zenpundit.com » 2006

Archive for 2006

Sunday, May 28th, 2006

EMERGENT CONNECTIVITY

Critt Jarvis was kind enough to add me to his wiki discussion team at Connecting in Conversation for his new gaming project.

It’s an honor to be included in a group of creative minds alongside such accomplished people as Art Hutchinson, Dave Davison, David Galiel , Alice Taylor and, of course, Critt himself. The discussion has already been a stimulating opportunity to engage in horizontal thinking by interacting with experts from other fields.

Watch the game evolve and give Critt your feedback.

” All men’s gains are the fruits of venturing”

– Herodotus

Friday, May 26th, 2006

A MOMENT OF YOUR ATTENTION

A very interesting, long, link-rich, post on the atttention economy and ” attention scarcity” at Edge Perspectives with John Hagel. Midstream, Hagel observes:

“There is no question that the dynamics of the attention economy will redefine media economics and particularly advertising, but a more fundamental question needs to be addressed before we can gain a clear view of the implications for media and advertising: what is behind the desire to receive attention?”

This is an economic issue predominantly for those already ( by global standards) who are rich and safe and can afford to divert scarce resources toward ego fulfillment instead of satisfying more urgent needs. By definition, access to the internet creates considerable self-selection bias in a world where over a billion people subsist on pennies a day and a billion or so others enjoy a precarious status only marginally more secure.

Nevertheless, as internet use has now reached, possibly, a billion users, the aggregate effects of attention-related behaviors are certainly worth consideration. In Hagel’s view:

“But the discussion to date about receiving attention misses a couple of key points. First, there is a powerful dynamic between giving and receiving attention. In a world where more and more options are competing for our attention, we are unlikely to offer that attention unless something of compelling value is offered in return. We become much more selective and demanding in terms of who or what will get our attention.

…There’s a second dynamic that will reinforce the first. We all find ourselves in a globalizing world where we must find ways to develop distinctive and rapidly evolving capabilities. That is the only way to carve out sustainable livelihoods in the face of intensifying competitive pressure.
In this context, what we know at any point in time has diminishing value. We all need to find ways to tap into a broader set of experiences and perspectives to refresh our understanding of the changing world around us. To do this effectively, we need to receive the deep and sustained attention of those who have the most to offer and we cannot do this unless we can offer compelling value in return. If we cannot build deep and sustaining networks of attention (in other words, networks of relationships), we will find it more and more difficult to remain relevant and productive.

Together, these two dynamics create a self-regulating mechanism. In a world of attention scarcity, we will not continue to receive attention unless we earn that right. If we do not receive attention, we risk becoming progressively marginalized. Receiving attention becomes far more important than it ever was and will require far more effort than in the past. This is the strong message for the media business, but it applies much more broadly to all businesses, other institutions and individuals. In the process, advertising, at least as we know it today, will become less and less effective, no matter how creative we become at grabbing the attention of unsuspecting customers. “

Uhh..where’s my Ritalin ?

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

REFORMING CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS

A PDF by Reuel Marc Gerecht entitled ” A New Clandestine Service: The Case For Creative Destruction“. (Hat tip to Shloky )

I have just rapidly skimmed this but it looks very interesting. A critical review of the Cold War to Terror War performance of the CIA. Not pretty.

I caught a few breezy generalizations by Gerecht – Oleg Penkovskii, for example made a significant difference with the nuclear weaponry intelligence he provided in our not having had a nuclear war over Cuba with the Soviet Union. Without Penkovskii’s insight into the paper tiger state of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the temptation for JFK ‘s administration to strike first and hard would have been much stronger. That operation alone probably justified the CIA’s whole existence, warts and all.

Secondly, I have heard exceptionally bitter criticism from a senior CIA field veteran over the CIA DO being shackled in Iran by successive administrations of both parties, at the request of the Shah. So blindness in Teheran in 1979 cannot be laid entirely at the CIA’s door. The Carter administration, which was still dominated intellectually at the time on key foreign policy questions by Cyrus Vance, only wished to hear what it wanted to hear about Iran and disregarded everything else ( Iran and Afghanistan proved to be the eclipse of Vance’s influence with President Carter – and hardly a moment too soon. The man was a fountainhead of bad advice). Clearly they understood Ayatollah Khomeini not at all and prohibited the CIA from finding out much of anything.

Going to give it a closer look over lunch.

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

FOLLOWING UP

As I promised, here are some bloggers commenting on the Barnett-Robb dialogue of yestersday:

Curtis Gale Weeks at Phatic Communion -“Barnett Against Connectivity: Or, How I Survived High School

Dan of tdaxp -” Cheeky? Maybe. Thrilled? Definitely!

Shloky – ” Clash of Titans” and ” More on Disruptive Innovation

Have to add Shloky to the blogroll. Special thanks to Curtis for pointing out how I was screwing up my permalinks :O)

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

AND THIS DUDE WAS THE REASSURING, “HUMAN” FACE!

Nepal’s Maoist insurgents send out a mild-mannered, computer engineering, nerd type to charm the Western media into complacency ( not a very high bar to surmount, historically speaking, for Communist guerillas) and the guy can’t get out two minutes of talking points before breaking into a glassy-eyed trance, reverting to type, and praising Stalinism and China’s Cultural Revolution.

Think what the scary Maoists are like in a rural village at night.

Curzon has a firsthand report at Coming Anarchy.


Switch to our mobile site