Hi: Some of this is over my head, but I do see something missing that I'd like to add. What I have been doing, and it is recognized as different, is using journalism to guide people to a social network where they will find people of like mind. Now this is my assumption...that people of like mind will trade together. This can be for money or mind, but trade.
Now just because some content is out there doesn't mean people will flock to it. That requires advertising and traffic. Is there something in the model you are discussing that regards moving traffic to a network? Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:59 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: > I'm not so sure. When you hang out with think-tank types (or, in > general, people who are smarter than they _need_ to be), then this may > be true. But, I don't think it's not true for the general population. > Examples I was thinking of: churches, community watch groups, school boards, that sort of thing. People that want those in their peer group to present themselves in a low risk, low dimensionality, low variability fashion. Think-tank type people may or may not be among them depending on what think-tank you have in mind. >> Discussants who might >> not even be able to tolerate one another in person can find common >> ground. Take all of those mere common denominator discussions and >> contrast them against the alternative which is that they might not occur >> at all given personal idiosyncrasies, or geographic or cultural >> boundaries. I suggest redefining `common denominator' to as `dimensions >> of intersection' and remember there are billions of people all with >> different dimensions. >> > > I like the reformulation from common denominator to dimensions of > intersection. But, what is it you're really saying, here? You're > saying: "Discussants who are normally so pathological that they can't > interact with their peers find solace in the abstraction provided by > certain devices." > The American Heritage dictionary defines pathological this way: ADJECTIVE:*1.* Of or relating to pathology. *2.* Relating to or caused by disease. *3.* Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: /a pathological liar./ You don't have a maladaptive behavior until you define the peer group, because you need that before you have norms and expectations. Social networks open up the set of peer groups. The square peg can find a square hole instead of being limited to a round one. Thus, less maladaptive behavior. In the longer term, it seems plausible that social networks modulated by technology, networks that provide large sets of easy-to-find subspaces for interaction, could lead to less adaptive behavior in individuals overall. Reason being that a person finds a compatible crowd and then the crowd may slowly becomes more and more homogeneous. But it also seems plausible that any random sample of people in the same geographic vicinity would have similar attributes. They too have specialized to their environment. [ Note Roger Crichlow's recent mention of that article in PNAS on changing environments leading to faster learning. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0611630104v1 ] > It's also true that the vast majority of us have small, tight networks > and large, loose networks. Heh, it makes me think of that bumper sticker "It takes village to elect an idiot." Maybe you are on to something, but I don't think you are. ;-) > We don't try near as hard to understand the > individuals in those large loose networks. And anyone who thinks this > can be overcome by arbitrary changes in the _technique_ that supports > the network is delusional. In the end, it's all about attention and > where you choose to place yours, regardless of the technique. > I agree there is no `right' technique. I do think it is possible to not be limited by the slogan "think globally, act locally". Thanks to the internet (and even social networking services -- gack) it can be just as feasible to act globally. For example, by working on open source software projects, developing independent internet-based news outlets, etc. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
