Comments for Rogue Thoughts

Comment on Why doesn’t severe punishment seem to have any effect in pro cycling? by alisdorf

alisdorf — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:41:54 +0000

That is a fascinating article and it really gives a good look into the scientific controversies that never reach mass media. Thanks for the reference.

Comment on Why doesn’t severe punishment seem to have any effect in pro cycling? by Morten Liebach

Morten Liebach — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:08:27 +0000

There’s more than game theory and crime and punishment to it. Here’s a great interview with Michael Ashenden: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Especially the “An empathetic approach” part of that interview is interesting. It show that the riders want to get rid of doping, but they also need to be competitive.

Anyway, I’ve given up on following pro cycling. I used to love it and watch all I could, in the last 3-4 years I’ve pretty much only watched Paris-Roubaix, but not even that this year. I’m not even sure who won, although I think it was Cancellara, electric motor assisted or not.

/Morten

Comment on Why “wikinomics” seems revolutionary and why it will certainly fail by alisdorf

alisdorf — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:00:40 +0000

Cool! Thanks for the references. I am looking forward to reeding the report. It looks really interesting.
As for the second comment – Here is a link to a model of fashion fluctuations. Makes you wonder…

Comment on Why “wikinomics” seems revolutionary and why it will certainly fail by Jan Lundquist

Jan Lundquist — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 07:19:26 +0000

The wikinomics trend has a lot of names – and some of the most interessting discussions can be found in Chris Andersons book “Free” and the report “Anarconomy” from the Danish Institute for Future Studies (its free to download on their site – http://www.iff.dk).

I do like your definition of the new categorical imperative – and besides what you are writing there is an partly overlooked mechanism: our cultures ability to absorb the young and new expressions of critisism. You refer to the punk cultur – and its a brillant example as there only went a few years before some of the international topdesigners (e.g. the Danish Ivan Grundahl) used punk as inspiration for new collections. And after the topdesigners has integrated it, the main culture does it too – and then punk is no longer a radical critisism.

Comment on The credibility of information – the internet vs the physical world by alisdorf

alisdorf — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:20:06 +0000

I realize that they are not limited to the internet. The argument is that the internet enhances some effects. The point I tried to make about print media is that it is not free to be a physical publisher, but it is free to be an internet publisher. Consequently the price of deception is infinitely smaller. If you get caught spreading propaganda you just change the name. The problem of the source is therefore, as you say, the same in print media, but there are some other factors at work. I haven’t really thought it out clearly so let me get back when I have a better answer.
Actually what I was getting at was something along the lines of Andrew Keen’s “The Cult of the Amateur”
My overall point is that the human mind is involved to function socially in a physical environment where other social beings are physically present. The internet is a technology that eliminates many of the cues that humans are evolved to use in ascertaining the credibility of information. This produces some new dynamics that are not just good.
I think we need to understand better these dynamics and I have pointed to some tentative ideas where to look.

Comment on The credibility of information – the internet vs the physical world by Gabe

Gabe — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:06:16 +0000

to play the devil’s advocate, I am a bit more optimistic. You should read a book like _Born Digital_ or _iBrain_. I think the problems you cite are not limited to the internet or maybe you make too big a deal of them. Knowing the publisher of print media does not always help. For example, publishers are mostly out to make money – they are commercial enterprises, so you cant always trust something just cuz you know the publisher. In the case of the internet, the idea would be identities their build up networks of trust based on previous exposure. The problem of the source is also a problem in print media. For example, you might read something published by News Corp and not know a facist runs it.

the thing about face to face communication is true – but the same critique could be said about print media. on the other hand, face to face communication might be worse in some ways because rhetorical skill, charisma, and other tricks might convince you of things whereas when you read something things are more dependent on the force of the communication.

i guess i have a more optimistic view of things, but I take your pt.