My point is this: SF kidz have great intuition.
It works like a white-list.
So anything that doesn't finger their joy-buttons gets pushed away.
It's SocialPsych 101.
If you got a /really/ good financial offer, I bet you'd put up with *cough* behaviour you considered *fidget* unconventional, right?
And that's hot it is with A-list; if you're one of the "elect" then you're in.
And if you aren't on that list then you'd better conform if you know what's good for you.
What I'd like to talk about something that will take FD tech and ummmm "blow away" WikiaSearch and Mahalo both.
"It's all about ubiquity" ... well, something is ... maybe self-validation, and self-perpetuation ... but not much more. (That's Greg Reinacker, of course.)
I 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."
But 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?
Know how that impacts me? Peek Gnodal.LiveJournal.com ... 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.)
Orthogonal to "search".
Orthogonal to "concept mapping".
Complimentary to evidence-based decision making.
Consonant with applicable SW principles.
Parenthetically, in his theory of wicked problems Conklin says it's cuz they aren't amenable to the scientific method.
So even he is caught in the "narrow" trap *yoiks!*.
What he says is true, sort of, in a way ... in a narrow sense. Just like Greg is correct in a narrow sense.
But 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.
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.
And in SF?
Not just smarts: SF has 60% of the world's IT VC within 20 miles.
But look at the consequences that's had on folks' attitudes.
If you don't fit their filters, you don't exist.
So, really, it's all about "What's the next killer-app?" ...
... fiddling around while the world burns.
"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.