Thursday, February 11, 2010

They can hear now. What should we say?

Reminscent of the transition from high dependence on the broadcast paradigm giving way to the more cost-effective and appropriately symmetrical interactive communication tools, he thought. Top down as a starting point still made sense in a lot of contexts and this challenge started there. The empirical feedback came back fast as a result. The problem was that to the degree the assumptions were inconsequential or incorrect the effort yielded little in the way of deep understanding.

Looking back on centuries of communications development, a consistent pattern was evident relating to the lifetimes of messaging formats. Top-down and broadcast was near the beginning. Wide dissemination of a message and low cost on the plus side. Often the efficacy of the message was not considered before sending it since, by definition, the medium did not exist yet. Effective vetting is something that would have to wait. McLuhan said something about the new medium that applied then. Now too, but different.

Early feedback mechanisms were often constrained by obstacles that, especially in retrospect, could have been anticipated. Asymmetry in communication innovations was a natural consequence of pioneering a new tool. Even its application was just the figment of the minds eye of a solitary individual, far more often than not.

The projects organic methodology of looking into the inductive cognition process started with this paradigm. No surprise in retrospect. So engaging the others in a free-flowing deep discussion on how to bridge this case of communication asymmetry was the critical path on this nondescript overcast day in the 'dead' of winter.

No comments:

Post a Comment