Was the iPhone a disrupter? On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
> I’d say the folks that think a jackhammer is needed, aren’t a victim of > the folks with the concrete in a truck (that presumably pour it on anything > they can!), they *are* the sites where a jackhammer is now a useful > instrument. This makes me think of those bathtubs that can be installed > right on top of old tubs. Pour baby pour! > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl > Tollander > *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 2:04 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors > > > > Well, there's the concrete truck and then there's the jackhammer. > > > > On Oct 17, 2016 1:24 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > > It depends on whether, like David, you point to liberalism as the threat > to individual freedom and productivity, or the momentum of conservativism > and oligarchy to constrain lives. Some (like Assange) can’t stand either > one. A disruptor seeks a benign sort of chaos when power can shift hands > quickly, and repeatedly. The people that are all used up and have limited > skills *should* give way to those that do. Sure they can try to elect > someone like Trump, but that’s where sophisticated “liberal autocracy” must > step-up to outmaneuver the reactionaries. > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick > Thompson > *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 12:18 PM > *To:* friam <friam@redfish.com> > *Cc:* 'Stephen Guerin' <stephen.gue...@simtable.com> > *Subject:* [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors > > > > > > Dear Friammers, > > > > A close friend of mine has gone to work in marketing for a Startup > Incubator in Another City. I have been perusing the website and I notice > frequent use of the word “disruptors”, as if disruption was a goal in > itself. This puzzles me. I have always thought of technology as > “enabling’ and have thought of its disruptive effects as a kind of > collateral damage that needs to be mitigated. Now I recognize that one of > the properties of a really good technology company is the ability to > respond quickly to disruption, and to provide solutions and open up > opportunities for those whose lives are disrupted. And I realize that if I > owned a technology company, I might want to produce disruption in order > that I might supply “enablors” to the disrupted. But isn’t it a case of > industrial narcissism to MARKET oneself as a disruptor, a kind of > “preaching to the choir”, rather than outreach to potential purchasers of > one’s technology? Or is my thinking “oh so 20th Century.” > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
