Do read it, what they speak of is very much in tune with what I was saying in my previous post, even though there are a number of things I disagree with.
Here’s what Guy quotes from the book:
For an idea to be spread, it needs to be sent and received.
No one sends an idea unless:
- They understand it.
- They want it to spread.
- They believe that spreading it will enhance their power (reputation, income, friendships) or their peace of mind.
- The effort to send the idea is less than the benefits.
No one â€œgetsâ€ an idea unless:
- The first impression demands further investigation.
- They already understand the foundation ideas necessary to get the new idea.
- They trust or respect the sender enough to invest the time.
A number of things occur to me as I read this:
(a) Seth talks about enhancing “power” or peace of mind. I could, if I wanted to, cite the Nohria and Lawrence Four Driver model and connect this to the Drives to Acquire, Learn, Bond and Defend. But I am intrigued by just how often people refuse to accept any form of altruism as a motive to do something. In fact I’m more than intrigued. The reason so many people fail to understand the opensource movement or democratised innovation is precisely this, a failure to understand or accept altruism as a motive for anything. Yes there is peer respect and peer feedback loops and learning and peace of mind. But not at the expense of altruism. If you don’t get that, you won’t get opensource.
(b) I also think people need to accept provisionality is part of the new way of doing things; as Doc says, blogs are provisional. So it may well be that the “sender” of the idea doesn’t understand everything about the idea, but ploughs on regardless. Again, this is a fundamental shift from the past. [Actually it’s not that big a shift, it’s more an Emperor’s-New-Clothes shift. In the past people pretended they understood everything and that everything was accurate and perfect and and and. Now they know different and, at least in the blogosphere, we’ve started dropping the pretence :-) ]
(c) The two lists can actually be made into one list. The difference between sender and receiver is less distinct than has even been the case before. You could even take the last “receiver” point and say “If you don’t trust or respect yourself, then you will find it hard to blog your ideas.”
Let me summarise. Last time around I spoke about trust, and the Guy post/Seth book do that better than I could. However.
There are at least three concepts that, unless understood, will make it hard for people to grasp what is happening:
- Sender-receiver concept convergence
People can be altruistic, not everyone wants to find ways of “monetising” and “securitising” everything they do. People can be comfortable with being “provisional” rather than false-certain about things. In the blogosphere, the distinction between sender and recipient is blurred.
Deal with it.