In a recent Twitter exchange on the difference between intelligence, knowledge and wisdom along with the evaluation of the Internet and social media, a commenter noted a key accomplishment of this technology: the flattening of information.
I can't say that this was said with any degree of happiness.
As some may note, this blog gets little time from the owner as I spend a great deal of time on Twitter. There, at any given time, "Tweeps", or people I follow on Twitter, are given to various complaints about the number of people posting on any given subject, their expertise or lack thereof. In fact, this post was inspired by a now, ongoing Twitter meme about #YouMayNotBeAnIranExpertIf. Expressing the disposition that if any person writing or commenting on Iran, the current Nuclear Agreement, etc did not know "X,Y, or Z" that they are not, in fact, an expert on Iran and should limit or leave the writing to those self-appointed experts that do.
I can't help but feel a few moments of ironic amusement at these various escapades. They are, after all, posting on Twitter. A social media application that has routinely received the scorn of people from all walks of life as being the scourge of modern communication and society as a whole. It is also a tool that now boasts presidents and premiers of nations, ambassadors, activists, journalists, scientists, politicians, terrorists and every other form of "important" or average citizen with every sort of occupation, interest or general angst from nations around the world.
Apropos the US-Iran Nuclear Agreement above, people from around the world were following this event via tweets from politicians, journalists and every other Tom, Dick or Harry tweeting and re-tweeting pictures, statements and events. Including minutiae of an after negotiation event where various members of the Iranian negotiating team did a little jig while waiting for official photography to set up.
Also, such memorable tweets as "Kerry is flying to Geneva"; "The Chinese FM is flying to Geneva". Everyone watching those tweets knew that a deal was about to be struck and they were being re-tweeted hundreds of times.
Here is the most amazing part: most of the events were posted in real time. Within minutes of the final handshake, the entire world of twitter, those interested anyway, knew not only that the deal was struck, but how, who, why and certain details. Something that, only a few years ago, would have taken an hour or more to reach network or cable news rooms to be reported and a decade or more before, would have been reported the next day on headlines of newspapers around the world.
Twenty-four hours. That seems like an eternity in modern communications and news dissemination. Twenty-four hours after this event, the media did have even greater details, back stories, more reactions to the event. However, those arrived without the impact or fanfare of the original event on Twitter. At least, it seemed so on that venue.
Of course, not everyone gets their news from Twitter so these cable news and "print" reports still represent the normative when it comes to relaying news and information to a large part of society. However, even those average citizens are likely getting fast and furious updates via news alerts on their smart phones or "front page" pieces popping up on their computer home page like Yahoo.
This represents one of the many aspects of "the flattening of information". In real terms, it means that anyone, anywhere can obtain information on a plethora of subjects and events, use the Internet to look up information, pass that along to others in their "network", obtain the opinions of various "experts" and "world leaders" in minutes. Information, as they say, is power and it is no longer locked in the hands of a few.
Governments and media are adapting as quickly as possible to this reality and technology understanding that the pace of information flying fast and furious can shape a story before they can react to it. It is speeding up the decision making process and forcing people to think about and prepare for the reactions much more succinctly and in advance of their actions and statements.
Media has long realized that it had to be the first on a story to have the impact, to be "the top dog" in this new information cycle, whirling ever faster. When even a common bystander with a phone camera can beat them to the punch for that key, all defining image of an event. Politicians are learning that this is equally important for their own needs and demands of their constituents. They no longer have the time to formulate a response for the next day's news cycle. It's now or never and has been moving to that for well over a decade.
What of the complaints of these "experts"? Are they legitimate? That, in fact, information that is being spread is not as complete or accurate as it should be because those spreading the information do not have the years of study, travel or expertise that they do. Worse, that this inaccurate or incomplete information leads to the dissemination of "bad" information. Meaning that real and good decision making, information that regular citizens to policy makers "ought to know", is being damaged by this flattening of information.
That's a distinct possibility. This isn't the first time these complaints have been heard. It seems, almost as soon as the Internet was born into the public as a common tool for every average citizen, these complaints have existed. They became even louder and more vociferous as comment sections in media and blogs, then Facebook became prevalent. Twitter has added a whole new level of angst to this possible flurry of bad information.
What is really at the head of this angst? Is it a concern for the possible misleading of people through receiving bad information or information without context? Or, is it equally the realization that "expertise", i.e. information, is only as good and valuable as it is when it is shared as widely and as quickly as possible? In essence, making the hoarding of information and it's slow dissemination less profitable, less valuable to those that have spent many long years, spending time and money, learning this detailed information.
It's not just the value in dollars that is at stake, but the prestige that goes with it. Are we losing the necessity for experts and sages? The answer, of course, is "no". Resoundingly. However information flows and from where, there will always be a need for someone to pull the pieces together and create a bigger picture. As the world comes closer together through new technology, as information flows faster, and more and more people are able to "input" information into the stream, it seems inevitable that the need for even more "experts" will rise, not slow.
What is at issue here is whether the funneling of information remains narrow, can remain narrow, in the advent of modern technology and communication and how is value then placed upon it. That, in this modern age, experts and sages now need to market themselves, aggressively, as opposed to having people come to them; that their knowledge is only as good and as valuable as it can be inserted and used within the ever increasing furious cycle of information.
This will create an ever growing field of "niche" "experts". Niche because the increase of information will make it difficult to be an expert on everything, even an entire country, as quickly as necessary even as many people opine and discuss almost anything. In essence, becoming a stream into the river and then the ocean of information.
This is what has happened to almost every field as technology has advanced. It becomes even more necessary as the man on the street, in a place witnessing an event or living in a particular area, who has access to technology, becomes "every man's expert". He knows it because he lives it. How does an "expert" compete with that? Another source of angst: the expert middle man may be cut out completely if they do not learn that this "every man" is, in fact, an excellent source of information to add to their expert analysis. Another issue that causes no shortage of angst about the accuracy and validity of information amongst the "experts".
I write this blog post with some ironic amusement, knowing full well that it may never be read or commented on by anyone. On the other hand, someone could read it and point out the error of my ways, the lack of academic writing or research, the somewhat jumbled way in which I've presented my ideas, or even the fact that I am an "expert" at nothing, least of all this subject.
I will allow myself that amusement along with the thought that the earlier described complaints by so called experts made me imagine that THIS must be what it sounded like in the Vatican a decade or so after the Gutenberg press had been in operation. When every Tom, Dick and Harry could have access to and read such important books as the Bible and come to their own conclusions about what God said or meant. Or, preposterously, start their own sect of the religion. Heresy!
It has already pre-saged a new aged version of the Inquisition where many a person, their name and reputation, has been publicly pilloried, scourged and burnt on the stake on the Internet for having presented themselves as an "expert" without proper title, authority or recognition from the expert powers that be. Or, the gods of information forbid, some fool from Tuscaloosa has the temerity to discuss whatever subject catches his attention to the cry that he must confess his sins of ignorance and stop spreading his heresy.
We are nothing if not ever predictable.
I can't say that this was said with any degree of happiness.
As some may note, this blog gets little time from the owner as I spend a great deal of time on Twitter. There, at any given time, "Tweeps", or people I follow on Twitter, are given to various complaints about the number of people posting on any given subject, their expertise or lack thereof. In fact, this post was inspired by a now, ongoing Twitter meme about #YouMayNotBeAnIranExpertIf. Expressing the disposition that if any person writing or commenting on Iran, the current Nuclear Agreement, etc did not know "X,Y, or Z" that they are not, in fact, an expert on Iran and should limit or leave the writing to those self-appointed experts that do.
I can't help but feel a few moments of ironic amusement at these various escapades. They are, after all, posting on Twitter. A social media application that has routinely received the scorn of people from all walks of life as being the scourge of modern communication and society as a whole. It is also a tool that now boasts presidents and premiers of nations, ambassadors, activists, journalists, scientists, politicians, terrorists and every other form of "important" or average citizen with every sort of occupation, interest or general angst from nations around the world.
Apropos the US-Iran Nuclear Agreement above, people from around the world were following this event via tweets from politicians, journalists and every other Tom, Dick or Harry tweeting and re-tweeting pictures, statements and events. Including minutiae of an after negotiation event where various members of the Iranian negotiating team did a little jig while waiting for official photography to set up.
Also, such memorable tweets as "Kerry is flying to Geneva"; "The Chinese FM is flying to Geneva". Everyone watching those tweets knew that a deal was about to be struck and they were being re-tweeted hundreds of times.
Here is the most amazing part: most of the events were posted in real time. Within minutes of the final handshake, the entire world of twitter, those interested anyway, knew not only that the deal was struck, but how, who, why and certain details. Something that, only a few years ago, would have taken an hour or more to reach network or cable news rooms to be reported and a decade or more before, would have been reported the next day on headlines of newspapers around the world.
Twenty-four hours. That seems like an eternity in modern communications and news dissemination. Twenty-four hours after this event, the media did have even greater details, back stories, more reactions to the event. However, those arrived without the impact or fanfare of the original event on Twitter. At least, it seemed so on that venue.
Of course, not everyone gets their news from Twitter so these cable news and "print" reports still represent the normative when it comes to relaying news and information to a large part of society. However, even those average citizens are likely getting fast and furious updates via news alerts on their smart phones or "front page" pieces popping up on their computer home page like Yahoo.
This represents one of the many aspects of "the flattening of information". In real terms, it means that anyone, anywhere can obtain information on a plethora of subjects and events, use the Internet to look up information, pass that along to others in their "network", obtain the opinions of various "experts" and "world leaders" in minutes. Information, as they say, is power and it is no longer locked in the hands of a few.
Governments and media are adapting as quickly as possible to this reality and technology understanding that the pace of information flying fast and furious can shape a story before they can react to it. It is speeding up the decision making process and forcing people to think about and prepare for the reactions much more succinctly and in advance of their actions and statements.
Media has long realized that it had to be the first on a story to have the impact, to be "the top dog" in this new information cycle, whirling ever faster. When even a common bystander with a phone camera can beat them to the punch for that key, all defining image of an event. Politicians are learning that this is equally important for their own needs and demands of their constituents. They no longer have the time to formulate a response for the next day's news cycle. It's now or never and has been moving to that for well over a decade.
What of the complaints of these "experts"? Are they legitimate? That, in fact, information that is being spread is not as complete or accurate as it should be because those spreading the information do not have the years of study, travel or expertise that they do. Worse, that this inaccurate or incomplete information leads to the dissemination of "bad" information. Meaning that real and good decision making, information that regular citizens to policy makers "ought to know", is being damaged by this flattening of information.
That's a distinct possibility. This isn't the first time these complaints have been heard. It seems, almost as soon as the Internet was born into the public as a common tool for every average citizen, these complaints have existed. They became even louder and more vociferous as comment sections in media and blogs, then Facebook became prevalent. Twitter has added a whole new level of angst to this possible flurry of bad information.
What is really at the head of this angst? Is it a concern for the possible misleading of people through receiving bad information or information without context? Or, is it equally the realization that "expertise", i.e. information, is only as good and valuable as it is when it is shared as widely and as quickly as possible? In essence, making the hoarding of information and it's slow dissemination less profitable, less valuable to those that have spent many long years, spending time and money, learning this detailed information.
It's not just the value in dollars that is at stake, but the prestige that goes with it. Are we losing the necessity for experts and sages? The answer, of course, is "no". Resoundingly. However information flows and from where, there will always be a need for someone to pull the pieces together and create a bigger picture. As the world comes closer together through new technology, as information flows faster, and more and more people are able to "input" information into the stream, it seems inevitable that the need for even more "experts" will rise, not slow.
What is at issue here is whether the funneling of information remains narrow, can remain narrow, in the advent of modern technology and communication and how is value then placed upon it. That, in this modern age, experts and sages now need to market themselves, aggressively, as opposed to having people come to them; that their knowledge is only as good and as valuable as it can be inserted and used within the ever increasing furious cycle of information.
This will create an ever growing field of "niche" "experts". Niche because the increase of information will make it difficult to be an expert on everything, even an entire country, as quickly as necessary even as many people opine and discuss almost anything. In essence, becoming a stream into the river and then the ocean of information.
This is what has happened to almost every field as technology has advanced. It becomes even more necessary as the man on the street, in a place witnessing an event or living in a particular area, who has access to technology, becomes "every man's expert". He knows it because he lives it. How does an "expert" compete with that? Another source of angst: the expert middle man may be cut out completely if they do not learn that this "every man" is, in fact, an excellent source of information to add to their expert analysis. Another issue that causes no shortage of angst about the accuracy and validity of information amongst the "experts".
I write this blog post with some ironic amusement, knowing full well that it may never be read or commented on by anyone. On the other hand, someone could read it and point out the error of my ways, the lack of academic writing or research, the somewhat jumbled way in which I've presented my ideas, or even the fact that I am an "expert" at nothing, least of all this subject.
I will allow myself that amusement along with the thought that the earlier described complaints by so called experts made me imagine that THIS must be what it sounded like in the Vatican a decade or so after the Gutenberg press had been in operation. When every Tom, Dick and Harry could have access to and read such important books as the Bible and come to their own conclusions about what God said or meant. Or, preposterously, start their own sect of the religion. Heresy!
It has already pre-saged a new aged version of the Inquisition where many a person, their name and reputation, has been publicly pilloried, scourged and burnt on the stake on the Internet for having presented themselves as an "expert" without proper title, authority or recognition from the expert powers that be. Or, the gods of information forbid, some fool from Tuscaloosa has the temerity to discuss whatever subject catches his attention to the cry that he must confess his sins of ignorance and stop spreading his heresy.
We are nothing if not ever predictable.
