Disqus - Latest Comments for mastermark

Re: Employees don’t have time to waste narrating their work

mastermark — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:50:27 -0000

I think this is spot on, Bertrand (but hey, I would do -- http://www.jroller.com/Mast.... But... Four years (!) after writing about social processes for the first time, I've learned some valuable lessons. Watching social tools being used, in anger, in the real world, has led me to notice two things that should have been blindingly obvious to me, but weren't:

1) some people strongly object to Big Brother watching over their every move, and they interpret pretty much every conceivable way of implementing the "transponder" or the "narrator" as being just that. Indeed, in the culture I've spent most of my adult life in (Germany's), the aversion to any kind of a "narrator" function is more than a behavioral quirk of some subset of the population -- it's a fundamental building block of the majority. So that beggars the question -- if you agree that people should not have to step out of the flow to narrate their work (and I certainly do agree with that, myself), but a significant group of people vigorously rejects any notion of automating that narration, what alternatives are left? The implications for system design raised by this question are both profound and subtle, and I have seen absolutely no attempt, from anyone, to take a serious run at them.

2) some people are disturbed by the notion of an automagic narrator not so much because of privacy concerns as they are because they're frightened of their boss. They have what can only be described as really lousy management supervising them, and they're concerned that if data about their daily work is exposed at the level of granularity that such a narrator implies, it will make their lives much worse, not better -- because what their lousy manager will do with that data is very bad indeed. This concern is often hidden behind the first one -- ostensible privacy concerns are often just a smokescreen for this deeper issue, in my experience. And at it's heart, this one is about something that you and others have been shouting about for years -- if you simply add social tools to Industrial Age business processes, you're as likely to make them worse as you are to improve them. If a work environment is characterized by a factory metaphor -- with assembly line thinking, where people are measured by the time spent on tasks more than on outputs, then narrating that work is about the scariest thing a worker could imagine.

I know you know all this, Bertand -- we've talked about some of it. But I think it's worth calling out, because I think *these* are the problems that need solving, that are important -- far more so than how fast Vendor X is moving to enable proper social processes.

Re: My Tools: Lotus Notes

mastermark — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:03:09 -0000

Amen, Graham. Agreed, right down the line.

Re: Moving from Channels to Platforms

mastermark — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:29:51 -0000

Yeah, I grok that. And I'm certainly not going to second-guess your circumstances.

The bit about "competitive advantage" is the one I brood about the most -- it's the same argument I get from my people, internally, to get me to shut my trap.

But here's the thing: are the *ideas* the competitive advantage? Or the *capabilities of the people* on your team to execute them? The argument you use here implies that just about anybody (within reason) could execute on such ideas -- meaning it's the idea itself that competitive advantage derives from.

When I hear that, I think about live music. It's not (only) the piece of music that interests me, but who is playing it. Hearing a local garage band play a Sigur Rós tune, and hearing *them* play it are two entirely different experiences. The world is richer for both, but the latter is arguably much more valuable.

If my team isn't adding that superstar performer advantage to a given idea (no matter how fantastic the idea is), then I think I've probably got the wrong team. OTOH, if I've got the right team, I don't think sharing the music freely is going to pose much of a threat to my advantage...

Dunno. I hear you. But I don't think I agree.

Re: Moving from Channels to Platforms

mastermark — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:48:07 -0000

But, for the record, I agree that your approach is a step in the right direction -- and maybe the only possible one.

Re: Moving from Channels to Platforms

mastermark — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:47:21 -0000

OK, grokked. Understand, I'm not disagreeing with you, and I certainly don't mean to imply that I'm questioning your judgement. I already know enough about you, and your judgement (and your taste in music ;)), to know that you're on that short list of people that I'd happily have along for the zombie apocalypse -- I trust you.

But this: "most of it is also of little interest to people outside the company" is an interesting remark. How can you know, a priori, what's interesting? Go back and look at what Andy says about "emergence" -- something you called out in this very blog post. Maybe there's an idea lurking in your meeting minutes that would set my world on fire -- how can you know? So my thinking is that, when in doubt, and assuming there's no obvious way for it to damage the company, get it out there...

Dunno. If I end up in jail, we'll know I was wrong... ;D

Re: Moving from Channels to Platforms

mastermark — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:36:50 -0000

So, is *this* the platform? At least partly? Meaning -- are you going to try and do as much as possible of that platform stuff outside of the firewall?

I'm struggling with that -- I'm trying to behave that way, despite the fact that it's often explicitly forbidden. Having concluded that any attempt to formally change the culture, and tear down the barriers directly (by, say, having endless meetings with lawyers about IP) is a waste of time, I have decided instead to lead by example, and on more than one occasion, have literally dared them to fire me.

That doesn't mean that I'm behaving irresponsibly, or sharing information which could hurt the company. But it does mean that I am breaking the stupid, senseless rules, and making their stupid senselessness apparent by doing so...

Re: Ruth and Lee

mastermark — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:17:23 -0000

I'm so sorry for your family's loss, Ric. FWIW, I don't think that saluting great people is an indulgence - more like a duty. You did yours well.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:57:59 -0000

+1. Where?

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:54:57 -0000

Well, sure, I know what Fred does... Aha! So you want him to *fund* our idea of archiving the universe in the cloud. Got it. You're right, Horacio. I'm the slow one. ;D

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:48:31 -0000

Yes, I do see that contradiction, mate. And I agree with you completely. But as I just commented elsewhere, I don't think it is what *Kirby* was talking about in the essay that got you (and thus Fred) started here.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:38:19 -0000

Lol. Fair enough. And as for the comprehension bit, I thought it was you who's slowly coming round, but again -- fair enough. ;)

I understand the deeper social and economic (and moral) problems you are alluding to. But my debate club training (lol) keeps compelling me to try and pull you back to (just) talking about Kirby's thesis -- that's what Fred's post, and this thread, is ostensibly about, after all.

And I stand by my assertion -- THIS THREAD is a wonderful refutation of Kirby's thesis. All by itself. You and I have connected, as have others. You and I could now go offline, and go into deep geek mode, talking about how to leverage Amazon S3 to provide a low cost way of archiving the entire universe (and why don't we do that? ;)), and that possibility could never have existed without this thing -- the very thing that Kirby is bemoaning.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:29:47 -0000

No, sorry, Horacio, that doesn't convince me. I understand (and admire) your passion, but I still think there are two different topics being conflated here.

1 -- as a species, we have a (sacred?) duty to try and preserve as much of our cultural output as possible. Indiscriminately. For all the reasons that you've put forth, here, and elsewhere in this thread. We cannot allow that process of preservation to be coupled to the market, or economic forces of any kind, of even to any sort of "enlightened" criticism, as that criticism will be bound, by human nature, too closely to its own age, and therefore biased.
2 -- as a species, we are entering an age of (perhaps permanent) vacuity, stupidity and reduced intellectual achievement, enabled by technologies that discourage deep thought and the slow development of craft.

I agree 150% with the first theme, and disagree just about as strongly with the second. (Having said that, the architect / geek in me can't help remarking that 1 is a *hard* problem, mate...)

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:10:29 -0000

But I am being serious, mate. The situation there would be even more dire if the regime had been able to limit the information flow more than they did. You're right that a contrast (unintended, but I see it now that you point at it) between the iPhone and the situation there is inappropriate, however -- sorry about that. Seriously. Didn't mean to make that juxtaposition -- typing faster than I'm thinking.

Having said that -- typing faster than I'm thinking -- isn't that what the essay you quoted is bemoaning? And isn't it what we're discussing here, in a broad sense? So, clearly, I'm guilty of exactly that which Läsky and Weeks are concerned about. To which I say: shrug. So what? The result of my doing so is a deepening of the conversation, in all of its messy, flawed, humanity, isn't it? How is that bad?

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:09 -0000

Agreed. (To be read to that old 80's track (can't recall who it was) "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" as soundtrack) ;)

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:54:27 -0000

Heh. I'm not convinced. Why do people always assume their immediate experience is something "new under the sun"?

Thought experiment: you had a copy of anything by Hemingway to Shakespeare. Do you assume that Will would see that as *progress*? As an *improvment* over the use of the language in his time? Lol. I doubt it. That thought experiment gets more amusing as you swap in different, modern writers. What would Will make of Ulysses (the Joyce version, natch)? Would he like, say, a Tolstoi translation better, and then be startled to learn it was a translation from Russian? Etc.

The future always looks like a catastrophe to middle-aged men.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:47:09 -0000

Ah, well I'm a system architect, so *that's* an argument I can wholeheartedly agree with. But the problem of archiving this stuff is an entirely different question from: do these new means of production encourage the production of more crap (which is basically what I understood Kirby to be arguing)? To which I have been arguing, "no, these new means of production don't change the ratio of crap to good stuff at all, or very little: they just make more of everything (crap and good stuff equally included) visible".

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:42:26 -0000

There's an interesting blurb about a recent study that echoes some of these thoughts about cultural differences on SciAm (http://www.sciam.com/articl... -- "Fishermen Think Holistically". There's a link to the original study there as well.

The question going through my mind, reading this excellent piece, was something like: how can we know if this is a truth? And not generational grumpiness like the Luddites? We are so close to the problem, so lacking in objectivity... The coming of the industrial revolution produced lots of similar protests about the death of craft, but as I gaze at my iPhone and my Powerbook, there is no doubt in my mind that industrial production can produce works of great aesthetic value.

Again, I think about Mynamar. The 'Net (and social software running on it) is already producing great triumphs...

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:39:05 -0000

Well, that would be nice (if we could do better), and I certainly wouldn't complain, but... Look, I just can't shake the feeling that my argument is not getting through to you, and I can only assume that's because I'm putting it badly. Let me try something else. Elsewhere (a bit further up in this thread), you say:

"Without these skills, the body of digital works of the coming generation could be at risk of being irremediably lost."

Are you assuming that the "body of work" that we have now, of the works of cultural value known to us, is a collection of the best of all possible works created throughout history? Do you assume that, throughout history, no incredibly brilliant works of cultural value have been lost? Do you assume that a process has existed -- up until recently -- that has ensured that such works were always recognised and valued and preserved?

If so, I disagree. I think it would be silly to assume anything other than the following: throughout the history of our species, it has been the *norm* (not the exception) for brilliant works of genius to vanish without a trace. Unnnoticed and unremarked. Uncountable works of cultural significance have *always* been created and then lost to us -- those that were not lost are the exceptions. Those works of cultural value (art, primarily, but also things like, say, the Code of Hammurabi) are the beneficiaries of a healthy portion of luck.

Frankly, that's one of the things that has us optimists all fired up -- consider the possibility that these new technologies *increase the chances of luck for all cultural works*. A rising tide lifts all boats, etc., yada yada.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:15:31 -0000

Oh, thanks. What a great post. I'm gonna come find *you* on Twitter, etc. ;)

@vruz: you perplex me, a bit, I must confess. You say:

"part of the discussion is precisely about the vacuity of the content." and "will this be the most representative body of work of humanity in the coming decades ?"

What body of work are you referring to? The Big Brothers and Britney Spears and Jenna Jameson's of the world (I actually like Jenna, FWIW. She's funny)? Rob Long just said:

"Sure, yeah, there's a lot of crap. But there's also a surprising amount of good stuff. More than when I started in this business in 1990, that's for sure."

Yes. *Exactly". There's a lot of good stuff, too. More than there used to be. Television is easiest to analyse, I find: things like The Wire and The Sopranos are surely worthy of posterity. But if you want to focus on the Net, my question remains the same: why the assumption that the output is only (or even mainly) crap? There's lots of great stuff too -- like, oh I don't know, say, Paul Ford's Ftrain (http://www.ftrain.com/). Or this thread, here. ;)

It's this dark, and frankly, cynical assumption that only the dreck is worth talking about that led me to infer that *you* were a pessimist, mate.

The stuff we're talking about has changed the scale, and the intensity, but not the essential *being* of who we are -- why would anybody assume that? We have produced much that is awful, in the past, and much that is wonderful -- why would anybody assume that new technologies could ever change that essential truth?

You keep asking if we could do better -- a worthy goal, no doubt. But implicit in your discourse is an apparent (and seemingly deep) dissatisfaction with where we are now, and I don't really grok that. Consider Myanmar. What has been happening there would have been *much* worse in an earlier age -- there can be no doubt about it. I was just reading something recently about the Ottoman Empire, and how the Emperor was able to maintain control over such a huge Reich for such a long time, in part, by playing the far-flung warlords off against each other: he was able to do that because he *controlled the communications technologies*. IOW, the Ottoman Empire, in its original form, is impossible today. So, yes, I suppose you were right, earlier (I realise, slowly, with some surprise): the way I see things, the glass *is* half-full.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:25:35 -0000

Interesting logic. You think learning and value can only be products of rules, discipline and authority? And we're engaging in this discussion here, so that... separates us.

I'm not in awe of the flood, Amanda, as you well know. But I don't think it's particularly worrying, either.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:04:08 -0000

Ah, you misunderstand me, but that's my fault for being unclear. First off, Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation (true, but a distinction not worth making, IMO)) is just a pop culture way of expressing a Pareto distribution. It doesn't really matter whether the numbers are 90/10, 80/20 or 50/50. I don't believe in any numbers -- all I am asserting is that these technologies will not change the existing distribution. Whatever the numbers were yesterday, that's what they're most likely going to be tomorrow. While I find your (implied) hope that these technologies could be used to change those numbers for the better impressive, I am as sceptical of that as I am of Kirby's assertion that they have changed them for the worse.

It's hard for me to understand how you could see that as being "optimistic", let alone "extreme". ;) Hence my assumption that you've misunderstood me. As for sensing a belief in you, I certainly did infer one (and I don't think my inference was unlikely, given your other statements). But that inference was wrong, and you have clarified it.

Funny how that creation of meaning stuff works. Hard for me to see how this "participatism" stuff makes that *worse*. ;D

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:22:41 -0000

Well, I'm arguing that there is no such thing as "pseudomodernism" - so I suppose I have to disagree. ;) As Steve Kane pointed out in his comment on Ways of Seeing, the creation of meaning has always been a participatory act, with all forms of art (arguably, in all semantic acts, ala Wittgenstein). Do the new technologies change that? Nah. Do they make new semantic forms possible, for which we do not yet have adequate critical tools? Perhaps. Who's the "author" of what I'm writing (and you're reading)? Fred Wilson? Kirby? You? Me?

Does it matter? The point is -- it's not new, it's just an extension / amplification of what the species has always done (and been) -- technology being the extender / amplifier. It's as good (or bad) as it's ever been, or ever will be. Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) has *always* been true, and it always will be. Technologies like the Net or cell phones, or reality TV shows, haven't changed that -- they've just made people like Kirby more aware of the 90%.

You ask a different question from Kirby -- you want to know if these technologies can enable more good. I suppose I'm trying to articulate that they will (most likely) enable just as much good (and bad) as any other tool ever has -- see Sturgeon's Law again. People get excited about new things, and have utopian fantasies about them -- that's fine. But in your posts (and in Kirby's article) I sense a belief that these tools are generating more bad than has been the case in the past. I don't think that's true. Sturgeon's Law works in the converse -- and that 10% is quite reliable.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:06:16 -0000

In my opinion, it plays as much or as little as anything else. The software in discussion here is social in nature -- it enables social behaviour. In a recent conversation with somebody at the Enterprise 2.0 conference, I pointed out that this is a hard problem -- many orders of magnitude harder than, say, calculating an insurance policy. At it's most extreme, that means dealing with everything from Palestine vs. Israel to Romeo and Juliet -- in other words, the entire spectrum of human experience.

This is what I think gregorylent means by "when it is "found", one realizes it was always there/here/around". People, being people, try to interpret new and unfamiliar experiences through the lens of their own experience -- after all, what else can one do? Kirby sees "pseudomodernism vs. everything that came before". Amanda Chapel (about as post-modern a construct as you could possibly hope for) sees everything as a question of propaganda and markets. Ayn Rand would no doubt see the relevance of Objectivism lurking behind every proud blog.

Shrug (and I don't know about you, but I'm hardly Atlas). It's all good.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:09:57 -0000

@vruz: But that's not true, either (that it was never *required*). Arguably, all "performance" art is participatory, and always has been, just in varying degrees. Again -- it's about technology as an enabler. So if you compare participating in a performance art act from the audience vs. in one of the acts cited by Kirby (Big Brother on the tube, any given Internet forum, etc.), the technological differences enable behavioural ones. Anonymity being a key difference, and one which obviously *encourages* participation.

The argument that any of this is new is specious. The only valid argument (using the technology as enabler tack) is that the degree and intensity is new.

Having said that: +1 on open source.

Re: What Comes After Post Modernism?

mastermark — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:36:55 -0000