NeuroGovernmentThe intersection of public administration, complexity theory, and the neurorevolution.
|
But building trust online is a different process than building trust in the face-to-face world. Mashable has a great interview with Dr. Judy Olson on creating trust through social networking tools. As government moves toward openness and collaboration, these can be the basis for an effective trust strategy.
An interesting perspective on how power is shifting from government to the people.
Four months ago, I wrote about Walter Anderson’s Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be and how it perfectly described the rise of social networking even though it was published in 1992. Essentially, Anderson argues that technology has advanced to the point that people can construct their own reality of like-minded individuals.
Rachel Winchester updates this argument with her concept of the Metanet. She defines it as:
“The population of the internet has hit the point where we can no longer lump everything and everyone together as ‘the Internet.’ There’s the internet of things, as more and more devices come online of their own accord, and more and more sensors are added. There’s the cloud, where data is stored and processed, there’s the commerce internet, there are the walled gardens of intranets and private instances, and there’s social media, now the main way people interact with the internet. I’m starting to call these the metanet, the macronet, the micronet, and the me net.”
On a related note, I think my last paragraph of my original posting was a bit pessimistic as I asserted that social networking will lead to more groupthink and exclusionary communities. I still think there is a danger of groupthink but the same technologies can also make it easier for people to break from groups they no longer find useful or welcome to form their own. A key to this is how social networking technologies make it easier to raise criticisms and objections that could prevent the formation of groupthink. Must keep an open mind on this.
To paraphrase Homer Simpson’s observation about beer. I read an interesting post about the seeming elitism of the TED Conferences and I somewhat agree with the author’s assertion:
“This is classic TED. Take an idea that has gained currency. Self-appoint some (non-genuine) champion of that idea. Change the idea subtly to align with the political preferences of the ‘elite’ audience. Then market the new version of the idea (and its new champions) as the original idea that has been and is widely accepted.”
It’s not just TED. You see this all over the web. A few consultants, speakers, writers, whatever get together and self-proclaim each other the elite of their field (an especially audacious example – The Digerati). They build a website, hold online conferences, and video their talks so that the “masses” can bask in the assembled geniuses.
Sometimes, the stuff is good. I especially enjoy the TED talks and some of the Digerati have interesting insights. Other times, it is pure pretentious crap. And woe be to any outsider who dares question the wisdom of this assembly of genius.
But, so what? Before the Internet and Web 2.0, these mutual admiration societies could run a magazine or discussion salon that few others had the money or expertise to run. Now, anyone with an online connection can become their own elite group. Don’t like TED? Then, build your own group of gurus. Start a Facebook group, create a group blog, film some videos. Gather around your friends, give each other titles, and publish your great works on Scribd.
Soon, you will be one of the elite and will have lots of fans. And other people who can’t stand you and create their own group in response to your elitism. Democratizing elitism through social networking.
“Can we or should we do it?
Will it make our situation simpler or more complex?
Will it help us to solve a problem or cause a problem?”
Should we do nothing?”
Great article explaining why our risk perceptions sometimes follows game theory and why it differs from rational calculations. By studying sports like tennis, baseball, and football, the research found that players are likely to switch strategies after the previous strategy failed. For example, according to statistical analysis football coaches should call more passing plays than they actually do. An explanation for this is that there is more perceived uncertainty with a ball “in the air” even though the evidence demonstrates that rushing is actually more risky.
How this relates to government is that many policies that attempt to handle risk events are highly influenced by the perceived emotional reactions of the public and the employees who have to implement the policies. Think about how emotions have greatly affected the health care debate with the angry town hall meetings and the specter of “death panels.”
When I watch the GOP’s use of junk science such as the recent attempt to demonstrate that the snowstorm in DC disproves global warming, my belief that the GOP’s first action after the 1994 Congressional victories in killing the Office of Technology Assessment was to insure that the rest of their agenda would have more success in passing. It is well-documented that much of the GOP’s agenda rests upon the significant number of voters who are scientifically-illiterate.