Saturday, March 8, 2014

What a Wonderful (Flat, Spiky) World...

I read Friedman's (2005) bestseller,  The World Is Flat,  or at least, I read most of it, a few years ago; though, I just reviewed the synopsis as assigned for this course.  His stories are vivid and compelling, and his conclusions and speculations are notable and convincing.

I read Florida's (2005) converse inclination, his Atlantic Monthly article, The World Is Spiky, this week for the first time.  His data is compelling, and his conclusions and speculations are notable and convincing.  (Wait, didn't I just say that?)

While searching for URLs for the links above, I also noticed numerous posted comparisons of the two titles:  they do invite comparison and analysis, don't they?  Well, here is my take.

They are both right.

When Friedman asserted, "the world is flat," he referenced the incredible leveling power exerted by the Internet today.  Incidentally, that's also what Shirky (2009) talked about in his TED talk about social media in the world today.  We can all be producers of media as well as consumers.  We can all be collaborators.  We can all be outsourcers; we can all be contractors providing services.  Globalization in the information age represents a flattening--a leveling of access.  The world is flat and getting flatter.

When Florida said, "the world is spiky," he backed his assertion with statistical data that showed concentrations of light energy, of patents, of population, and of scientific citations as spikes--indicating disparity of distribution.  Access to resources is not evenly distributed, after all, in practice.  Activity, productivity, and creativity stack in clusters.  The chart that is missing, and the one that I think would be the spikiest of all, is one charting distribution of individual wealth.  Wealth equates to many kinds of advantage, but certainly to the advantage of access to resources--and the ability to exploit and further profit from those resources.  This disparity continues to increase  in the US and globally.  By almost any measure, the world is spiky and getting spikier.

The reality that both statements are true is not so much a paradox as an example of another evolution that social connectivity and ready information access (e.g.,the Internet) has brought:  the supplanting of either/or thinking with "plus/and" thinking.  Thus:

The world is flat AND spiky.  Both ideas are valid. Hagel (2012) agreed, and said the next thing is connecting the spikes.  (That links to an interesting article that references both Friedman and Florida, and extends the ideas.)

I think similarly, in a way.  Optimist that I am, I feel hopeful and confident that the power of connectedness that comes with increasingly ubiquitous access to knowledge, information, and each other (flatness) will empower a leveling of disparities and inequalities (spikiness) towards social justice and the overall greater good.





6 comments:

  1. I'm going to be the first to comment on my own post. Yes, I know, I could just go in and edit it. In fact, I just did. That is what I want to comment on.

    Right after I finished posting, I walked, with my wife, through our German town, to our favorite Thai restaurant, where we two Americans enjoyed dinner--I had a Chinese dish. (Flat world?) While we were waiting for our food, as we were talking about this class, she asked to read my new blog. So, I showed her, using the data connection on my iPhone and its mobile browser. Two things:

    One: my wife is the world's greatest proofreader, and she caught a sentence that didn't work. She read it out loud to me. I said, "That doesn't work, does it." I took my phone back, logged on to the mobile version of Blogger, and fixed it right then and there during dinner. (Connected world?)

    Two: we saw an error message--something about "we do not permit hotlinking..."--in place of one of the cool images I had hyperlinked to, thinking to add a little visual zing. It was a graphic of a "flat world" from one of the articles I had referenced. I had figured linking to an image, considering the nature of the web, would not be a copyright infringement. But, that message made me wonder--so I did some research. (E.g., a quick web search). I was right, and on pretty solid legal ground, at least according to the 9th Circuit. But I also concluded that I wasn't comfortable doing something the (owner?) clearly didn't want. Further, I realized that linking to external images that way puts me at risk--that content could change, and then display something else on my page. So when I got home I went into my post and removed all the images. I searched Wikimedia Commons for replacements (that would be clearly and solidly in the public domain and intended for such use) but none of them quite fit the bill in the same way. So I guess the visual zing or bling will have to wait for another post.

    As I think about connecting spikes, my mind is spinning with the implications around copyright, privacy, connectivity, sharing and re-sharing, linking, copying, citing, collaborating...I began to believe that we are going to generate more questions than answers, together in this class.

    Regardless, we will generate connections, assuredly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post, Patrick, and good selfie in the comment!

    It is the goal of every class I teach that it end up being dinner conversations with our partners or spouses! :-)

    I agree with you (and Hagel) that the world is both flat and spiky...and that a role of leadership is to build bridges. Your example at dinner simply demonstrates the affordances of the web. How do we as leaders (1) embrace that and (2) develop our people so that they embrace it.

    Nice post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Patrick,
    Thank you for an interesting and informative post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading not only your insights regarding the week’s articles, but your post-blog update process. It made me chuckle in empathy and gave me more to think about. I don’t know about you, but this week has been a fairly large learning hill (rather than spike) to navigate as I’ve never blogged before and have been consistently adding new information and technology tools to my toolkit. The class is off to a great start, isn’t it?
    I, too, read and referenced Hagel’s (2012) article and identify as a fellow optimist. Wealth and power disparities continue to grow spikier while access and individual abilities to learn, collaborate, and share resources increases every day for users. Technology sparks the building of collective experiences for users that offers many opportunities and possibilities for the future. It is absolutely amazing.
    As with any new process, users and nonusers struggle to make sense of the need and reason for either adapting or rejecting the process. When I observe my grandchildren include technology for a myriad of uses (Daddy is a developer at Microsoft, so they’re introduced to some of the earliest versions of new technologies), I am generally amazed at their fluency and creativity. They are very comfortable with incorporating it into their daily lives (ages 4, 7, 11, & 12). I witness them learning in ways that weren’t accessible to my generation and it’s fascinating and inspiring. I am also learning so much from them whether it’s about their new knowledge or a video game/process they’re ever so gently explaining and teaching me, their Nana. I’m a pretty “with it” grandmother and attempt to stay technologically relevant because it’s so interesting to me, but their process is speedy and quite awe-inspiring.
    In my field, the nonprofit sector, there is also much to look forward to in technological advances. All nonprofits are in various stages of learning and choosing to adapt to, or reject, various aspects of technology. My role as an organizational consultant allows me to observe some of the consequences when nonprofits decide to steadfastly reject some of the technological assists available when “competing” organizations adapt and adopt the assists. This is especially true right now in the area of fundraising. Without effective and innovative internet campaigns, organizations are missing opportunities to fund their causes and serve their populations. Some organizations are not able to recover from this in time to remain viable.
    I look forward to more insight from you and how technology has contributed to, and challenged, your field and the educational process for the young ones. Thanks for an interesting post!
    Cheers,
    Eileen
    Hagel, J. (2012). Friedman vs. Florida, or how to thrive in a world both flat and spiky. Techonomy. Retrieved March 8, 2014, from http://techonomy.com/2012/09/friedman-vs-florida-or-how-to-thrive-in-a-world-both-flat-and-spiky/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eileen, I have a great picture of my then 2 year old granddaughter and "her iPad" as she told all of us. She was right at home interacting with the touchscreen, with absolutely no "training". It was just intuitive. Books - not so much!

      Delete
  4. Patrick,

    I laughed at your 'post' posting post and can so relate. I am often accused of being constantly (annoyingly and interminably) connected via my iPhone; but it allows me to access data pretty much instantly anywhere I am (AT&T connectivity issues notwithstanding) and it has truly become a integral part of not only my life - but me. I share your closing statement and I too, "feel hopeful and confident that the power of connectedness that comes with increasingly ubiquitous access to knowledge, information, and each other (flatness) will empower a leveling of disparities and inequalities (spikiness) towards social justice and the overall greater good." I will celebrate that day and hopefully it will be sooner than later and possibly even within my lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Patrick,

    I will not beat a dead horse in regards to the consensus that we live in a hybrid world of both flatness and spikiness. But, I too share your hopefulness for a world that is just and concerned with the greater good. Unfortunately, I am a pessimist by nature. Darn, if my cup isn't half empty!

    Robert

    ReplyDelete