In May 09 when we first used Tweepsearch to count of the Twitter bios of self-proclaimed social media gurus, experts, superstars and ninjas there were 4,487. A mere seven months later, we were shocked to see that there are now nearly 16.000. They are multiplying like rabbits.

Source: here

why is it that Jay Matthews, the New York Times, the Education Empowerment Project, the US DoE and so many others so willing to promote a myth?

Because it is easier… because if we could only believe that we could solve all the problems of educating students in poverty with charismatic school leaders and hard working teachers… and that all the kids who don't get the education they need are simply being underserved by those lazy teachers… that would absolve our society…. We could point to those schools that succeed against all odds and say, "See… if they do it, every school should be able to do it." It is a myth that keeps us from really understanding what is necessary to solve the problems for the children of our cities. It is the myth of the schools that have solved the problems.

Except those schools haven't. Not completely. Not for every student. In the end, those schools — like all our schools — struggle and fail to reach every kid.

Just ask the other thirteen.

Source: here

such are the limitations of our understanding of the brain, attempting to apply the findings of neuroscience to social policy would be premature, even if this were not wrong in principle. But it is wrong in principle. The fabric of the human world, of the public space that is the arena of our lives, is woven out of explicit shared attention that has been infinitely elaborated in a way that has little to do with what goes on in the darkness of the individual skull, though you require a brain in working order in order to be part of it. If you come across a new discipline with the prefix “neuro” and it is not to do with the nervous system itself, switch on your bullshit detector. If it has society in its sights, reach for your gun. Bring on the neurosceptics.

Source: here

What should we believe? Transcendentalists tend to believe that everything is interconnected and that all events happen for a reason. Empiricists tend to think that randomness and coincidence interact with the causal net of our world and that belief should depend on evidence for each individual claim. The problem for skepticism is that transcendentalism is intuitive; empiricism is not. Or as folk rock group Buffalo Springfield once intoned: Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep …

Source: here

“Sanity may impress us, but it has never been made to seem attractive; sanity may be a good thing, but it is somehow not desirable. The terrifying thing – and it is the only terrifying thing that is ever glamorized – is madness; and, as ever, it is the frightening that seems real. Violence in the street is more likely to stay with us … than, say, the more ordinary kindnesses of everyday life. We may be unaccustomed to valuing things, to exploring things, that are not traumatic. Sanity may be one of those things.”

Yes, classification is political. Yes, classification is imperfect in a changing world. Yes, we need to be wary of all that. But what are “tags”, “folksonomies”, “ontologies”, and “tag clouds” when you put them together? A classification system, albeit a glossary.

Ontologists of the Semantic Web ilk are not trying to model the world, as I understand it. It is a non-religious undertaking. What they are (generally) trying to do is to improve Computer-to-Computer communication so as better to support computer-mediated communication between us.

Where possible, ontologies add some logic into the mix to allow a level of inference. Zip code is equivalent to post code, on some level. But where they can’t add the logic, then they don’t.

Tags aren’t and can’t be a proof that ontologies don’t work. What tags could be, is a means identifying which areas have enough (political) consensus to be worth developing an ontology for, for understanding how groups talk about certain ideas/events/things and so helping modellers mitigate their observer bias, and the areas where old ontologies are breaking down and an indicator for how to fix them.

The four most dangerous words in investment are: “It’s different this time”

Wonder how much that applies to social software and organisational behaviours?

Evolution does not necessarily favour the “best solutions”
(see Betamax, President Bush … )

I’m more confident than ever about the importance – and the difficulty – of addressing the topic of knowledge worker productivity. Just remember: It’s the Next Big Thing, and you heard it here first.

This sort of statement drives me mad. CIO magazine may be more glamorous than, for instance, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and Monsieur Davenport a well-known figure, but please … shouting loudest just isn’t the same as being first. The ideas may well be great ideas, but a little bit of humility, a little bit of “there are lot’s of people cleverer than me”, and a little bit of attribution will always be preferable to “ME! I WIN! I THOUGHT IT FIRST!”. But, sigh, I suppose it won’t always get you fame.

Tea, one lump, please. Make that two lumps.