How MicroPublishing Is Killing The Nuances of Knowledge

http://coconutheadsets.com/2009/05/03/how-micropublishing-is-killing-the-nuances-of-knowledge/

by dineshraju • 17 years ago

12 9 17 years ago

coconutheadsets.com

DannoHung• 17 years ago

People actually have serious conversations on Twitter?

I just chat with friends and look for links.

Ardit202• 17 years ago

I don't even use it at all

sho• 17 years ago

10 points for using the term "availability cascade".

However, I wouldn't be too worried about Twitter. I do not see it having the significance to the nature of conversation that the author presumes. It's just another option, of easy to use but short format broadcast messaging, and I am sure that people will adjust their expectations in the fullness of time. It's really early days yet.

tezza• 17 years ago

Worrying about declining:

:: IQs :: Attention spans :: Standards of teaching :: "Nuances of Knowledge"

is a pre-occupation soley of educated middle classers.

Other people are busy doing what they always did,(inanely communicating) just via any new method.

As an guideline to the mean, here in the UK hairdressers and taxi drivers are regarded as the benchmark "Man on the Street"[1].

How many Hairdressers and Cabbies Tweet??

Then ask yourself if they _all_ tweeted, would that materially effect how "Nuanced their Knowledge" was?

-------------

[1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=9053

ajkirwin• 17 years ago

Twitter is no better or worse than say.. firing off a quick email to someone. Or a short telephone call.

Or any other means of quick, social communication.

bluefish• 17 years ago

This is all typical technology-is-killing-society-and-making-you-stupider bombastic drivel. When the mail system was instituted in the US a part of the population claimed it would be the end of modern society. That it would eliminate face to face interaction and increase indecency as a delivery method for porn (it did do the latter). Same with the telephone. But here we are, Twitter isn't going to destroy society, make us stupider or less passionate. It's just another way of receiving information. In 140 characters.

Ardit202• 17 years ago

Well the mail did change society at the time and so did the telephone, the internet has certainly changed society and perhaps if everyone started talking in 140 characters that would also change society. Perhaps not completely, but surely to some extent. I mean some might argue that we as people are no different than the ancient Greeks, we still have the same passions for love and hate and drama etc, but surely on a functioning level our society is much different.

dkarl• 17 years ago

I think it has more to do with SXSW Interactive, which is what inspired his post. 80% of SXSW is a bunch of people who want to get rich or famous on the web paying hundreds of dollars for the chance to sit googly-eyed in the same room as a few people who have become rich or famous on the web, or who at least worked at a company that made somebody else rich or famous. It's inherently boring. The fact that it's nominally about technology can't rescue it.

I managed to see a couple of interesting panel meetings -- yes, exactly two -- when I attended in 2008. They were quite good, and since I got a combined Interactive/Film pass I didn't feel like I got ripped off. (I did feel like I was living beyond my means -- hence my non-return this year.) But I spent most of the panel meetings googling the panelists trying to find something interesting to read about their work, while they answered questions from adoring fans (and from each other) by saying, "Well, what you really have to do, which I really learned the hard way at MyFamousWebSite.com, is give the customers what they want." "Yes, that's right Jim, especially when they don't know what they want." "<appreciative chuckle>." This drivel at panel meetings with awfully interesting and high-concept titles. I'm not surprised SXSW Interactive inspired some reflection about the trivialization of human knowledge.

Half the panelists were just promoters or PR hacks representing a company. They may have been the original founding CEOs yadda yadda yadda but they were acting as PR hacks, present solely to project the right image for their company and convert their minor fame into web traffic. Some panelists who were there flogging their companies recognized that they had an obligation to the people who paid to see them, and actually said interesting things and tried to answer interesting questions. That's actually an effective way of promoting a company, if anybody's wondering. I don't care what a guy talks about -- his new product or alpaca cheese -- I'm going to check out his company and their products if and only if he gives me something worth thinking about. Partly that's because I want to reward him for being a good speaker, but partly it's a natural mechanism: anything substantial enough that it can't be completely digested on the spot will pop up later for further mulling over, which is a logical occasion for finding out more about the speaker and his company.

gojomo• 17 years ago

I like the analogy made here between errors/unpredictability caused by numerical rounding, and 'rounding' thoughts down to 140 characters.

How MicroPublishing Is Killing The Nuances of Knowledge

Related Stories