Phil why are all your analogies about wars and fighting? I’m actually a creative person, always have been. Does someone who writes a book try to defeat anyone? I don’t think so. I think they want to express something. I want new tools to exist for people with knowledge to be able to share it with others and to build on other people’s knowledge.
Good point. I accentuate the conflict here on this blog, not because I'm interested in stirring up trouble, but as one analytic technique. I probably spent too much of my life studying evolutionary game theory. And I tend to see history as formed by the clash of competing ideas, strategies, classes and technologies.
But that's not the only perspective. I think conflict can be useful to help understand what happened, and what will happen, but there are other filters too. No question that Dave works as hard as anyone to build bridges, increase interoperability and allow people to communicate.
And making connections is pretty much the meaning of life in the rapidly arriving network society.
There should be analyses of platforms in terms of construtive, non-zero-sum deal-making and creative expression, rather than merely in terms of competition as though it was all some kind of sports event.
Well, let's see if I can find a way to do that.
3 comments:
"No question that Dave works as hard as anyone to build bridges, increase interoperability and allow people to communicate."
To use one of Mark Pilgrim's more irritating phrases: "you must be new around here".
PS. bridgebuilding
Your blog is awesome. I apology for my recent deluge of comments, but you have really top-notch stuff here.
As for the war analogies -- I think they're reasonable. War is just one field of meaningful struggle with fellow humans. Music, photography, law, business, and academics are other fields. Each has a body of knowledge to deal with meaningful struggle with others.
The difference is that in nearly every other field one can lose repeatedly and still have a pretty good life. Because there's no correlation between financial success and happiness above the poverty line, "successful" theories in other fields aren't as evolutionarily fit as "successful" theory in war. The reason is obvious: a loser theory in business leaves its adherents alive.
Therefore it typically makes more sense to export theory from war to other fields than vice versa.
And the results are numerous. Chet Richards has looked at business as meaningful struggle. I try to do the same with faith and politics. You're doing an amazing good job with platforms.
Keep it up!
Post a Comment