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.

Link to the one in Berlin. And the comments on the BoingBoing piece are wondrous (in that they lead to wondrous links).

Looks like you need to search for buzzbaker and buzzbakers...

And you need to sort out the theme for buzzbakers too.

@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.

Comment on this.

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.

Hmmmm. Yes and no and yes, but no, but yes.

I like the idea of the game as being 'fun' vs 'seriously selfishly strategic' a lot.

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

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.

These are fun. Why?

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.

The psychological stuff is WEIRD-specific? We know that drunkenness is, so perhaps this makes sense.

One to follow up, no doubt.

Copyright is a full-on thing for the Thallium watchlist thingy.

The cartoon's the one about Gallileo and the post is called 'Mark Waid is right'.

Artificially Difficult is the best one, but the others are cool too.

Kind of like Epic Win but with a mafia theme?

via @jesseschell and the Gamepocalypse Now site.

Satire is indistinguishable from bonkers.

How do you tell a 'good' teacher?

I'd love to see this alongside a visualisation of Brittanica.

A visualisation of edits on Wikipedia in real-time. Fascinating.

Amazing, simple game with one-button only - but the button does something different every game.

Aki points out he did the SCVNGR thing a while back - and points out that loads of people are probably working on the same thing.

I know I am - and wonder if there's a game in this somewhere. Game Mechanics the Gathering.

Looks neat. There was a similar one where Twitter avatars fought each other too - but I can't remember where that one was.

via @ludofy

Kind of missing the point a little here. But also valid.

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 think toys are a big part of games. And they're largely forgotten about.

As El Schell says, to build a good game, first build a beautiful toy.

I really enjoyed Choice of Broadsides. A lot. And even replayed it a couple of times.

In fact, all these Choose Your Own Adventure things seem due for a revisit.

Link to the idea of the Post-Primary narrative.

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?

The fact that the reader creates the text is *extreme* ie French? Possibly.

I love the idea of escaping into thinking.

Barcode Battler, related to this:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/16/barcode-hero/

And it's all related to the playing with the world stuff.

The city is my battlesuit - should be a concept game.

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.

Wow.

RT @Ludoscience MSU is updating it's list of #seriousgames : http://bit.ly/buDy9J<br />
– Seriosity (Seriosity) http://twitter.com/Seriosity/statuses/22119604201

Worth doing a search for Serious Games and adding to a review/directory and schedule - is there space in the IA for this?

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 game is superbly awesome. Superbly awesome. Like, really really good.

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.

The difference between finite and infinite publication models. TV says it's finite but really it's infinite. And a lot of us moved to the finite model.

Newspapers say they're infinite but, in fact, they're finite. Because they have a message.

etc

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

This is interesting - and playful.

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

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.

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.

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?)

Big big question.

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

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

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.

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

Exnovation (shedding of the old) is a useful term.

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

How much of this is literacy and how much of this is specialist?

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.

How much of profit is down to 'external effects'? Why don't we base taxes on this rather than some stupid idea of fairness to society?

Why spend money on this? Hmmmm. Examples?

Gameification isn't about the mechanics but about the transmedia potential.

I don't know why I didn't see this before.