I am seeking help with the formulation of an abstract equation for calculating, over time, people’s capacity to absorb new technology.

In 1965 Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore said that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost would double about every 24 months. Most people in the chip business agree Moore was basically correct. The rest of us believe it intuitively because new technology has been coming at us at ever-increasing velocity and power ever since.

It seems to me people’s capacity to absorb the best new technology must necessarily diminish each year as the sheer volume of innovations increases. What if my evolving equation to calculate this is actually as simple and dreadful as this:

A=T(10%)

(A=Absorption or adaptation, T=all technology innovations in a year’s time multiplied by 10%. Why 10%? It’s a guess. The 10% number is an estimate designed to compensate for all the new innovation that isn’t worthy, lasting or important while at the same time suggesting that the average person is doing well if he or she can, let’s say, Absorb 10 of the best new things from a crop of 100. That leaves 90 on the table. But is gets worse. When, within about eight years 10% = 1000 new things we ought to know about, we can absorb 100 but abandon any hope of catching up with 900 of the remaining best ideas. What are the implications of this?)

If it is true that people’s rate of technology absorption is a constant, then it means in the next ten years, more (Moore) and more great new technology innovations will be like so much seed sown on pavement.

Alternatively, the formula could be expanded to include an offset for "O" for the annual obsolescence which in turn would make more room for an equal measure of new capacity to absorb. Standards (S) and Integration (I) might be factors because they make the new technology more seamless and easier to use. An  “a” factor could be added to represent the age of the person on the theory that younger people adapt to more faster. Your thoughts?

I ask in part because I’m also wondering if we as people, generally speaking, between the age of 20 and 60 have a finite and diminishing capacity for technological change and does it dwindle in us over time the way a large finite number of female eggs deplete to an exponential curve with the passing of years. Is there, in other words, a mathematical equation which explains how overwhelmed I often feel these days by all that is new in technology… and why? Have I entered “mentalpause?”

Share This

The following excerpt, comes from a blog called wallydownundy, written by Walter Jennings, an American PR person now working in Sydney, Australia, with a major global PR firm. The specific post, entitled 'Don't think of a polar bear' speaks to an all-too common occurrence everywhere these days:

We’re working for a major destination in Australia and they are keen to consider social media as part of their marketing mix… Today we met with an exceptional design firm and heard an idea that sounds great - … The problem is, it’s not a social media recommendation.  Instead they made great suggestions regarding the web site and ways to bring it to life. 

We told them not to think of a polar bear and they came back to us with a large, white, carnivorous mammal that really likes the snow! 

Snow, indeed!

How is it still 'bearly' possible today to be blind to, indifferent about, or defensive over the difference between a web site and a social media solution? One is a much more finite project while the other is a journey. One is all high veneer where the other is authentic. One is a broadcast over a one-way corporate megaphone while the other is a community conversation.

Meanwhile, Mr. Jennings, I'd like to introduce you to the Social Media Collective. The resources you are seeking are most likely available in abundance from these people.

My guess is firms continue to recommend web site upgrades because corporations still buy them. Everyone feels safe and comfortable. The solution is familiar. The way air hates a vacuum, corporations detest risk. Risk increases as control decreases. But as we've known since forever, no risk, no reward. Safe, static, streamlined websites won't get anyone in much trouble. But then again, it won't get them much in the way of a reputation for thought leadership either.

Share This

You can't read this blog entry from Barbara Ganley and be left with any remaining doubt about the power of blogging, especially when it comes to the classroom. Entitled Change and the Twenty-First Century College Teacher, this post from Ms. Ganley is a tour de force of blog logic in these times. With special relevance to the academic setting, it should be required reading for every teacher, from pre-K to post-graduate. But it is so insightful about blogging in general it should be required readng for every corporate communications professional, too.

Here for example is just one of the many astonishingly candid and insightful statements she makes:

I know I’m a better thinker because of my blogging –I’m more inventive and more patient. I take risks. I fail. Publicly. In front of my students! In front of brave readers who kindly argue with me, pointing out what I’ve overlooked or oversimplified. And I am learning to be tougher on myself, to insist on having something to say instead of merely repeating myself or someone else. Slow blogging is both perilous and pleasurable. And it should, I believe, be an active part of any 21st-century teacher’s practice as a window into this generation’s world as well as a way to develop teaching-with-technology skills and a deep reflective practice.

Thanks, by the way, to this blog called SocialTech for bringing Ms. Ganley's post to my attention.

Share This