Acronym

Scott, what are your conclusions? My Dr. Spock headgear is in for repairs.

Ok, Virgil, maybe you caught me in a lazy post. Maybe.

My point is that I accepted the interpretation of the studies that I was given without consideration. I immediately leapt into thinking about what those interpretations mean about human nature.

For example, when my kids are old enough, I want to show them the Milgram experiments, so they know they can trust their moral judgment more than authority. (Yes, I know, it must suck to be my kid.) Sorry for the digression...

I think it's just important to always be looking for unexpected or alternative perspectives. The fact is, either interpretation can be used to develop applicable lessons.

I think this is such an interesting area for associations.

On the one hand, in a world awash in information (often inaccurate) the association could be what Kevin Kelly once described as the "trusted editor" using its authority to advance, certify, endorse, etc. factual/accurate information, positions, etc. We've always done this to a certain extent, but it might be even more valuable in some cases nowadays.

Yet, the established institutions have self-interest as well, and I find myself thankful that individual bloggers and other alternative voices demonstrate their moral authority by exposing the false logic, misinformation, incomplete arguments, etc., some of our most trusted institutions advance.

While I don't think we are yet all wallowing in a sea of relativism, I do more regularly find myself wondering whose moral judgment (other than my own) to trust.

Hmm. I have said for a very very long time (since high school, and long before I had kids) that one crucial thing I would teach my kids is that everything they read, or are told, comes from one point of view (and has an agenda) and they have to be aware of what that point of view is before they accept what they are reading. Since I believe that so strongly, I tend to find myself the devil's advocate a lot, or at least someone who is not afraid to question. Therefore I trust my own judgment before anything I read, and if I am interested in the topic, I will go and find lots more information about whatever it is. And as a blogger, I will listen to lots of people and their differing viewpoints. I also like to debate issues and I love to be proved wrong (which happens all the time). But, maybe because I worked for five years in marketing / communications / PR / legal for an insurance company (i.e. "the bad guys"), I know from experience that the "company line" or the "authority" is absolutely NOT to be trusted, that data can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say.

Going back to my original comment about Andrew Keen, I chose at the time to not read the article because I can't abide people who rant for the sake of ranting. Then after consideration and your prompting, I went back to the article and did find a couple of interesting things in it. But I recently posted a video of a discussion with Keen on PrincipledInnovation.tv, and he says point blank that he wrote his book "the Cult of the Amateur" as a polemic, to stir up controversy, and that some of his "facts" are "loose"... so, great, he's now made a name for himself with that, well done, great money making tactic, well done. I choose not to play that game. But I never said I was not interested in discourse in general! I wouldn't be a blogger if I was! So I absolutely do not ignore views that are different than mine - far from it. I do tend to ignore assholic (forgive my French), or stupid writing though, like Keen's. Just to clarify. : )

Hey, as long as we're talking about misinformation, how about my newest blog post:

"Social Media and the Spread of FUD*"
http://www.ddmcd.com/fud.html

- Dennis

ps - I actually think it's relevant to this discussion, by the way.

Here's a Friday thought on Wednesday:

I like to read comments. I do. I'm amazed that most blogs don't have a feed for them, only for the author's postings. I've always thought communication was a 2-way exchange, as is true learning.

I'm going to leave the "challenge authority" and "we are like sheep" issue to others. I was around when it was a bumper sticker. It was no more logical then.

On the other hand, I am intrigued by the apparent rising acceptance of "wisdom of crowds" that we are witnessing. Doesn't this really raise the issues of the "crowdocracy" (or who most recently edited the wiki contents--and why?) vs "branded" knowledge and scholarship and experience from a recognized (respected?) source vs individual beliefs and values? Where is the applicable and reliable knowledge? And how do you know?

Knowing that "wisdom of crowds" is the reson d'etre of web 2.0, I do not skip lightly over the fact that implied criticism may lead to another record high level of passionate web 2.0 comments! I have prepared my position: We have no fear to fear, but fear itself. I'm pretty sure that's true.

As Jeff rightly points out, we are not yet up to the gunnels in a sea of relativism--nor should we be.

Thanks for your thoughts Maddie. I realize that I've probably called you out publicly now twice on something that I don't really think describes you very well -- at least not from what I see on your blog (I am a fan).

That original post did rub me the wrong way, and not because of the Keen stuff or the design critique -- I relish any and all comments about Associations Now, good or bad, I just like to know someone is paying attention... and cares.

But the part of the post that did it was the idea of not wanting to be critical. I just think smart engagement with criticism is very beneficial. After reading your blog for half a year now, I personally don't think you shy away from conversations that are critical or adversarial in nature.

Anyway, for calling you out on it -- twice no less -- I apologize. In case anyone remembered the previous post, I felt obligated to point out that I'm covering a new topic in today's post. And I like it when I catch little hypocrisies in myself, which is what I was pointing out in this post. I advocate seeking alternative views, and yet I blindly accepted the generally accepted interpretations of these studies without questioning it.

Virgil, it often takes a long time for me to parse through your ideas -- there's so much in there to dig through and consider.

It's funny you mention wisdom of crowds in relation to this blog post (and subsequent discussion). I almost included another study in the post, the one where people are told to walk around randomly in a room, staying within a couple feet of someone else. There are a couple of ringers in the study that are told to work in a certain pattern at a certain gait. It doesn't take long before everybody is walking the same pattern at the same gait.

I was wondering how this related to Surowiecki's ideas on wisdom of crowds, but then I wasn't sure if it really was a new way to approach the idea, so I left it out of the post.

As for the intersection of wisdom of crowds, web 2.0, and associations, I guess I like to think of two kinds of information, both of them important and both of them should be part of how associations think of content.

One is the notion of centralized content -- this is the content of "experts," the books, white papers, presentations, articles, or anything else that the association has vetted and says is good. This is classically what associations do.

Then there's decentralized content. The organic stuff that bubbles up from community. Before anybody ever heard of web 2.0, associations realized this. Think of panel discussions -- those are the classic experts. But then when education participants start asking questions and even answering them, that's decentralized, and it's a format that many years ago emerged for associations.

I do think having a plan for decentralized content is much critical for associations than it used to be, but I also don't think associations should give up their role as content guardians. The trick is to be sure those consuming the content know one from the other.

Dude! I love it! No need to apologize! I think in my original post I wanted to make a distinction between the critic who spends his whole time and energy shooting things down (eg Keen), and the enthusiast who spends their whole time reporting excitedly and positively about things they find interesting (eg me) - and we all need to be a bit of both! But I think you will agree that I am quite comfortable being "critical" (and/or constructively so) when necessary even if I would never want to be a "critic", strictly speaking. Some may say it's all semantics, but there's a fundamental difference in attitude which is the distinction I was trying to make.

"crowdocracy" or not, the point in the Asch study that I honed into was "However, the subjects conformed much less if they had an "ally" In some of his experiments" ... because what I'm always looking for is how to scatter the sheep rather than why they are conforming. As a prepare for yet another "strategic planning" session, I'm going to consider this as a strategy. As often the odd voice out, I have found it useful to look someone in the eyes and "invite" them to agree with me.