Tag: LinkedIn

BBC Magazine story. Not a new subject, the excluded middle often contains the greater value.

If facebook is the answer, what was the question ? The open-graph framework / foundation of the social-layer on which the game-layer will be built.

The “game layer”;
a pervasive net of behavior-steering game dynamics that will reshape education and commerce.

Intriguing TED Talk from Seth Priebatsch. It’s all game theory in practice … so behaviour steering dynamics is an interesting concept.

I’ve blogged a few comments recently about non-freedom of information in the communication (verb) sense of information … in the public domain in connection with government, economy, science, business, etc. Not all information should be publicly communicated just because it can be. A moral issue affecting the quality of decision-making that affects us all.

Here is a piece in The Atlantic on the freedom of information … in the free-of-cost sense. Also a moral issue. A reaction to naive internet ideology that “Information wants to be free” and “attempts to constrain it are immoral”, because information also really needs to be expensive … ie valued, if it is to have any real quality. Will comment further. Thanks to Johan for the link on Facebook.

It is mostly about Apple vs Google vs Murdoch media pricing and licensing, but the moral ideology is central

“the core gospel of an open Web was upheld with such rigor that when one of its more prolific members, Time magazine’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt, published a scare-the-old-folks cover story in 1995, which carried the implication that some measure of online censorship might not be a bad thing, he and his apostasy were torn to pieces with breathtaking relentlessness. At the time, the episode was notable for being one of the first examples of the Web’s ability to fact-check, and keep in check, the mainstream media—it turned out that the study on whichTime’s exclusive report was based was inaccurate, and its results were wildly overstated. In retrospect, what seems notable is the fervor with which digital correctness—the idea that the unencumbered flow of everything must be defended—was being enforced.”

[Post Note – spooky that this article should turn up today too – The Internet Kill Switch.]

From the Slate, a piece by Kathryn Shulz interviewing ex-astronaut James Bagian on relative risks and relative attention to risks in bleeding edge exploration and business-as-usual.

[Post Note :  I have since read the complete article and it is really very good, on the human psychology side of “error” and risk, and between error and harm, proximate individual causes and fixable systemic causes, etc. One side connection – Bagian mentions the little appreciated fact that the Challenger crew hearts were still beating when their cockpit escape module hit the ocean – reminded me of a comment I made recently on the F111 Wikipedia page, where the crew escape module was mis-captioned – since corrected on the main page.]

[And whilst we’re here : That Kathryn Shulz post is just one of a series of blogged interviews on the subject of “wrongology”.]

One of my management adages is

“Agreement in public,
disagreement in private”.

I was reminded of it by this quote collection from Kevin Kelly. (Here’s the permalink to the Scott Delinger quote.)

It’s one of these things that get’s tangled up in open communications, freedom of speech mantras that so many people seem to think applies to all communications. As if not voicing disagreement is somehow dishonest. No such thing as need to know, all management of communication is somehow evil. Also the element that agreeing in public is a kind of “me too” noise, less valuable that disagreement. It also get’s tangled up in “scientism” … as if somehow covering up disagreement, not pointing out errors, is counter to scientific progress, and must be stamped out for some greater good.

No. In my experience most disagreement is initially misunderstanding, and voicing disagreement initially tends to spread misunderstanding, and in a context where trust matters, spreading misunderstanding then spreads uncertainty and mistrust. Much more effective to voice misunderstanding and apparent disagreement with the other party privately, to establish if there really is error or significant disagreement, or simply lack of clarity that will benefit from clarification. Then go public with that. Much more productive of everyone’s time.

Of course if trust doesn’t matter to you, do your worst.

(More good quotes in that Kevin Kelley collection BTW – Tim O’Reilly and E. Digby Baltzell for example.)

It’s official, you get wiser as you get older, and here too.

That is if you value multiple perspectives, possibility of change, flexible predictions, knowledge limitations, conflict resolution and compromise, then better ask a grey-beard.

Interesting blog from writer Scott Berkun, only just discovered and browsed around this evening following a link from Matt (WordPress). No rocket science or genius insights just the common sense to say it (and do it, and ask questions …)

(Information is a form of garbage), and yet oddly addicted to cramming more of it in our brains. The rare commodity is the wisdom for how to think about information, and that starts with asking questions about it. What is a fact? Why was this fact chosen instead of another?

That “why?” question is so important – there is no fact independent of motive or intention in context, even if it is simply the act of selecting the (indisputable) fact to express. And hence why “trust” is such a valuable commodity.