Story on Cobb County Creationism Case

This is a proposal I could get behind.

Of course, all of these “arguments” about evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design hinge on a deliberate (I presume) misconstrual of the notions of “theory” and “fact.”

Story on Cobb County Creationism Case. Mark Frauenfelder: Gary Peare sez: “I have a modest proposal regarding the following story:”

A federal trial began today in Atlanta over evolution disclaimers in Cobb County schools. A group of parents backed by the ACLU argue that the disclaimers in science biology textbooks are a government endorsement of religion.

“The county put stickers with the following text into the books:”

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

“So here’s my proposal. Let’s allow the religious right to paste their stickers in all the biology texts they want so long as they affix the following text to each and every one of their Bibles:”

“This book contains material on Judeo-Christian theology. Judeo-Christian theology offers insight into the origin and meaning of life and is the basis for several of the world’s great religions. But it does not encompass the full range of religious beliefs held sacred by members of our diverse American society. Moreover, this material is based on ancient texts, and significant errors may have been introduced through subsequent translations and omissions. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

Link [Boing Boing]

Neocortexes of the world unite!

I cast my vote last week since I will be travelling tomorrow. Despite my reservations and despite a vote for George Bush four years ago, I cast it for John Kerry. That’s where my analysis and reflection led me.

The one recommendation I have is that you read the following post from Britt Blaser and carefully think about it. Then go cast your vote. I hope Britt doesn’t object that I’ve quoted his lengthy post in full. I don’t want to put any obstacles, even clicking a link, between you and his wisdom.

It’s the Amygdala, Stupid!

Last month I examined why we buy more goods from news programs with bad news than the goods we buy from those with good news:

The human neo cortex, in theory at least, calls on prior learning and objective processing to weigh options and make better decisions. Remember this the next time you get into a political discussion. The reason our fancy brain doesn’t work so well in political mode is its amazing lack of evidence, since the reptile brain pays more attention to office and bedroom politics and spun-for-TV sound bites than to news that matters and arcane issues of governance and human potential. Of course the cat brain is happy to provide all the emotion needed to get both parties lathered up over information they don’t have, since their respective brands of disinformation have been packaged and delivered so skillfully by the prosperous fear mongers on the nightly news.

It’s all the dragon’s fault. If something seems scary (suggested by tone of voice, excitement, stridency and sound track), our unblinking lizard brain pays close attention, while ignoring the more relevant news: green grass, skies of blue; people all around us, saying how d’ya do.

They’re just sayin’ I love you.

Arianna Huffington looked at the same issue recently in Appealing To Our Lizard Brains: Why Bush Is Still Standing. She had been wondering why people are so slow to reel in their bias for the Bushies’ War on Them. Her answer came from Dr. Daniel Siegel in his forthcoming book, Mindsight:

Dr. Siegel told me: “Voters are shrouded in a ‘fog of fear’ that is impacting the way our brains respond to the two candidates.”

Thanks to the Bush campaign’s unremitting fear-mongering, millions of voters are reacting not with their linear and logical left brain but with their lizard brain and their more emotional right brain.

What’s more, people in a fog of fear are more likely to respond to someone whose primary means of communication is in the nonverbal realm, neither logical nor language-based. (Sound like any presidential candidate you know?)
And that’s why Bush is still standing. It’s not about left wing vs. right wing; it’s about left brain vs. right brain.

Deep in the brain lies the amygdala, an almond-sized region that generates fear. When this fear state is activated, the amygdala springs into action. Before you are even consciously aware that you are afraid, your lizard brain responds by clicking into survival mode. No time to assess the situation, no time to look at the facts, just: fight, flight or freeze.

And, boy, have the Bushies been giving our collective amygdala a workout. Especially Dick Cheney, who has proven himself an unmatched master of the dark art of fear-mongering.

This fog of fear is the business end of the famous fog of war, the mass confusion that sets in about 3 minutes after you drop the starting flag on a flawless military strategy executed by the best-trained and equipped troops.

Any veteran will tell you that military training is mostly about overcoming your instinctive fears and doing the job you’re trained to do, regardless of the bullets flying or that you just watched your best friend’s face disappear. Here’s an example from combat.

Shut Up and Die Like an Aviator

In Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff, the essence of mental discipline in combat is revealed by an anecdote from the Korean war:

Combat had its own infinite series of tests, and one of the greatest sins was “chattering” or “jabbering” on the radio. The combat frequency was to be kept clear of all but strategically essential messages, and all unenlightening comments were regarded as evidence of funk, of the wrong stuff.

A Navy pilot (in legend, at any rate) began shouting, “I’ve got a MIG at zero! A MIG at zero!” meaning that it had maneuvered in behind him and was locked in on his tail. An irritated voice cut in and said, “Shut up and die like an aviator.”

Now it’s time for We the People to control our fear and face the music.

If there is such a thing as right action, it places a demand on our resources whether or not our intellect or gut buys into it. That’s the essence of trusting our instruments rather than our inner ear. It also suggests that, when we must do things that seem threatening to our survival, it’s OK to keep our perspective.

In fact, it will improve the odds of survival.

The Grumman aircraft that scared pilot was flying was built before the hydro-mechanical fuel control, a kind of intelligent fuel injection for jet engines. In those days, the throttle was connected directly to a valve that dumped raw fuel into the engine, which was, essentially, a blowtorch. Dump too much fuel and the fire goes out.

Suddenly it’s quiet. Ruins your whole day.

Today, an F-18 pilot slams the throttle to max power and starts jiving. In those days, if you moved the throttle from cruise to afterburner faster than about 5 seconds, your fighter became an expensive glider.

Think about it: you’ve just been jumped by a faster, more agile MIG 15. Your job now is to tame your reptile brain and count slowly while advancing the throttle and jinking like a mothafucka (technical pilot talk for turning fast while under duress):

one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, one thousand and four, one thousand and five.

Such suppression of one’s reptile brain requires behavioral modification at an early age. Now we, the front line combatants in the politically powerful War on A Noun, without the benefit of such training, need to keep our heads on straight and learn to fear only Fear Itself.

“Big Clock, Small Cock”

That was a cynical Air Force description of the pilot who sported an improbably huge aviator’s chronometer. The thinking was that a guy who so needed to advertise his profession was more interested in the role than his craft.

I suggest there’s a similar inverse relation between generalized bellicosity and grace under fire; that people who cheer for war fought by other people’s children are talking but not walking. However, we’re now in a technical world, requiring more (dare I say it?) sensitive behavior. Smart guys win battles, not blowhards. I can tell you from experience that people react far too fast in emergencies, not too slowly. Reacting like a lizard, they invariably hurt themselves and those around them.

There are a lot of scared people in this country, puffing out their chests and saying we should blow away everybody who hates us. Their state of mind is a fool’s paradise, as irrational as the virgin-rich nirvana sought by suicide bombers or the angel-rich rapture sought by the crazy Christians who actually believe that the sooner we bring on Armageddon, the sooner they’ll be raptured to their reward.

My God Won’t Beat Up Your God

The opposite of militaristic egotism is something called Christianity. Vengeful and apocalyptic doesn’t describe the God I learned to worship at Christ Episcopal Church in Manhasset, L.I. Our New Testament God was reasonable, sophisticated and, well, entrepreneurial. I never thought about Him that way before, but that was the sense I had, surrounded by strong, well-educated adults, most of whom had sacrificed mightily in WWII and Korea. Those veterans of serious combat advocated a humanistic, liberal education, exposing their kids to a broad range of historic, artistic and scientific information. Our hero, Dwight D. Eisenhower, spoke for our community when he said,

Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you’re going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they never existed. Don’t be afraid to go in your library and read every book.

Manhasset in the early 1950’s was a heady environment and Christ Church was the center of our community. My father had a rich bass voice so he was a stalwart of a quite excellent choir. I was a choir boy and an acolyte, and a fixture in Church School, receiving little medals for my regular attendance, even during the summer. This led me to study theology in college, where we still attended chapel on Sunday evening and said grace before meals, even as Wesleyan was becoming aggressively agnostic. However, I clearly was not wired for disciplined religiosity, and I certainly could not conduct a meaningful conversation with Akma on the gist of any of those courses.

I suppose I assumed our God was entrepreneurial because so many of the senior churchmembers were. There was John M. Fox, the guy who developed frozen orange juice in WWII and went on to found Minute Maid. The broadcast Paleys were there, and so was a sweet lady named Jesse Hicks, the church organist. She always hostessed the Church Christmas Party at her home, which looked like the setting for Sabrina (either one). Mrs. (not “Ms.” Hicks) was the widow of the founder of Union Carbide, and one of the many stalls in the long garage sheltered a Packard 733 Sport Phaeton that her husband had won from Jim Packard in a poker game. It had never been driven.

I mention this to suggest there are alternatives to Crackpot Christianity. The tradition this country was founded on is single-mindedly secular, even while based on the presumption that a pervasive Almighty embraces all creatures. So it’s refreshing to come across this belief statement signed by about 200 serious theologians, at a site called Sojourners – faith, politics, culture. I’m compelled to quote it in full, for the same reason that prayer flags and wheels make sense to me. I hope you’ll go take a look at the list of signatories.

In reading their words, I’m reminded that courage is never comfortable or recreational. The thrill in your gut as you smite thine enemies is a sure sign that one is up to no good. But what would I know? I was never a real soldier; I was a shootee, not a shooter.

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian “realism” mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of “pre-emptive wars”? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church’s task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

  • A “theology of war,” emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.
  • The language of “righteous empire” is employed with growing frequency.
  • The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American “mission” and “divine appointment” to “rid the world of evil.”

The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.
In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.

  1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, “the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.” These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political or religious leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.
  2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done – torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction – regardless of the consequences.
  3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary’s eye, but also the beam in our own. The distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.We reject the false teaching that America is a “Christian nation,” representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world’s evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).
  4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God’s image.We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law’s protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.
  5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong.We reject the false teaching that those who are not for the United States politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the “evil-doers.” Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.

The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.

We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.

Taming The Beast

Each generation must learn anew that real strength lies in mastering oneself, and not in applying force to one’s imputed enemies. Sometimes it’s everything we can do just to overcome our inner dragon.

[Escapable Logic]

My i-Name

I agree with Phil. This looks like an interesting experiment and worth $25 to play along. I’m =jim.mcgee and here is my contact page .

My i-Name.

While here, I’ve had a chance to learn about the Identity Commons, a move to create a third party identity service. Identity Commons is committed to individual ownership of identity information and relationships. They manage something called i-names, unique names that you can sign up for and keep for 50 years (one-time fee). I signed up for one this morning. I’m =windley. The equal sign is used before an i-name to identity it as an i-name. So far, about the only thing you can do with an i-name is to create a contact page. Here’s mine. Eventually, the i-name will tie to all kinds of forms of contacting a person.

I-names are based on the XRI specification. XRI (Extensible Resource Identifier) is a “new URI-compatible scheme and resolution protocol for abstract identifiers identifiers that are location-, application-, and transport-independent, and thus can be shared across any number of domains and directories. The XRI 1.0 specifications were published in January 2004 by the OASIS XRI Technical Committee.”

I’ve got no idea if this will ever go anywhere, but I think interesting and support it $25 worth.

[Windley’s Enterprise Computing Weblog]

Happy Shared Blogiversary to Liz Lawley

I had forgotten that Liz Lawley and I shared a blogiversary. Happy Blogiversary Liz!

happy 2nd blogiversary to me!. It seems appropriate that on the 2nd anniversary of my starting my blog I m moderating a workshop on social software in academic contexts. I m in the middle of dinner at a wonderful workshop at USC, but I wanted to take a moment to wish myself a happy 2nd blogiversary, and to reflect back on two years that have brought astonishing changes in both my personal and my professional lives. Thank you so much for being a part of this change in my life…. [mamamusings]

Third blogiversary at McGee's Musings

This is now more than an experiment. I started this blog three years ago today as a way to share materials with my students when I was teaching a class on IT management at the Kellogg School. On that first day I linked to two items in Technology Review on digital preservation and on the semantic web and I posted an entry on K-logs in organizations – technical and organizational challenges.

In the Spring of 2002, I created a course on knowledge management and made blogging a requirement of that course. That first effort was a mixed success at best (see Blogging in the Classroom Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4)and I returned to the private sector before I had a chance to address the lessons learned from that experiment.

I continue to believe that the kinds of simple tools represented by blogs and wikis will ultimately become an essential part of the toolkit of every knowledge worker. As is typically the case for technology innovations, the issues to be dealt with are social and organizational not technical.

What is absolutely clear to me is that the primary, if unexpected, benefit of maintaining this blog is in the new connections it has made for me. Directly because of the time I have put into this blog I have a new set of friends and colleagues all over the world. So, to begin with I would like to thank Dave Winer, Robert Scoble, and John Robb for creating the tools I use and for being willing to take a flyer on the notion of supporting a now former academic trying to apply them in a real world context. Radio, warts and all, remains one of the most innovative tools integrating all the essential elements supporting my blogging in a single environment.

To the following new friends I have managed to encounter because of blogging, thank you for making this an experiment I intend to continue. Let’s see who else we can invite to the party.

Jenny Levine, AKMA, Terry Frazier, Betsy Devine, Buzz Bruggeman, Denham Grey, Marc Orchant, Cameron Reilly, Marjolein Hoekstra, Ernie Svenson, Judith Meskill, Jack Vinson, Ross Mayfield, Lilia Efimova, Jeremy Wagstaff, Matt Mower, Ton Zijlstra, Eric Snowdeal, Rick Klau, Greg Lloyd, Chris Nuzum, Jordan Frank, Halley Suitt, Jon Husband, and Dina Mehta.

If I’ve forgotten someone, my apologies. Ping me and I’ll update the list.

UPDATE: Between some pings and racking my brains some more, I’ve added some updates to the list above

Dinner with Judith and Dina

This week’s fascinating impromptu blogger dinner was with Judith Meskill and Dina Mehta. Only in the blogging world would bloggers from Chicago, Princeton, and Mumbai end up having dinner in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Judith was in town blogging the VON conference, Dina was on her way up to PopTech, and I am here for client meetings tomorrow.

We did do a little bit of small talk, but much like David Weinberger we pretty quickly ended up focusing substantively on several topics around blogging in business. Two that I want to try to recapture are how blogs might change the nature of market research and how the notion of oral culture in organizations might help explain the relatively slow take up of blogs inside the firewall.

Lunch with Betsy Devine: tenure, age, and folly

I finally had lunch with Betsy Devine today at the Bombay Club in Cambridge. This was a long delayed get together that was orginally intended to include Halley Suitt as well. Just as well that we ended up doing two separate lunches. I fear my head would have exploded if I had tried to keep up with both of them at the same time.

As with Halley, Betsy and I picked right up as old friends despite this being our first face-to-face meeting. Rich, stimulating conversation about education, organizations, knowledge sharing, writing, anthropology, humor, politics, science, and architecture to name just some of the topics I can remember.

One topic we talked about was what value was left in the notion of tenure in education both at the university level and below. At one point, Betsy served on the board of education in Princeton while her husband Frank was doing the research that led to his recent Nobel prize (how cool is it to get a chance to talk to someone that close to such an experience – who says blogging is a waste of time when it leads to opportunities like that?). Anyway, I was remarking on how odd tenure seemed to be when applied in public school districts. Betsy explained to me that the role of tenure in that environment was not about academic freedom but about creating some protection for older, more experienced teachers (generally women) who were otherwise at risk of being replaced by the newest crop of teachers just out of school who were not only likely to be more attractive to students and parents but much cheaper as well. I had never made that connection.

That flowed into a discussion of similar biases toward age discrimination in business organizations. That flowed into a discussion of the problems in the private sector that let organizations hold onto the profits that might accrue from replacing your aging, expensive workers with younger blood while being able to pass the broader costs of unemployed middle-aged executives with mortgages and tuitions to pay onto the society as a whole. Age discrimination laws notwithstanding, this pattern of privatizing profits and commonalizing costs is powerful and, unfortunately, rational behavior on the part of executives who are charged with putting the interests of their shareholders first. It says to me that our regulatory frameworks are broken in some important ways that will take a lot more than the trading of rhetorical positions that seems to characterize so much of our current public discourse. One reference that I want to reexamine in this context is the late Garrett Hardin’s Filters Against Folly: How to Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, and the Merely Eloquent. I first found this slim volume about 15 years ago. It offers some excellent advice on understanding and acting on our collective responsibilities as informed laypeople in a world increasingly dominated by experts.

David P. Reed wins WTN Communications Technology Award

Way to go David. Well deserved.

David P. Reed wins WTN Communications Technology Award!

Congratulations , David!

Reed won in fast company. Two of the other nominees were Carver Mead and Niklas Zennstrom. Zennstrom’s most recently founded company, Skype , won the Corporate CommTech Award, and deservedly so. Both Reed and Skype have irrevocably changed the field of communications technology.

I’ve been an advisor to WTN since before it was launched. Thanks to the persistence and dogged determination of WTN Founder Jim Clark, it is turning into something real; witness the recently announced expansion of the X-Prize, now known as the WTN X-Prize.

The four WTN Summits so far have been among the best meetings it has been my pleasure to participate in. At the most recent WTN meeting last week, the conversation I was in with George Gilder, David Reed, Steve Jurvetson, Kelly Larabee (Skype’s U.S. agent) and a handful of other articulate practitioners of communications was worth the trip all by itself.

– isen [isen.blog]

KMPro panel on Blogs in Business

It was a lot of fun riffing with Scoble, Ian, and John about blogs in the organization. I’ve got some notes and reflections I’ll want to post later, but wanted to get this nice summary from Jack posted while I had a moment.

KMPro panel on Blogs in Business

KMPro Chicago hosted an excellent discussion of Blogs in Business with Jim McGee, Robert Scoble, Ian Kennedy and Jon Powell. We covered a lot of ground with a focus on how blogs could be valuable both for marketing to the outside world and for building conversations within the company.

One very interesting thread throughout the evening of conversation was the idea of how blogs can be used to extend the socialization framework that we get when smart people gather around the cube, board table or in the lunchroom. In those situations, people are sharing and learning from one another, but it happens only within a small group of people who happen to be near each other. With blogs (and admittedly other social software) people can extend that reach out to larger and larger groups of people. This was the area where Jon Powell, invited as a skeptic about blogging, saw the most value in what blogging could bring to Hewitt and other corporate environments. Humans seem naturally inclined to share and help one another, and the capabilities being developed with blogging give people more opportunities to do so.

An example of how blogs might work within an organization: Rather than having status reports sent on email, ask those people to post their status reports to a blog. With email, only the recipient knows what is happening and they can provide feedback only when they understand the matter in question. With a blog and with people subscribing to that blog’s web feed, there are many more eyes viewing the reports and many more eyes that can provide feedback or connect the author the help they might need. It’s useful to note that while most readers may just skim, the small minority that do take an interest in the material are exactly the ones that you want taking an interest. They have the background, interest and time to do so, where the immediate supervisor may not.

In describing blogs, Robert Scoble drew from his Five Pillars of Conversational Software: 1. Easy to publish; 2. Discoverable; 3. Social behaviors become visible; 4. Permalinks to a specific item; 5. Syndication. These items were referred back to a number of times throughout the conversation as people asked about other examples and technologies that seemed to be similar. For example, e-mail is neither discoverable, permanent nor syndicated. Similarly, Sharepoint, while ‘easy’ to post and permalink, is not easily discoverable. Discussion groups have a number of the pillars, but they seem to lose in the arena of social behavior in that individuals cannot build their own presence, other than through being known as the expert within the given discussion group.

The idea of easy publishing was discussed by a few people. Rather than needing to “create a website” or “write a paper,” the only thing a blog posting requires is a few cogent thoughts and/or maybe a reference to someone else’s cogent thoughts to which you want to add more. Along this vein there was also conversation around the difficulty of doing this within a corporate environment. Traditionally, corporations have not encouraged people to write what they think – my last company had a policy that more-or-less said this for fear of the legal discovery process. In addition, “people are a lot more worried about making fools of themselves” in corporate settings than in their personal space. The corporate culture will clearly need to change if blogging is to take root.

McGee suggested that blogging in the business – and in society – is going to go through a similar adoption curve as has e-mail: everyone has an address today as a matter of course, but not so many years ago people were trying to figure out what value email might bring to the organization. Blogging – or the ideas behind blogging – will become familiar over time.

Powell mentioned that Hewitt has over 10,000 internal Lotus Notes databases. In post-meeting conversation, a former Anderson person mentioned that they had over 17,000 Notes databases. The question was raised, how will “giving everyone a blog” change the issue that this information is written down and forgotten? How will blogs change the fact that we are drowning in information (or data)? For one, the auxiliary tools that read web feeds (syndication) or that search across weblogs are critical to the difference. In addition, it is the whole nature of how blogs are used and how they operate. A blog is generally written and owned by an individual; it is where they develop their voice and develop reputation: online discussion groups and databases don’t provide this level of ownership to the material.

How does one get started with all of this? People. Passionate, smart people. Give them the conversational tools and they will expand their over-the-cubicle conversations out into their wider sphere of contacts and sources, creating more potential for innovation and flexibility within the organization.

Other notes
McGee made an almost throwaway comment: Within a few years, knowledge workers will probably be taking their own technology into the workplace and negotiating connectivity with their employer. Why? The knowledge worker is going to be relying on that technology to operate in any space, whether it is home or work or consulting or the next job. Why should she be locked into an environment in which she is not familiar or effective?

Scoble has mentioned many times that he monitors nearly 1,000 blogs. He claimed this evening that he could see getting upwards of 10,000 blogs as the capabilities of web feed readers continually grows and improves.

While trying to find Robert’s Five Pillars, I discovered Sylloge’s Five Pillars of Social Software (http://www.sylloge.com/personal/2003_03_01_s.html#91273866): Identity, Presence, Relationships, Conversations, Groups. A nice parallel with Robert’s pillars above.

jackvinson (jackvinson@jackvinson.com) [Knowledge Jolt with Jack]