6 ms·

Research's always going to throw up some cautionary tales that the author will add as a caveat to not come across as a complete fool. Here are some of the claim

Research's always going to throw up some cautionary tales that the author will add as a caveat to not come across as a complete fool. Here are some of the claims he has made: http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554 http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554 There's a specific claim here too: baloney to people buying books on the internet I am not saying he's an Andrew Keen or a James Glassman, but he is a pretty middling futurist, which is to say he is no better than a coin flipper. As for the idea that similar grand claims were made about television and radio and they did not pan out, well they weren't democratic media that allowed equal participation. This of course doesn't mean that the internet is the second coming of a virtual Jesus, but basing predictions on few archaic data in a dynamic environment doesn't make you a futurist, it makes you a bad historian.

BrandonM 19y ago
I voted your original comment down because I didn't really like the Ritalin comment (it's refreshing to see someone so exuberant and happy to be alive), but I voted this one up for the link and the insight into the differences between TV/radio and the Internet. The main shortcomings in his predictions seemed to be underestimating our ability to solve what looked like (to him) impossible problems: search and secure transactions. He did, however, have some good insights about the negative social changes the web (and other technology [1]) has introduced. Physical human interaction is a powerful means to evoke empathy and understanding towards others. It's much too easy to look at text on the screen and forget the person behind it. As we spend more time interacting in such media, we spend less time interacting physically. Will we reach a point of extremely limited physical interaction, or will we eventually lose interest in spending our time reading text from a screen? [1] I have considered a few times how different it must have been to hang out in libraries or walk across campus before the invention of iPods (actually, I guess before tape player + headphones). These days, it is rare to talk to a stranger that you happen to run into because they are typically immersed in their own audio world. I suspect that may be one reason we don't see student activism on the level of the Vietnam riots these days: there aren't as many diverse individuals interacting and sharing ideas.
Tichy 19y ago
Well, did you buy Yahoo or Google stock in time and became an internet millionaire? If not, why not? Perhaps because you didn't predict their success? So why should we listen to you? if you put your thoughts on the line, you risk being wrong sometimes. It doesn't invalidate all your other thoughts.
- mrtron 19y ago
  I became an internet hundredaire!
- ChaitanyaSai 19y ago
  Revealing the thought process as he did does allow me to draw conclusions about his general predictive success. My definition for a futurist is someone who is a standard deviation better or reasoned in his/her predictions than the median. Let us say that I am no good at presaging, so of course you shouldn't give much credence to any predictions I might make. However, predictions aren't what I am offering here. It is a critique of his ideas and the generative process behind them.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    You predict that his predictions are bad.
  - anewaccountname 19y ago
    Nice prediction, Nostradamus.
xirium 19y ago
It was a reasonable assumption to assume that selling books online was unviable. It was enevitable that the cost, speed and quantity of data online would exceed all printed books. However, quality and conciseness hasn't been exceeded in the general case. (Encyclopedias are a debatable exception.) The reason may be a case of game theory. If I cannot immediately find the information online then my choices are to search harder, find an expert, derive the answer myself or buy a book. Of course, when anyone takes the latter option, it discourages said information from becoming freely available in the near future in its entirity.

BrandonM 19y ago

I voted your original comment down because I didn't really like the Ritalin comment (it's refreshing to see someone so exuberant and happy to be alive), but I voted this one up for the link and the insight into the differences between TV/radio and the Internet. The main shortcomings in his predictions seemed to be underestimating our ability to solve what looked like (to him) impossible problems: search and secure transactions. He did, however, have some good insights about the negative social changes the web (and other technology [1]) has introduced. Physical human interaction is a powerful means to evoke empathy and understanding towards others. It's much too easy to look at text on the screen and forget the person behind it. As we spend more time interacting in such media, we spend less time interacting physically. Will we reach a point of extremely limited physical interaction, or will we eventually lose interest in spending our time reading text from a screen? [1] I have considered a few times how different it must have been to hang out in libraries or walk across campus before the invention of iPods (actually, I guess before tape player + headphones). These days, it is rare to talk to a stranger that you happen to run into because they are typically immersed in their own audio world. I suspect that may be one reason we don't see student activism on the level of the Vietnam riots these days: there aren't as many diverse individuals interacting and sharing ideas.

Tichy 19y ago

Well, did you buy Yahoo or Google stock in time and became an internet millionaire? If not, why not? Perhaps because you didn't predict their success? So why should we listen to you? if you put your thoughts on the line, you risk being wrong sometimes. It doesn't invalidate all your other thoughts.

mrtron 19y ago
I became an internet hundredaire!
ChaitanyaSai 19y ago
Revealing the thought process as he did does allow me to draw conclusions about his general predictive success. My definition for a futurist is someone who is a standard deviation better or reasoned in his/her predictions than the median. Let us say that I am no good at presaging, so of course you shouldn't give much credence to any predictions I might make. However, predictions aren't what I am offering here. It is a critique of his ideas and the generative process behind them.
- Tichy 19y ago
  You predict that his predictions are bad.
- anewaccountname 19y ago
  Nice prediction, Nostradamus.

xirium 19y ago

It was a reasonable assumption to assume that selling books online was unviable. It was enevitable that the cost, speed and quantity of data online would exceed all printed books. However, quality and conciseness hasn't been exceeded in the general case. (Encyclopedias are a debatable exception.) The reason may be a case of game theory. If I cannot immediately find the information online then my choices are to search harder, find an expert, derive the answer myself or buy a book. Of course, when anyone takes the latter option, it discourages said information from becoming freely available in the near future in its entirity.