Category Archives: Linking Thinking

Link­ing to what oth­ers are think­ing about learn­ing as a way to explore how we learn online.

N
How To Write With Style

“Pity the read­ers,” advises Kurt Von­negut, whom he calls “imper­fect artists,” strug­gling to mas­ter the dif­fi­cult task of mak­ing sense of thou­sands of scrib­bles on the page. This is my favourite bit advice from Kurt Vonnegut’s “How to Write With Style” (orig­i­nally pub­lished in Palm Sun­day, 1981) that remains rel­e­vant in the net­worked age: “Our audi­ence requires us to be sym­pa­thetic and patient read­ers, ever will­ing to sim­plify and clar­ify — whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightin­gales. This is the bad news.” The good news? We can write about what­ever we please.

♦ ♦ ♦

N
The Weird Science of Stock Photography

Adver­tis­ing decon­structed: Stock pho­tog­ra­phy sup­pli­ers must be able to guess which abstract con­cepts clients want to illus­trate, and then have pho­tos and video on hand that res­onates. So,what can we glean from the ubiq­ui­tous “Every­where Girl” and mid-ocean oil rig in a storm?

♦ ♦ ♦

L
Shortening the Tail of Scientific Expertise?

Is the web nar­row­ing sci­en­tists’ exper­tise? Soci­ol­o­gist James Evans’ work iden­ti­fies that as more jour­nals become avail­able online, dra­mat­i­cally fewer arti­cles are being cited in the research papers within them. “Rather than mea­sur­ing the length of the tail, it seems that mod­ern sci­ence is actu­ally focus­ing on a tiny bit of it.” The rea­sons for this phe­nom­e­non are unclear, but he does sug­gest that online data­bases make it less likely now than in the past for researchers to inte­grate serendip­i­tous gems of dis­cov­er­ies into their research. Per­haps prov­ing the old adage that, an “expert is some­one who knows more and more about less and less until, even­tu­ally, he knows every­thing about nothing.”

♦ ♦ ♦

N
The Importance of Being There

Bill Thompson’s thought­ful con­clu­sions on attend­ing a sem­i­nar to see Clay Shirky think out loud about social tools, a sem­i­nar that he might just as eas­ily have attended online, but one he was dri­ven to attend in per­son by an ‘inner need’:

What is clear, how­ever, is that the bound­aries between the online and offline worlds are blur­ring as we put our hands through the looking-glass of the screen to shake hands with those on the other side, occa­sion­ally pulling them back through into what we still like to call “real life”.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
Cultural Evolution

Paul Ehrlich makes some obser­va­tions on the daunt­ing task of build­ing a com­pre­hen­sive the­ory of cul­tural change. He dis­misses Richard Dawkins’ brave but flawed con­jec­ture about “memes” (gene analogs of cul­tural inher­i­tance), but does sup­port the con­tentious notion that nat­ural selec­tion can oper­ate in cul­tural evo­lu­tion as well as in genetic evo­lu­tion, although not likely as a cen­tral force. He paints a daunt­ing but hope­ful and cer­tainly vital under­tak­ing. “…since every­thing from weapons of mass destruc­tion to global heat­ing are the results of changes in human cul­ture over time, acquir­ing a fun­da­men­tal under­stand­ing of cul­tural evo­lu­tion just might be the key to sav­ing civ­i­liza­tion from itself.”

♦ ♦ ♦

E
The Next Renaissance

In his keynote address at the Per­sonal Democ­racy Forum 2008, Dou­glas Rushkoff points out that there is in fact noth­ing per­sonal about democ­racy. Rather, it is about tran­scend­ing the self and act­ing col­lec­tively. Sadly, even though the social media tools we use cede cen­tral author­ity to decen­tral­ized groups and give us a way to par­tic­i­pate in small ways, we tend to miss the real oppor­tu­nity to recon­fig­ure how democ­racy oper­ates (cf. the first Renais­sance). The oppor­tu­nity is not to blog about pol­i­tics, but rather to reclaim our role as cit­i­zens who par­tic­i­pate in the cre­ation of the soci­ety in which we want to live:

If Obama is indeed elected the first truly Internet-enabled can­di­date, we should take him at his word. He does not offer him­self as the agent of change, but as an advo­cate of the change that could be enacted by peo­ple. It is not for gov­ern­ment to cre­ate solar power, for exam­ple, but to get out of the way of all those peo­ple who are ready to imple­ment solar power, them­selves. Respond­ing to the will­ing­ness of peo­ple to act, he can remove reg­u­la­tions devel­oped on behalf of the oil indus­try to restrict its proliferation.

♦ ♦ ♦

R
Dawn of the Picasso Fish

Carl Zim­mer gives a typ­i­cally fas­ci­nat­ing account of the evo­lu­tion of our under­stand­ing of how the flat­fish came to have two eyes on one side of its head, an evo­lu­tion­ary conun­drum that engaged both Charles Dar­win and his crit­ics. Dar­win argued that the trait evolved over many gen­er­a­tions of flat­fish; how­ever there was no evi­dence for this mor­pho­log­i­cal devel­op­ment in the fos­sil record.The most recent con­tri­bu­tion to the story is evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gist Matt Friedman’s dis­cov­ery of three exam­ples of tran­si­tional forms of flat­fish among the dusty fos­sil col­lec­tions of Europe. What is most inter­est­ing to me is that these fos­sils were long ago col­lected and curated, but so clearly sat­isfy the require­ment of a Dar­win­ian inter­me­di­ate. Matt Fried­man explains:

I sup­pose there is a gen­eral per­cep­tion that museum col­lec­tions are dusty, sta­tic archives, and that every­thing in them has been care­fully stud­ied and pre­cisely iden­ti­fied. But the truth is that they are much more than just long-term stor­age, because as our inter­pre­tive frame­work matures, we can begin to make sense of spec­i­mens that evaded or baf­fled ear­lier gen­er­a­tions of researchers, or draw new con­clu­sions about mate­ri­als we mis­tak­enly thought we had fig­ured out ages ago.

♦ ♦ ♦

A
The Sky Is Falling

The odds that a poten­tially dev­as­tat­ing space rock will hit Earth this cen­tury may be as high as one in 10. Gregg East­er­brook explores why NASA isn’t try­ing harder to pre­vent cat­a­stro­phe, and in doing so offers insight into why our insti­tu­tions learn so slowly. Con­ven­tional think­ing – that the remain­ing space rocks are few, and that encoun­ters with plan­ets were con­fined to our pre­his­toric past – has been eclipsed by more dan­ger­ous real­i­ties, but serve to sup­port NASA’s pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with build­ing a manned moon base.

♦ ♦ ♦

N
The Crowd Within

Psy­chol­o­gists reveal in a study pub­lished in Psy­cho­log­i­cal Sci­ence a corol­lary of the wis­dom of crowds: the aver­age of two guesses made by the same per­son at dif­fer­ent times are bet­ter than either guess on its own. The accu­racy of the sec­ond guesses improves when it is made three weeks rather than imme­di­ately after the first. If a guess by def­i­n­i­tion is the best pos­si­ble answer, where do these sec­ond guesses come from? The researchers sug­gest that we are con­stantly cre­at­ing hypothe­ses about the world, and check­ing them against real­ity. Sec­ond guesses are refined first guesses that have passed muster.

♦ ♦ ♦

N
2b Or Not 2b?

Rumours of the death of lan­guage by tex­ting have been slightly exag­ger­ated. We will not see a new gen­er­a­tion of adults grow­ing up unable to write proper Eng­lish, says lin­guis­tics pro­fes­sor David Crys­tal:

[On the con­trary], it is merely the lat­est man­i­fes­ta­tion of the human abil­ity to be lin­guis­ti­cally cre­ative and to adapt lan­guage to suit the demands of diverse set­tings.… In tex­ting what we are see­ing, in a small way, is lan­guage in evo­lu­tion. Tex­ting has added a new dimen­sion to lan­guage use, but its long-term impact is neg­li­gi­ble. It is not a disaster.

♦ ♦ ♦