by Paula Thornton
July 21, 2007 at 1:03 am
· Filed under Emergent, Enterprise 2.0
Oh, that’s right…they’re already dead.
So a conversation broke out across Rob Patterson’s posts. Dennis Howlett suggests that Zombies aren’t biological phenomena — accountants apparently aren’t good at concepts or analogies (obviously a need for ‘exactness’ is what draws them to their discipline…viva la difference).
The point is that Zombies are dead (imaginary phenomena or not). Death is an inherent state of absolute control. 2.0 is emergent…emergence is a core principle of complexity science…complexity is a moving ‘optimal’ between order and chaos. This is biological. The fact that Zombies are not biological is the classic irony of Rob’s point.
Clearly we are social beings. We operate in social ways. But ‘control’ impedes optimal social exchange. In a more open environment (open biology, feedback loops), relationships have a voice. Information has freer (less costly) exchange. Anti-social behaviors are more readily brought to light and change is demanded. Case in point: the recent testimony of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
This week, Ben Bernake highlighted the Federal Reserve’s responsibility to protect consumers in financial transactions: “After conducting extensive consumer testing, we issued a proposal in May that would require credit card issuers to provide clearer and easier-to-understand disclosures to customers. In particular, the new disclosures would highlight applicable rates and fees, particularly penalties that might be imposed. The proposed rules would also require card issuers to provide forty-five days’ advance notice of a rate increase or any other change in account terms so that consumers will not be surprised by unexpected charges and will have time to explore alternatives.”
Effectively, what Mr. Bernake is suggesting is that the freedom to engage in conversations is increasing the expectations for intelligent, open conversations. Attempts to ‘hide’ disclosures in small print prospectuses is no longer acceptable. He also notes that the measure of effective conversations is “understanding”, assessed via testing. Coming from a government entity this is a significant signal of momentum. My thanks to Ben Bernake.
Open conversations allow for consumers to bring to light inappropriate treatment and bad business behaviors. It also means that bosses who used to take credit for the work of their employees will be discovered. Coercion and bullying are adolescent behaviors. Open conversations bring maturity to relationships. The Black Market collapses against open markets in Ebay.
Web 1.0 was the great equalizer for commerce — garage or spare bedroom operations could compete against Fortune 500s. Web 2.0 is the great equalizer for conversation – markets are conversations.
Let’s just say “…we’re not going to take it any more”. We’ve found our voice and we will not be silenced.
Turn education into a conversation and the ‘fixed’ structures of age/grade are obliterated. I did more blazing through SRA programs on my own in 3rd grade, having also been given the freedom of learning through a tremendously gifted 2nd grade teacher who created accelerated instructions for a select group of us via reel-to-reel tapes while she taught the rest of the class live. Oh what that teacher could have done with today’s technology.
And yes, such freedoms WILL absolutely create deeper chasms. Those who choose to engage and to excel will, those who choose not to engage will be left in the dust. We’ve already seen this chasm of choice in business. The adoption of 2.0 will widen and deepen the chasm.
There is no need to intentionally choose not to engage in 2.0. Those who choose to engage will leave a vacuum behind their point of mass acceleration. It is a vacuum that will be tightly populated by hordes of zombies.
I can hear the sucking sound already.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink
Paula - do you want a conversation or merely to insult? If the latter then there is no more to be said.
I’m not sure if you are aware but I was educated as a social scientist. If you read what I said in answer to Bob’s arguments, you’ll see I pose a series of questions precisely because there is no one answer and that the problem he identifies is multi-dimensional. Think about that for a moment and you might discern that multi-dimensional problems are characterised by imprecision and complexity. Read also Bob’s later response to my assertions and it appears he agrees with my analysis of root cause issues.
As to the charge of exactness, I’m sorry you’ve bought into the prejudicial stereotype. Instead, I’d invite you to try this: Line up half a dozen accountants in the same room with a single set of figures and you’ll likely get half a dozen different interpretations. Why? Because it all depends…
Now to a few of your comments. You say:
“Effectively, what Mr. Bernake is suggesting is that the freedom to engage in conversations is increasing the expectations for intelligent, open conversations.”
How? The document you refer to makes no mention of that topic and I find it difficult to discern how you arrive at that position.
As far as I can tell, the testimony offered was the result of acknowledging plainly obvious abusive practices. If anything, I see the testimony as a call to amended *regulation.* In other words, a shifting of rights through the exercise of control mechanisms.
“Open conversations bring maturity to relationships.” Again - how? I’d argue the only way the position you argue works is when there is mutual respect for divergent opinion. As any counsellor will attest, that is one of the hardest conditions to establish among those with highly divergent views.
“…having also been given the freedom of learning through a tremendously gifted 2nd grade teacher who created accelerated instructions for a select group of us via reel-to-reel tapes while she taught the rest of the class live. Oh what that teacher could have done with today’s technology.”
I too had a similar experience and benefited accordingly. I presume the method adopted was based on an assumed (or assessed) level of ability to learn. That has nothing to do with social software but is about the application of educational techniques to accelerate a person’s learning. But. There is evidence that such systems exaggerate social division and undermine social cohesion. You acknowledge that in your following remarks.
I’d argue that in an educational context, children are unlikely to have the choices you describe. That leaves me perplexed as to how you triangulate the “obliteration of age/grade” with the system you describe, except through selection.
In any event, in the UK for example, there have always been mechanisms for providing gifted children with forms of education that allow them to take advantage of their abilities. Social software may well benefit this cohort but how might it benefit those who are disadvantaged?
For the sake of clarification, I am a huge fan of social software in appropriate contexts, introduced with sensitivity to pre-existing social constraints. Conversely, I am not a fan of solutions that carry the implied threat of leaving people ‘in the dust.’ To my mind, that is both a recipe for disaster and is divisive.
Apologies for humor and irony being mis-interpreted as attacks (clearly not an intent).
Dennis speaks of multi-dimensional problems. The point of complexity science was an embracing of the reality that life is multi-dimensional and cannot be solved with linear problem solving.
I would hope that with a social background these topics would be of great concern and thus drive an interest for deeper understanding. Part of that understanding hopefully would include a differentiation from technology as an enabler and the results. The ‘chasm’ I mentioned is not intentional, and is not designed. It simply frees human behavior to rise to its own potential…but potential that still requires personal responsibility to seek out the opportunity. The most tremendous success stories anywhere are about people seeking something better.
If there were an argument to be made, it would be a deepening of the position we’re suggesting by showing the reality of the American Industry Revolution. Clearly, the icons of that era were self-made individuals. They leveraged opportunities that they saw (e.g. providing a ferry system in New York, starting with nothing). In the end, the success of the individuals created huge gaps between their income and individual incomes of the people who continued to build their empires. If there were a real argument to be made it would be to suggest that the gaps I mentioned are not so new — they were an inherent part of our history, and occur as a result of a major economic shift, facilitated by new technology, and driven by individuals driven to maximize their own potential.
In this case, there is a new dynamic — individuals optimizing their potential as part of a symbiotic collective. The technology has no responsibility to ‘force’ people to optimize their potential — it only makes it easier for more to do so. It would appear that the technology is already doing what Dennis appears to be trying to defend.
Access to technology is definately an issue and there are many who work constantly to make this a non-issue. But this is not a new problem…ask the cultures who lost out to the Roman Empire.
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
