My Twitter Genesis. Talking with God versus the Multitudes.

Just getting back from DevLearn08 I've decided to jump into the Twitter thing. You can follow me @WillWorkLearn.

Before I fully begin my Twitter experience, here's a thought experiment regarding Twitter. If I could talk to God (or some other all-knowing entity), would it be useful for me (if I'm interested in gaining knowledge) to give up a minute of that precious time to talk with the multitudes?

No it would be foolish to give up a 100% chance of gaining true knowledge in a quickly-efficient way for a lesser chance at learning from the mulititudes. I'm assuming of course that neither God nor any other true-knowledge entity is following me on Twitter. What information-gathering entity has time for that?

Of course, knowledge is not everything I might desire. I might want to feel part of a community. I might want to make friends. I might want to do an ethnographic study of The Tworld just for fun. If this all-knowing entity was a bore or decided to use its wisdom to politely keep some personal distance from me, I would be better off talking with the multitudes. But since this is a blog that focuses on Learning, not Relationships, let's get back to the knowledge-gathering question.

Since it is unlikely that some all-knowing entity will have time for me, I will have to rely on entities that will provide me with less than 100% knowledge. If I find a 99%-true-knowledge entity, wouldn't I be better off talking with it, than talking with the multitudes? Yes, I would think so in most cases, though I suppose it depends on its knowledge gaps, and how fast I need the knowledge.

So, where is the breakeven point where I'm equally likely to get true knowledge from a true-knowledge entity and from the multitudes? Is it an 80%-true knowledge entity, a 50% true-knowledge entity, or a 20%-true-knowledge entity? 

Here's the point I think I'm making: If I have access to relatively good sources of information, how do I decide to forsake those sources for the multitudes, where information may be less valid or slower to access?

In other words, would Twitters be better off reading a non-fiction book, an article, or a trusted website?

I suppose we ought to divide our knowledge needs into categories.

• Deep knowledge, gained over significant amounts of time, requiring a subtle understanding of a topic area, its contingencies, its boundary conditions.
• Shallow knowledge, gained from one or a few experiences, not weaved tightly together with a network of knowledge.

If we need deep knowledge, we ought to go to a true-knowledge entity (if we know of one). If we just need shallow knowledge, we may be just as succcessful going to the multitudes.

I don't know, what do you think oh wise one?

And then there is the matter of the time horizon. I may learn small things quick or build big understandings over time by interfacing with my multitudes.

And then there is the matter of truthiness. What risk is there in getting information from the multitudes? Probably depends on the query.

I don't know, what do you think oh wise one?

WINK.

Comments

[dan roddy]

Will, what was it that prompted you to take the plunge? What was said at DevLearn that made you think "that's something I want a part of!"

[Clark Quinn]

Will, to your question: "In other words, would Twitters be better off reading a non-fiction book, an article, or a trusted website?" It depends on the volatility of the information, the currency of the information, the group of people who follow you, etc. I've seen (and had) questions answered well and quickly. There's no 'one' answer... Glad to see you on Twitter, BTW ;)

[Dave Ferguson]

Will, fortunately, it's not an either/or choice. I don't yet reap that much benefit from Twitter, but long experience with the old TRDEV listserv taught me to be patient with the signal/noise ratio.

I do think there's a lot of sense in the notion that groups and networks are different -- and with Twitter you're mainly connecting with networks. Nonhierarchial, ad-hoc, differing opinions and goals.

[Michael Ball]

This made me think of Yahoo! Answers, where you can have the multitudes answer your questions immediately (if it's a question that's already been asked) or within hours (if it's new). It seems like it can be a valuable tool for certain types of questions. Try this:

"How do I train my dog to not jump on people?"

The advice for this question seemed plausible and credible - I'll test it with my friend's dog.

But I'd be wary of trusting this tool for advice about serious problems or dilemmas. For instance, I asked what to do about depression. For one hapless soul, the one and only response was completely unhelpful:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnB._C3ak3rCgnZ5mNzzuegjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080910224703AAqYxdK

Another person got lots of advice, but honestly, is any answer other than "consult your doctor" really appropriate?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al1BEtWOhb5tQfZKCyQqtmcjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080909231908AAXEt7X

Will, when you get God's Twitter address, could you pass it on?

[EddieMCKAY]

I had got a desire to make my own business, however I didn't have enough amount of money to do that. Thank heaven my mate suggested to use the business loans. Thence I took the short term loan and made real my desire.