My point is this: SF kidz have great intuition.
\nIt works like a white-list.
\nSo anything that doesn’t finger their joy-buttons gets pushed away.<\/p>\n
It’s SocialPsych 101.<\/p>\n
If you got a \/really\/ good financial offer, I bet you’d put up with *cough* behaviour you considered *fidget* unconventional, right?
\nAnd that’s hot it is with A-list; if you’re one of the “elect” then you’re in.
\nAnd if you aren’t on that list then you’d better conform if you know what’s good for you.
\nBummer.
\nAnd wicked.<\/p>\n
What I’d like to talk about something that will take FD tech and ummmm “blow away” WikiaSearch and Mahalo both.
\n“It’s all about ubiquity” … well, something is … maybe self-validation, and self-perpetuation … but not much more. (That’s Greg Reinacker, of course.)
\nI studied the sorta thing that allows me to say such as this: “Any half-assed psychopath will easily make himself ubiquitous … along with the standard psychological insightfulness and charm.”
\nBut folk go for that sorta thing … it’s sexy and kewl and with-it and … and it’s from someone A-list, which puts you in the company of someone A-list if you go along. You see?<\/p>\n
Know how that impacts me? Peek Gnodal.LiveJournal.com<\/a> … that’s treated as though rat-droppings. Mebbe cuz how I talk now and again … maybe because it’s LJ … maybe because folk who rely on their “intuition” that way are just, well, narrow. “Search is part of the fundamental infrastructure of the Internet.” That’s Jimmy Wales. And I agree with him. More: I appreciate the balanced tone he’s taken; accuracy and precision both. (Most folk think of those two as synonyms. They aren’t. Anyone who’s needed either of them in a real-life situation knows they’re separate and distinct. Got a sec? Another mis-use of language. The huge popularity of “social software” is said to evidence the need for it. Nope … more self-validation … what it demonstrates is perhaps no more than the appetite … not the need. Again, separate and distinct. For some folk such as that actually matters.)<\/p>\n My stuff? bentrem.sycks.net\/gnodal\/<\/a> is also treated like rat shit. Parenthetically, in his theory of wicked problems Conklin says it’s cuz they aren’t amenable to the scientific method. Meanwhile … I’ve moved back to Edmonton after 20 years in NS raising kids in the hills of Cape Breton. (1 engineer, 1 webmistress\/journalist, 1 physio-therapist, 1 kindergarden teacher, and daughter #2 is MD … yaa, I’m a real flake … heh) and there’s lotsa raw cash here but no smarts.<\/p>\n And in SF? But look at the consequences that’s had on folks’ attitudes. So, really, it’s all about “What’s the next killer-app?” … “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”; my cohort sold out big-time, got rich, and protect opportunities to make sure their kids maintain their monopolies.
\nBummer.<\/p>\n
\nOrthogonal to “search”.
\nOrthogonal to “concept mapping”.
\nComplimentary to evidence-based decision making.
\nConsonant with applicable SW principles.<\/p>\n
\nAnd http:\/\/MozDawg.blogspot.com<\/a> too.
\nSo many bright minds … so narrow … so lazy.<\/p>\n
\nSo even he<\/i> is caught in the “narrow” trap *yoiks!*.
\nWhat he says is true, sort of, in a way … in a narrow sense. Just like Greg is correct in a narrow sense.
\nBut he’s narrowed “science” and unfortunately constrained “scientific method” … because that serves to compliment his approach? Well, yes … maybe not “in order to” but yes, his approach would have him see it that way.
\nBummer.<\/p>\n
\nNot just smarts: SF has 60% of the world’s IT VC within 20 miles.<\/p>\n
\nIf you don’t fit their filters, you don’t exist.<\/p>\n
\n… fiddling around while the world burns.<\/p>\n
\nBummer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"