Psybertron Asks

I support the power of blogging (and other social media) but you’ve probably detected I also see a problem with over-communication. In the clamour for attention, bad information can drive out good – the memetic problem as I call it.

There is a moral imperative to say what needs to be said – and that may demand courage in some scenarios. But there is also a duty to communicate how, where and when it will contribute to the desired end. Ends and means have variable qualities and intentions. Trust is an important part of it.

Euan Semple is one of the web’s most intelligent bloggers (and twitterers) and I was struck by 4 or 5 posts from Euan since the new year that reflect the paradox here. Is more power to communicate always better, when saying and doing the right thing always demands courage ?

The first post, Blogging will change the world, is not contentious, if we focus on the power to make people think, but Euan does also highlight the status and influence aspect of such power in changing behaviour. Interestingly given the other posts, he quotes Brenda Ueland …

Because the best way to know Truth or Beauty is to try to express it. And what is the purpose of existence ….  but to discover truth and beauty and express it, i.e, share it with others?

In Standing up and being counted Euan says

The people who [cynically mis-market unhealthy foods] have to know it is wrong and deceptive. They must sit in meetings discussing doing this. Not all of them can feel comfortable.

Following on from my last post about bullying attitudes in the workplace one of my aspirations for social media in business is that one day, when people get confident enough to say what they think, enough of them might just get the gumption together to stand up and say “guys this is wrong”. Maybe then we could put a stop to this sort of crap.

[Aside – I ask that people think of the DeLorean question of “why committees of moral men make immoral decisions”.]

And in that previous post Hard men are wankers he had said, after referring to antler-clashing, blokeishness, (and I might say, flame-war tendencies) in social media exchanges and recalling management bullying experiences, he then admits

Social media relies on people having the temerity to say what they think and others having the decency to listen. Forget Enterprise 2.0. The promise of social media will not become reality until you do something to reduce the power of the bullies.

ie with or without “Web2.0” (or the semantic web, I might say) people with the power to communicate and influence need “decency”. Interestingly in that same post Euan quotes Brenda Ueland again …

I hate [criticism] because of the potentially shining, gentle, gifted people of all ages,that it snuffs out every year. It is a murderer of talent. And because the most modest and sensitive people are the most talented, having the most imagination and sympathy, these are the very first ones to get killed off. It is the brutal egotists that survive.

A common theme of mine that criticism is fine only in moderation – the scientistic mentality that attempting to undermine every possible truth is the sole means of progress is flawed.

 And in Terrorism, ooh that’s interesting after speculating on how the Detroit Christmas Day Delta attack might have been different if people seeing the security arrangements being circumvented had also been twittering, he says …

Yes, all of this could be misapplied and one could easily imagine scenarios where it led to panic and possibly injustice. … don’t we have it within our grasp to weed the weak signals from the strong ones? To work out well enough who we trust and what is real quickly enough to at least help the authorities do the right thing?

Strong, weak ? Since when was the right thing about power ?

[Post Note … here is the opposite problem.]

How do we work out whose communications we trust ? Interesting that Euan also sees real trust and decency in the eyes, in the flesh, in a hug with Chris Locke. Truth and beauty reside in trust (and dare I say, love) not in link counts or power.

(And again W3C Fig 7 says it.)

As I mentioned, I’m reading Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great”, after originally avoiding it as just part of the God vs Science hysterical debates of the past two years, but discovering I like what Hitchens has to say.

OK so GING is “the case against” religion, an unrelenting damnation that could easily offend his target audience. Hard for anyone to argue against the rehearsed arguments on metaphysics, design and revelation. The chapters unpicking the mono-theist texts, revealed by the key prophets and embellished by their priests, are almost too easy as to be boring, were in not for Hitchens style – clever, witty entertaining. I’m reminded of Clayton’s rhetorical put down of Dawkins “after all, he writes so beatifully“. But this is after all a war of wits.

Despite the unrelenting attack, Hitchens’ real quality does shine through. In Chapter 11 “The Lowly Stamp of Their Origin”: Religion’s Corrupt Beginnings, he focusses on the charlattans that have invented (and abandoned) new religions and cults for their own nefarious purposes – Mormons, and assorted perverted evangelist churches for example. After acknowledging Darwin’s “stamp” in the chapter title, and opening with a quote from the “simply divine” Gibbon …

“The various forms of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people to be equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful.”

He acknowledges Dennett’s analysis of religion as a natural phenomenon, and following his section  on the Mormon fraudster Joseph Smith (and others) he concludes …

“In other words was he a huckster all the time, or was there a pulse [of greater but misguided good] inside him somewhere ? The study of religion suggests to me that, while it cannot possibly get along without great fraud and also minor fraud, this remains a fascinating and somewhat open question.”

Hooray. Good intentions can only ever be an excuse for bad decsions and actions, but believed intentions need to be understood, explained and made more likely to result in good decisions and actions in future. And what is good …

Bill Thomson on the “.me” Montenegro domain name.

“More and more people just go to their favourite search engine, type in what they’re looking for and don’t actually look for where it’s going.”

“So, although people might want a good domain … I just don’t think they’re as important as they were. And I don’t think they should be.”

Can’t argue with the final sentiment. Certainly they have initial attention grabbing value, in any new venture, but the names that stick go beyond fashion.

The Half-Moon lives to rock another day.

Joining up the dots has been a mantra of mine for 3 years or so (and a project under germination for most of that time) so interesting to hear this language from Obama.

“Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.”

The important semantics (and values) are in the connections. And by the way, I agree with Mardell here too.

Just a quickie. I’m reading Hitchens “God is not Great”. I admitted earlier, when I heard him talking, that I had understimated Hitchens in all the God vs Science hysteria. Will the intelligent world ever live down guilt by association with Dawkins !? Thank god for Dennett, Harris and Hitchens (and the Archbishop). Only a couple of chapters in … excellent read so far.

This struck me. After a litany of religiously compromised and politicised diabolical health-care decisions, he says … in passing … before continuing with his litany.

It happened to be election year in New York for the mayor, which often explains a lot.

My recurring point. You bet it explains most of the problem. It’s the decision-making meme at work (not theistic religion particularly – though how anyone could defend the organized religion examples in Hitchens health-care chapter is nevertheless beyond me). And it’s the decision-making meme at work in situations of governance and management. Reducing ethical decisions to binary choice has to be the dumbest solution to a complex problem – come in Mary Parker-Follett.

Bl**dy reductionist scientism again (see previous post).

Typical George Monbiot piece in the Guardian. A rant against consumerism leading to a call for a movement against consumerism. Well yeah, but for what ? He is right when he says …

“Our challenge is now to fight a system we have internalised.”

But I think you need to broaden your search for the cuplrit system, beyond consumerism itself. Most people really are more intelligent than to ignore the detrimental aspects of comsuming whilst ignoring the collateral damage.

The internalised system – the meme – we are suffering from, is one that leads us to expect simple logical considerations like this to be reflected in collective action. We have come to rely, through their immense success, on the processes of science and technology to lead us to “the right decisions and actions” as if by faith in their empirical, objective and reductionist magic.

We have internalized the “scientism” meme, at the expense of values and wisdom, in all aspects of living on the planet.

What we need is a movement for wisdom, values, quality … you name it … to counterbalance the idol of objectivity in numbers and logic.

Not expecting a quick return to Reading – Hmmm ?

…. to the list of theologians talking sense. Thanks to David Morey for the link.

Relatively few scientists are working constructively to build conceptual bridges between science and religion. (Of course, this makes the few who are all the more important.) Most bench scientists are suspicious of those who call for an integration of science and religion, a new unitary perspective that draws from and learns from both. New Age, Eastern, and some liberal theologians, for example, make such calls, and upon them are heaped the greatest amounts of scorn.

Must also read Clayton’s response to Dan Dennett. (Excellent, no truly brilliant, thoroughly recommended. Although billed as a response to Dennett, in fact there is no particular criticism of Dennett, but plenty for Dawkins – a man after mine own. 

 … I am less disturbed by Dawkins’ tin ear for all things theological. (After all, he writes so beautifully.)

Finely honed stuff. Direct hit on the memetic target.

[Post Note – Hans Kung – “The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion”]