"My suspicion is that the efficacy of crowdfunding will in fact decline in inverse correlation to its success. Put differently: the more money that’s raised, the less wise will be the crowd that raises it. I call this theory – contra Surowiecki – “The Idiocy of the $49,000 Apple Pie”. Here’s how the web works to produce such dumb collective judgements: 1. Homogeneity of opinion – the apple-pie funders’ opinions are based securely on information common to them all: apple pies are yummy, moms are great and it’s nice to make apple pies for moms. 2. Conformity – simply by spending enough time on the web to become aware that some schmuck has posted such a crowdfunding appeal, these people are exhibiting a worrisome conformism. 3. Centralisation – also termed “googlisation”, this is a function of the way commercially oriented search engines act as positive feedback mechanisms to pump-prime consumer (or donor) demand. 4. Aggregation – this is the only proposition my theory shares with Surowiecki’s; I agree with him that the web can take all these individual judgements and turn them into a collective decision."
"Ralph is not a rule-follower like Lisa, nor a rule-breaker like Bart; Ralph does not observe the rules because he is almost completely unaware of them. More than any of the other students at Springfield Elementary, Ralph is a child. Bart and Lisa and Milhouse and Nelson and Janey are kids, and therein lies the difference."
~ "Child" versus "kid." Wow. I’d never really thought about that distinction before, so, when I read this today, it hit me like a ton of bricks. My daughter is mostly still a child—not quite a kid—and a lot of stuff makes more sense if I keep that in mind. (via merlin) !!! (via merlin)
"Child" versus "kid."
Wow. I’d never really thought about that distinction before, so, when I read this today, it hit me like a ton of bricks.
My daughter is mostly still a child—not quite a kid—and a lot of stuff makes more sense if I keep that in mind.
"In any event, the entire behavioural display that we call crying – the tear production, the squinting, the raised upper lip, the repeated alarm calls – makes for a useful signifier. Evolution would have favoured animals that reacted to it with an emotional desire to dispense comfort. And once the defensive set had taken on this signalling role, a second evolutionary pressure would kick in. It would now be in the animal’s interests to manipulate the situation and mimic an injury – exaggerating it, even – whenever it needed comfort. Thus the signal (crying) and the response (an emotional urge to offer comfort in reaction to crying) evolve in tandem. So long as both sides of the exchange keep deriving benefits, the behaviour floats free of its violent origins."
The thing is, outside the tech community most people just don’t download that many apps. Statista put out a report late last year that on average, US smartphone holders have installed 26 apps. To put that in perspective, that’s just over a page of apps on an iPhone 5 screen. Not only are most people not reading about or searching for apps, but when they do hear about one from a company they know, the default behavior is not, “Wowee! I already have Facebook - I should start using their new app!”
Putting the apathy of mainstream consumers aside, there’s a much deeper problem with the whole unbundling strategy…"