Michelle's Article Provokes Questions, and a Rant!
I think that the concepts and constructs governing diffusion and tipping point theory are potentially fascinating, and certainly powerful weapons in the war of ideas and opinions. Is it true that regardless of the new tool or idea presented, the respondents always break down into the perfect bell curve from enthusiasts to nihilists? Aren't there contrary examples in history (Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine, etc.)? Where does each of us fit into this paradigm? Are we where we would want to be - and are we always in the same role (if this is making no sense, then I am afraid you might be forced to look at my precis)?
I don't doubt that the implications of these theories for the advancement of pedagogical technology are great. It also sounds like these authors should be required reading in any marketing (or propaganda) 101 course. I guess it is this presumption that even the greatest of innovations, ideas, etc. may not be able to stand on its own merits alone that ruffles my feathers.
Now, speaking of ruffled feathers, why do people no longer proofread? This article was so rife with syntactical, grammatical, and spelling errors, as well as major content deficits, that I found myself wondering if it was Diffusion Theory for Dummies, by ......... . Oy!
I don't doubt that the implications of these theories for the advancement of pedagogical technology are great. It also sounds like these authors should be required reading in any marketing (or propaganda) 101 course. I guess it is this presumption that even the greatest of innovations, ideas, etc. may not be able to stand on its own merits alone that ruffles my feathers.
Now, speaking of ruffled feathers, why do people no longer proofread? This article was so rife with syntactical, grammatical, and spelling errors, as well as major content deficits, that I found myself wondering if it was Diffusion Theory for Dummies, by ......... . Oy!
posted by MMichaelis at 2:41 PM
1 Comments:
To risk my own generalizing, people like Rogers and Gladwell drive me nuts in that they give people so many little factoids... they're meme factories. ... OK, can't really complain there. But, the Gaussian curve is strangely pervasive in natural settings, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to sociological settings. However, I start to worry about using it there, because it's a slippery slope to the horrific pseudoscience of "research" like The Bell Curve, which appears to descend into minority typing of IQ based on "empirical data". (Granted, I haven't read it myself, but it's difficult with a liberal, scientific viewpoint to read the official [Amazon.com] blurb "author Charles Murray explores the ways that low intelligence, independent of social, economic, or ethnic background, lies at the root of many of our social problems. He also discusses another taboo subject: that intelligence levels differ among ethnic groups." without at least cringing.)
As for proofreading, try to crack open an anthro or religious studies journal someday if you want to see not only typos galore, but incorrect statements of fact. Sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home