The second concept is “design” vs. “nourishment,” which both seem aspects of advancement, the first more mind-jacking but trivial than the latter. We hunger for design the same way we lust after salt or sugar or fatty meats, because good design like complex protein at one point was hard to come by. However, just as our modern groceries and fast-food outlets provide way more food than we need, we are gorging ourselves on nuances of design — look, a new iPhone OS! — that provide little real substance. Our hunger has misdirected our focus, and the foundational support of real development — of clean water for the poor, of universal healthcare still lacking in a rich nation — are not funded with our attention. If anything, we push these more nourishing areas of progress aside because they don’t jack our minds, kick our endorphins, fill our personal hunger for independence, and we decry them as collectivism or socialism when really community is an important a value in society as liberty. Foundational support by nature is broad, and broad things require many hands to build and many people to lean on, and we’re uncomfortable with sharing either work or reward.

This second area seems a newer form of conflict. The first is part of history.

NSN

B) I like that you humanized it w/the rock band example.

C) I’m still reminded in many of these types of models of the old core influence model with the concentric circles…of course that was focused on traditional media and you had the analyst community, then some specific media (e.g. tech, mobile, whatev) based on your core audience,and then extend extend extend until broad awareness and adoption. It’s not a completely 1:1 comparison and of course I’ve overly simplified how I explained it – but it just reminds me a bit of how people could serve themselves well if they simply kept some of those core principles close re: how a story is built, travels, gains momentum and becomes lore.

D) I still like your dissonance post the most, but I do like this as well…which is why I’m stealing…I mean SHARING it.

I think it’s important not to get caught up with semantics. As every parent knows, one person’s revolution is another’s disruption.

That’s why, if you noticed in my post, I was very careful to stick with strict definitions (Kuhn’s for revolutionary science and Christensen’s for disruptive innovation). These have very specific meanings and accomplish very different things.

I explained Christensen’s concept of disruptive innovation here: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2009/what-is-disruptive-innovation/

This is a Wikipedia entry for Kuhn’s revolutionary science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

I also gave a short (but hopefully good) explanation of Kuhn’s ideas here: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2011/how-technology-evolves/

I realize that these are also terms that are used colloquially and that confuses things quite a bit, but that really can’t be helped. The best we can do is be as precise as we can.

– Greg

Icann branded domains
Multimedia experiences with buy now options, sharing revenue with the trusted curators
Ebooks for purchase and promotion of ideas
Web enabled appliances

Why there is so much attention on social businesses and the cloud is beyond me. I guess its just that cheap to let your audience replace your interns and never own the manufacturing process.

Global economy. Can’t escape the guilt, the blame, the satisfaction, the hate, the need. We have to live with it. Just don’t learn to love it, baby.