character, his ideas, and the way he looked at technology.
John was a journalist, analyst, and keynote speaker whose work focused on healthcare technology and artificial intelligence. Many readers are familiar with his writing in Psychology Today. What made his work distinctive was the way he thought about the place of technology in our lives, including both its possibilities and its limitations.
Rather than offering the repeated ideas and familiar criticisms that we see so often today, John focused on emerging features and developments that pointed toward the future. He was intelligent, perceptive, and a careful thinker. He often noticed the gaps between technology and human needs earlier than others did, and he had a strong ability to make his ideas influential. This is why I consider him one of the leading technology influencers of recent years.
John was not an academic researcher in the conventional sense. He was, as I have described him, a thinker, journalist, analyst, and keynote speaker. Yet his writing and deep ideas also influenced many academics and researchers. I saw him as someone who could initiate a path of rational inquiry. In other words, he inspired people and opened their eyes to issues they might not otherwise have noticed.
How John Changed My Research Path
For me, John was a turning point in the direction of my research, particularly toward multidisciplinary topics.
In the past, I thought that, as an academic, my role was primarily to turn research projects into scholarly articles, and that these articles were the best way to present my ideas. Over the past few years, through getting to know John and having the opportunity to talk with him, my thinking and my professional direction have changed considerably.
One of the things I learned along the way was that the ideas I develop should reach the people who are interested in them, whether they are academics, producers, or other groups involved in the field. The things I produce intellectually should be put to use. They should not remain framed, decorative achievements among my academic credentials.
Instead, ideas need to be translated into forms and language that different groups can understand and use, not communicated only to a narrow circle of specialists. Knowledge has greater value when it can move beyond academic boundaries and become useful to the people who can apply it.
John was also the first person who encouraged me to write practical and applicable pieces based on the deeper concepts and knowledge I had developed over the years. He encouraged me not only to do this, but to keep doing it consistently.
Turning Ideas into Practical Contributions
I see this as a meaningful way to serve the world of technology and production, especially at a moment in history when many critics are concerned about the effects of science and technology, while only a relatively small number of people are looking for practical ways to address their potential risks.
For me, this was an important shift: moving beyond identifying questions and concerns, and making a sustained effort to translate what I know into ideas and insights that can be used in practice. John encouraged me to take that step.
There is so much more I could write about John, his character, his ideas, and the many things I learned from him. But I am still so shocked by his sudden passing that I do not feel able to write at length right now.
I felt it was only fair to write at least this short piece about him, because I learned so much from him. I hope to write more about John in the future, when I have had the time and the opportunity.
