What's the actual hashtag for this mofo?

There's this thing (with the hashtag marketing-people) where you can see stuff has to change. And will change. Society and civiilisation will remake itself.

This won't happen on its own. It will take marketing.

If you follow the architecture blogs, you'll see something self-consciously new-aesthetic. Self-consciously solid-state. Self-consciously modular, post-minecraft. Many of these things couldn't be imagined without massive computation and computing.

And we probably need those things.

There are a whole bunch of things we need but we don't know we need. We need fashion. Partly for haute couture, which is basically R & D and pure science in fabrics and fabrication. But also partly to smooth out economic cycles. We can't afford to have shops empty for half the year, for example.

The old is being chopped up faster than we're making new stuff.

We need marketers.

There must be a two-pomodoro way of doing this so that the week ends in elevation and distillation?

Guardian on public service by design #servicedesign ...can these programmes be sustained after design expert leaves?

There is a fun way to do Content Strategy. This is not it.

Courses are a hell of a lot easier to produce than learning organisations.

@gavinaldrich Can't sleep and been thinking about strategy Firms want tech/strategy support but *need* behavioural ...

See the other stuff in the reluctant_SoMe tag too.

Hiring and firing.

Plus, the many moods style of guru photo.

Collaboration includes the idea of people who you don't yet know - and ad hoc collaboration too.

The diagram is awesome in its concept. It's also worth breaking it down/adding to it in terms of search. I know/I know the search terms/I don't even know the search terms. Adding people into even the search terms is going to be the long-term goal.

Excellent idea on the Peter Principle (except it's not really the Peter Principle) etc

The wonderful, wonderful quote is, erm, wonderful.

This is pretty much what I've observed too. There's the Glass Floor.

See this in comparison with the experiment on This American Life with the bad apple business.

Team-building and management come under collaboration, evidently.

I'm not sure where the other links about this are - but it's really interesting. How do we know how good a teacher is and how do we learn how to train them?

Is it possible to develop this alongside a culture of blamelessness? Where your relative-to-last-year score is the most important one? If teachers drop out because their score is poor, surely this is a sign that they're not cut out for the responsibility of teaching?

Hmmm.

Big one this. And relates to the movies or sports thing posited by @usablelearning.

Is this a gestalt thing? And how does the bell curve relate to ISD? And culture? And antagonisms? And it all.

Need to sort out the cross-posting branding/strategy. And for how this gets added to the gogapedia.

How do you tell a 'good' teacher?

CleaveFast should be a spillover for the Gogapedia too - the article and the reference on CleaveFast.

CleaveFast will take some planning too...

A neat model for content and the blog course.

So, how do you overcome the barriers identified in this post?

Google's 20% time doesn't look so stupid, I suppose?

Well worth watching this - it's the key skill along with programming/hacking.

And, of course, a part of PKM.

I'm persuaded by the stop using clipart argument.

And the use of the term current is powerful - as opposed to the doldrums.

I'm wondering here about the spark/tinder ratio: is it our job to provide the spark or hand out the kindling/tinder? There's a balance here - but creative people would, surely, prefer kindling to sparks? They should want fuel not matches?

This is really interesting. Games are, in themselves, enough of a context. In the same way that we don't need a context to dance when we're kids (or another analogy which works better...)

At school, we assume we need to provide context to make something interesting. But maybe the opposite is true at work - when we force people into a context it becomes dull.

Interesting.

If you're going to do the Big Four, you'll need some sense of learners creating the context for themselves - maybe creating the context is the 'real' skill?

There was a report done by the military a while back which highlighted the danger of BoDia - people who care more about their friends on 4chan than they do their nation. (Actually, it was more about the cosmopolitans and the Brussels people, but you know what I mean.)

The 100-year career is a powerful one, too.

Anyway, the Internet Marginal is something I think a lot about.

Some good stories here.

Flynn Effect also applies to memory? http://bit.ly/9HjYRf

Stuff for the Topic Pages.

Good stuff here. Link to LADR and collaboration anxiety stuff.

Hmmm, how much is it necessary to have a specialist community manager? Couldn't it just be a, you know, manager?

This comes via @hjarche. I'm wondering if there's a third, more deliberately contrarian way? Where people deliberately do the opposite and make trade-offs in terms of the quality of their life etc

A kind of counterpart to the innovators dilemma - the industrialists dilemma.

There must be something in this - what about longform training? Really long worthwhile chained courses that are better than a single frickin' day?

This works so much better than all of those stupid paper.li things which are rapidly becoming spammy.

RT @ricardolucas Essential Skills for 21st Century Survival (Part 1) http://is.gd/enyOv<br />
– Randall Fujimoto (randyfuj) http://twitter.com/randyfuj/statuses/21513561045

My big point here is that you can learn *anything* and make it useful with creativity. And that you can probably use creativity training as one of the big things. This is the essence of *design thinking* - design done by people who aren't designers.

See: http://pinboard.in/u:simonbostock/b:7ecce5073e92

The fact is, you can spread behaviour virally. I've seen it in my national things.

Surely, you should be paying attention to this?

There's something in this about having a service which you can use to 'educate' customers.

Instructional Design for Marketers. Now there's something to conjure with.

Big question here is about the value we should be adding.

And the takeway is the idea of how people need to be able to disconnect from networks that aren't working for them.

The B2E idea is crucial.

And the idea as blogs for communication is also vital - especially once you get over the idea that comms has to be (a) 1:1 and (b) synchronous.

This is skeuomorph behhaviour.

De Groot on chess, plus OODA, plus compressed expertise from Weick. Intuition is something very interesting. As is instinct, and it's evil twin, cognitive bias.

Creativity. Enhancing the creativity of learners has been a goal of psychology
and education for generations. It is an unrealised goal. After many false dawns
based on claims of success that could not be replicated, it is clear that teaching
learners to be creative in any meaningful sense is at the very least difficult and
perhaps impossible. The lack of a clear theoretical base to guide consideration
of the issue of creativity has the inevitable consequence of a field based more
on enthusiasm than solid, understandable findings. We must at least consider
the possibility that not only are there no established techniques for teaching
creativity, but that the very concept makes little theoretical sense and if so,
there may never be grounds for optimism that teachable/learnable creativity
techniques will become available. The current analogy between evolution
by natural selection and human cognitive architecture provides a base from
which to consider the problem of creativity.
Evolution by natural selection is a creative system etc etc

This all seems a bit ridiculous - if you can teach people decision-making, you can teach them creativity, surely? What is creativity if it's not an OODA loop?

There's also something here about the 'major function of learning' being about storing stuff in long-term memory. This is - kind of - against the idea of informal learning. And related to the idea that there's no such thing as intuitive. And related to the idea that there's no such thing as literacy skill (cf Daniel Willingham). Presumably, all that stuff in long-term memory is useful. If you can connect it to the present day situation - and therefore creativity is the most important thing around.

Yet this extract seems to be *exactly* what I'm saying:
How can this system explain variations in human creativity? Random
alterations to a knowledge base are presumably just as likely in one individual
as another and yet some people are consistently more creative than others.
The answer is in the size of a knowledge base. Alterations to a large knowledge
base have the potential to generate ideas quite beyond the capabilities
of a person with a much smaller knowledge base. In other words, differences
in creativity between individuals are not due to differences in creative
processes but rather, are due to differences in the knowledge bases to which
the same creative processes are applied. If so, attempting to teach humans to
be creative is likely to be as futile as attempting to teach evolution by natural
selection to be creative. We can use instruction to assist learners in acquiring
a knowledge base and that knowledge base can increase the probability of
them being creative.

Make sure, to see the piece on completion effect.

Also see: the goal-free effect. Could you activate lots of learning with creativity and thus exploit the goal-free effect? How many things *can't* be used in learning? Just what *is* irrelevant? This is easy to answer in an educational setting, but far less easy to do in life. See Slumdog Millionaire, for example.

Gullibility, a 21C competence, is as much about managing self-efficacy as anything else.

Gullibility is about giving yourself permission to fail.

Don't know how I missed this from @DonaldHTaylor L & D at the crossroads, smart, reasonable, forward to HR, please.

When convinced that a learning goal will decrease our effectiveness or control, learners are less willing to continue pursuing the goal and the more inclined they are to select an alternative goal. - this is very similar to Mooer's Law

The gullibility thing is related to Wegner's Ironic Monitorying System Model, which says that the more people tell you something is easy (when you have an internal belief that it's not, due to low levels of self-efficacy) the more stressed out you will get. Telling somebody that it's easy (or stupid, and therefore easy) will not help you. In fact, it will make it worse.

Also, see Sarbin's Strategic Action Model for five types of strategic action - all of which have a helpful and a non-helpful sign. In order to look at GTD, you'd have to be able to clearly divide between the helpful and the non-helpful. I'd suggest that this is not always easy.

A growing body of work suggests that cultural worldviews permeate all of the mechanisms through which individuals apprehend risk, including their emotional appraisals of putatively dangerous activities, their comprehension and retention of empirical information, and their disposition to trust competing sources of risk information. As a result, individuals effectively conform their beliefs about risk to their visions of an ideal society. This phenomenon — which we propose to call “cultural cognition” — not only helps explain why members of the public so often disagree with experts about matters as diverse as global warming, gun control, the spread of HIV through casual contact, and the health consequences of obtaining an abortion; it also explains why experts themselves so often disagree about these matters and why political conflict over them is so intense.

This is a great image of what things are outsourcable and what training needs your organisation has.

Must write this.

Been reading about De Groot and chess. Was the battle between Kasparov and Deep Blue the moment when the ability to compute *all* possible games overcame the ability to recall all previous games? (Or did Deep Blue use the same strategy as Kasparov?)

I still don't understand why this doesn't work with eLearning? Who needs theory when you have AB testing?

Very very good and/or interesting visualisation of Content Strategy approaches

You have to add in business acument, systems, cyborgs, innovation - and separate it out from 'teaching' and the science of pedagogy.

See Amplify post on Embodied Cognition.

All things need different communication styles. Whether something is communicated synchronous/asynchronous/normative/positive/didactic/incrementally,extensibly etc will have a big impact on genre.

A couple of things: there's a whole load of these German words which are really useful.

And I'm not sure I get all this. But the idea of the Umwelt is powerful, to say the least. Related to schemata?

I'm going to put the word 'pretending' in here too, so I know I can find it later.

Anyhoo, see my comment.

I think there are loads of ways that blogs can be used for training. And few of them are.

This is something I'm doing (actually, failing to get round to...).

Anyhoo, see comments for ideas. Plus, look at the whole point of the Boundaries

I didn't really get this when I first found it. But this helps.

The key here is that Social Learning and Gameification are pretty much about the same thing: transmedia

It's important to recall the way that the story in Elite helped me play the game, for example.

Part of a series on the economics of training. What are the key ideas? Clearly, Transaction Costs is one. Supply and Demand? The Laffer Curve? Opportunity Cost? Behavioural stuff?

See slide 106 for quote:

Instinct . . . is largely memory in disguise.

I'm not sure how true this is, but it's interesting.

Like this.

It reminds me of my mum and colds: treat it and it gets better within a week, leave it be and it'll take about 7 days.

A few useful bits of information. I would how to add to it?

More on the news and education thing.

See my comment on why I think it's all important.

Splendid piece by @tombarrett Esp like idea of information content of walk to buy newspaper. via @dajbelshaw

Distributed Cognition and cyborgs. We do use the environment to think with.

Much to be said here about the nature of learning at work.

Esp. love the Charlie Chaplin poster - don't take up my space says the Great Dictator.

Found this via @owenferguson's post.

What do reports like this mean? Just as we all start shouting about mobility and innovation the most, everybody wants to become a civil servant?

The bit about Psychogeography and cities being engines is important.

Cyborgs construct engines. This is incredibly important.

Managers construct engines.

I've worked as a trainer, a teacher and as a teacher in a private school. And in Training Business Development.

Here's what I've learned from those:
In the private school, my boss told me, "You're competing with the price of a cinema ticket." This meant, to a certain degree, pandering to the crowd and keeping things fun.

In the college, we were all qualified and did things soundly.

The college teachers were all, without exception, worse than the ones in the private school (who were often unqualified or semi-qualified).

Even more telling, we had students who would leave language classes and go to do a 'real' course in cookery or pottery or even flower arranging. And they'd come back in a month having made an astonishing amount of progress. This told us a lot.

I remember one private tutee that I coached towards grad school. Time and time again I bemoaned her lack of progress. But, off she went to grad school and did fine. She did as well as she was expected.

When you become a trainer, one thing that's astounding is just how little work you do. It's amazing. From 6 classes a day to an environment where people are complaining about 3 'deliveries' in a week - a delivery is about the same whether it's 90 mins or 7 hrs in my experience, in terms of planning.

A day to write up your level 1 report? Idiocy.

ISDs make a big deal about their framework/profession and their ability to plan for courses they know nothing about. I can see how this might work with training. I've done it myself, to be honest.

But, it's also ridiculous. The Dunning-Kruger Effect here must play a huge part.

In fact, I know it does. Because I've also worked in Training Business & Development. Half the time, when you speak to businesses they've unconsciously worked out workarounds to your training.

My descent into informal learning:
With the T the T course and massive iteration.

Nobody but nobody knew what the learning objectives were.

It's one of the Big Four - and, yes, it should probably focus on the limits as much as anything.

There comes a point when Cognitive Load plays a part in this. It's like the banks - too big to fail means too big. Except we do get something out of these big banks. Possibly something dangerous, but we're in a situation where they're difficult to unwind.

Learning from success or failure, which is most effective?

Intimately related to Red Queen theory.

As I said before, this is a whole series of posts rather than just one, no?

I like this term and think there's much to learn.

Inverted Pyramid style reporting FTW.

I think this approach is probably necessary for Learning Objects too. If there's a host of them - and there probably should be.

Interesting. It's the opposite for Training. They need to get a lot better at managing the new, the KM stuff.

[There's an inverted pyramid link somewhere very close to this one in time which is related to this - under the wikidocs tag]

"Science probes; it does not prove"

I like this quote. And this is a better approach to teaching teachers? Thought experiment:
Teach teachers for a year and teach them how to teach.

Teach teachers for a month and teach them how to tell if they're teaching well.

Which would produce better teachers?

Now apply the same to management.

Lessons learned, or the AAR, are both interesting things.

We know they don't work. Why don't they work? Isn't it something ineffable and related to the nature of knowledge itself? Or have we just not found the technique yet?

This seems to be at the heart of a lot of KM and L & D stuff. Is it epistemic or systemic, to do a terrible pun.

One I've pondered myself (it's a bit McLuhanesque, I suppose).

Does it shape us or surface the shaping that's always been there?

More on how to learn programming.

(I have to watch myself here - I'm edging towards everything being 'applicable' and moving away from frameworks and theories. There must be some place for these?)