Generating Generation?

500 views

Published on

Deze presentatie is gegeven tijdens de Stedenlink bijeenkomst op 12 mei 2009. In de presentatie worden verschillende aspecten van de ontwikkelingen op het web uitgelegd, zoals rechten, randvoorwaarden, e-vangelisten en e-theïsten.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
500
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Mij was gevraagd om een presentatie te geven over de genererende generatie. Nu is er een “probleempje”, want de genererende generatie bestaat niet. Die is er al sinds mensen dingen kunnen maken. Wat er wel is, is een enorme toename in de mogelijkheden om zelf dingen te maken.
  • Oftewel, de mogelijkheden voor User Generated Content. Hierover gaat deze presentatie in brede zin.
  • Om dat te doen heb ik gebruik gemaakt van verhalen die er al zijn, maar die ik heb mogen en kunnen gebruiken.
  • In 1906
  • was deze man, John Philip Sousa,
  • een groot tegenstander van dit apparaat, een pratende machine, oftwel de grammofoonspeler.
  • Hij was zo ontzettend geen fan dat hij zelfs hierheen ging om ervoor te protesteren tegen deze machines.
  • En dit is wat hij te zeggen had....



  • Dit had betrekking op de cultuur waar mensen in leefden.
  • Met het zingen op straat had hij het eigenlijk over een read-write cultuur: men luisterde naar elkaars liederen en bedacht zelf liederen en teksten.
  • Mensen participeerden
  • in het creeëren van hun eigen cultuur
  • en het hercreeëren aan de hand van hetgeen ze van anderen hebben gezien of gehoord.
  • De angst van Sousa was dat mensen dit creeërende vermogen zouden verliezen door de komst van
  • deze machines.
  • En dat we naar een read-only cultuur zouden gaan.
  • Een cultuur waar creativiteit alleen geconsumeerd wordt,
  • waar cultuur alleen top down zou en de makers van deze machines zouden bepalen wat men er op af kan spelen. Er zijn wel technieken die dit karakter hebben, zoals de LP en CD’s in het begin.
  • Maar volgens mij kunnen we vandaag de dag wel concluderen dat hij behoorlijk mis zat.
  • Nooit eerder waren er zoveel verschillende technieken en middelen beschikbaar waarmee mensen zelf content kunnen maken. Ook neemt met de dag de hoeveelheid en de kwaliteit van
  • User Generated Content toe.
  • Deze introductie is daar ook een voorbeeld van.
  • Het is mijn vertaling van iets wat iemand anders gemaakt heeft, namelijk
  • deze man
  • Larry Lessig
  • Dit begin is gebaseerd op de presentatie die hij gaf op de TED conferentie:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
  • over de juridische beperkingen die er zijn voor de huidige generating generation.
  • De grootste beperking is namelijk copyright. Als Larry zijn verhaal met copyright beschermd zou hebben, zou ik hier niet dit verhaal hebben kunnen houden.
  • Maar dan had u hem zelf in moeten vliegen.
  • Gelukkig hoeft dat, ik MAG zijn verhaal gebruiken om aan anderen te vertellen.
  • Dat komt doordat hij zijn verhaal beschikbaar heeft gesteld onder een Creative Commons licentie, een alternatief voor copyright: www.creativecommons.nl. Lessig is dé oprichter van Creative Commons.
  • Waarbij een maker aan kan geven in welke situaties en voor wat voor gebruik iemand toestemming heeft om zijn materiaal te gebruiken.
  • In plaats van te denken in beperkingen, is dit dus denken in mogelijkheden.
  • In plaats van te denken in beperkingen, is dit dus denken in mogelijkheden.
  • In plaats van te denken in beperkingen, is dit dus denken in mogelijkheden.
  • Het denken over content op deze manier opent enorm veel mogelijkheden voor het gebruik van content.
  • Een ander aspect van de online ontwikkelingen werd door deze man onder de aandacht gebracht.
  • James Surowiecki
  • Zijn boek Wisdom of the Crowds is naar mijn idee een must-read voor iedereen die zich met communities bezig wil houden.

  • Voor meer informatie zie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

  • Types of crowd wisdom

    Surowiecki breaks down the advantages he sees in disorganized decisions into three main types, which he classifies as:

    Cognition
    Thinking and information Processing
    Market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.
    Coordination
    Coordination of behavior includes optimizing the utilization of a popular bar and not colliding in moving traffic flows. The book is replete with examples from experimental economics, but this section relies more on naturally occurring experiments such as pedestrians optimizing the pavement flow or the extent of crowding in popular restaurants. He examines how common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture.
    Cooperation
    How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance. This section is especially pro free market.
  • Types of crowd wisdom

    Surowiecki breaks down the advantages he sees in disorganized decisions into three main types, which he classifies as:

    Cognition
    Thinking and information Processing
    Market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.
    Coordination
    Coordination of behavior includes optimizing the utilization of a popular bar and not colliding in moving traffic flows. The book is replete with examples from experimental economics, but this section relies more on naturally occurring experiments such as pedestrians optimizing the pavement flow or the extent of crowding in popular restaurants. He examines how common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture.
    Cooperation
    How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance. This section is especially pro free market.
  • Types of crowd wisdom

    Surowiecki breaks down the advantages he sees in disorganized decisions into three main types, which he classifies as:

    Cognition
    Thinking and information Processing
    Market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.
    Coordination
    Coordination of behavior includes optimizing the utilization of a popular bar and not colliding in moving traffic flows. The book is replete with examples from experimental economics, but this section relies more on naturally occurring experiments such as pedestrians optimizing the pavement flow or the extent of crowding in popular restaurants. He examines how common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture.
    Cooperation
    How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance. This section is especially pro free market.
  • [edit] Four elements required to form a wise crowd

    Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. Refer to Failures of crowd intelligence (below) for more examples of unwise crowds. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

    Diversity of opinion
    Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
    Independence
    People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
    Decentralization
    People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
    Aggregation
    Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.


  • [edit] Four elements required to form a wise crowd

    Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. Refer to Failures of crowd intelligence (below) for more examples of unwise crowds. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

    Diversity of opinion
    Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
    Independence
    People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
    Decentralization
    People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
    Aggregation
    Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.


  • [edit] Four elements required to form a wise crowd

    Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. Refer to Failures of crowd intelligence (below) for more examples of unwise crowds. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

    Diversity of opinion
    Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
    Independence
    People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
    Decentralization
    People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
    Aggregation
    Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.


  • [edit] Four elements required to form a wise crowd

    Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. Refer to Failures of crowd intelligence (below) for more examples of unwise crowds. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:

    Diversity of opinion
    Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
    Independence
    People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
    Decentralization
    People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
    Aggregation
    Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.




  • Failures of crowd intelligence

    Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

    Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision-making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

    Too homogeneous
    Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
    Too centralized
    The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
    Too divided
    The US Intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again.
    Too imitative
    Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an \"information cascade\"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.
    Too emotional
    Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

  • Failures of crowd intelligence

    Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

    Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision-making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

    Too homogeneous
    Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
    Too centralized
    The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
    Too divided
    The US Intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again.
    Too imitative
    Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an \"information cascade\"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.
    Too emotional
    Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

  • Failures of crowd intelligence

    Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

    Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision-making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

    Too homogeneous
    Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
    Too centralized
    The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
    Too divided
    The US Intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again.
    Too imitative
    Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an \"information cascade\"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.
    Too emotional
    Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

  • Failures of crowd intelligence

    Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

    Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision-making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

    Too homogeneous
    Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
    Too centralized
    The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
    Too divided
    The US Intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again.
    Too imitative
    Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an \"information cascade\"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.
    Too emotional
    Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

  • Failures of crowd intelligence

    Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.

    Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision-making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

    Too homogeneous
    Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
    Too centralized
    The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
    Too divided
    The US Intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.)
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again.
    Too imitative
    Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an \"information cascade\"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.
    Too emotional
    Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

  • Mensen en organisaties die gebruik willen maken van deze vormen van collectieve denkkracht,
  • dus van die mensen die we nu verzamelen onder term Generating Generation,
  • moeten zich realiseren dat er bepaalde voorwaarden zijn, zoals die aangegeven zijn in The wisdom of the crowds, om die collectieve denkkracht aan te spreken. Dit geldt dus ook voor E-democratie!!
  • Dit was een gedeelte e-vangelistme, een korte introductie van personen die zeer positief tegenover de ontwikkelingen op het web staan en hun denkwijze.
  • Maar zoals bij elk geloof is er ook een tegenkracht, deze heb ik voor nu maar even een E-theïst genoemd.
  • En deze man wordt over het algemeen als zo’n persoon beschouwd.
  • Voor meer informatie zie: http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ en ook http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Keen

  • En dit is wat hij denkt over de ontwikkelingen.....
    Bron: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp?pg=1
  • Bron: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp?pg=1

  • Hij gaat zo ver dat hij de ontwikkelingen vergelijkt met het Marxisme.

  • In het Marxisme was er geen exclusiviteit op activiteiten: je kon ‘s ochtends gaan jagen, ‘s middags meehelpen met iets bouwen en ‘s avonds kon je kok voor vele mensen zijn.

  • Iedereen kan dus alles doen en alles worden. Ditzelfde ziet hij ook gebeuren door de ontwikkelingen op het web.

  • Want iedereen kan zich nu profileren als schrijver, fotograaf, journalist, muzikant of regisseur. Met de middelen die nu voorhanden zijn, software zoals gratis weblogs, fotogalerijen, muzieksites en hardware zoals videocamera’s, is het voor iedereen binnen bereik om zijn of haar eigen creativiteit te uiten.
  • Want iedereen kan zich nu profileren als schrijver, fotograaf, journalist, muzikant of regisseur. Met de middelen die nu voorhanden zijn, software zoals gratis weblogs, fotogalerijen, muzieksites en hardware zoals videocamera’s, is het voor iedereen binnen bereik om zijn of haar eigen creativiteit te uiten.
  • Want iedereen kan zich nu profileren als schrijver, fotograaf, journalist, muzikant of regisseur. Met de middelen die nu voorhanden zijn, software zoals gratis weblogs, fotogalerijen, muzieksites en hardware zoals videocamera’s, is het voor iedereen binnen bereik om zijn of haar eigen creativiteit te uiten.
  • Want iedereen kan zich nu profileren als schrijver, fotograaf, journalist, muzikant of regisseur. Met de middelen die nu voorhanden zijn, software zoals gratis weblogs, fotogalerijen, muzieksites en hardware zoals videocamera’s, is het voor iedereen binnen bereik om zijn of haar eigen creativiteit te uiten.
  • En dat leidt tot minder specialisten, vele mensen doen van alles een beetje.

  • in plaats van een beetje alles. Er wordt, volgens Keen, over het algemeen minder gefocussed op het ontwikkelen van excellentie op maar één of twee gebieden.
  • Om maar even een quote van Keen er bij te pakken. Het punt
  • Zoals vele ontwikkelingen zijn er dus ook op het gebied van nieuwe media kampen aan het ontstaan. En die kunnen op vele verschillende thema’s gefocussed zijn. Gezien het feit dat de ontwikkelingen nog maar net begonnen zijn kunnen we nog veel meer van dit soort discussies verwachten.
  • Nu is de vraag: wie zijn nou onderdeel van die Generating Generation?
  • Dat zijn niet alleen maar de hippe jongeren.
  • Maar ook de kinderen van nu.
  • En ook een hele hoop “hippe” volwassenen. Hip slaat dan meer over hun interesse in de nieuwe mogelijkheden en een experimenteerdrang dan dat het te maken heeft met modieus zijn. De Generating Generation is meer een verzameling mensen die niet t typeren zijn aan de hand van hun leeftijd, maar naar hun interesse in de tools die ze kunnen gebruiken om informatie te delen en te vragen en zichzelf te ontplooien.
  • Een andere vraag is wat de drijfveer is van deze mensen. Waarom steken ze hier tijd en energie in?
  • De meeste mensen zullen wel gehoord hebben van de piramide van Maslow.
  • De bovenste drie lagen kan je terug zien bij het gedrag op internet: het maken en onderhouden van vriendschappen en relaties, het verdienen van respect en het gevoel van meerwaarde. Als je vanuit die bril naar een youtube filmpje kijkt, dan zit daat dus veel meer gelaagdheid in dan op het eerste gezicht lijkt.


    Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation,[2] which he subsequently extended to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity.

    Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that \"the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy.\"[3] Maslow also studied the healthiest one percent of the college student population. In his book, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Maslow writes, \"By ordinary standards of this kind of laboratory research... this simply was not research at all. My generalizations grew out of my selection of certain kinds of people. Obviously, other judges are needed.\"[4]
  • Een ander stelsel om naar die behoeften te kijken komt van Manfred Max-Neef. Hij is het met Maslow oneens over de hiërarchie in de behoeften. In plaats daarvan plaatst hij deze allemaal naast elkaar: het één is niet per se belangrijker dan het ander. Wel zijn ze te clusteren.
  • Zie voor meer informatie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs
  • Iemand anders die dat al voorzag was Andy Warhol.
  • In 1968 deed hij deze uitspraak al naar aanleiding van zijn eigen interesse in het ontstaan van beroemdheden, celebrity, etc.
  • Als we dan kijken naar wie er gevoelig zijn voor die erkenning, dan is daar wel een verklaring voor waarom jongeren en nieuwe media zoveel met elkaar geassocieerd worden. Onderzoekster Linda van Leijenhorst heeft belangrijk onderzoek hiernaar gedaan.

    Op 11 mei lichtte zij haar onderzoek toe in De Wereld Draait Door. Deze uitzending is online te bekijken: http://dewerelddraaitdoor.vara.nl/Video-detail.628.0.html?&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=6822&tx_ttnews[backPid]=626&tx_ttnews[cat]=148&kalender=1242079140&cHash=a928982630




  • Linda van Leijenhorst: in de hersenen van een puber

    Linda van Leijenhorst (30) is ontwikkelingspsychololoog en vierdejaars promovendus in het Brain and Development lab aan de Universiteit Leiden.

    Waarom zitten pubers te msn’en terwijl ze best weten dat ze nog vijf paragrafen moeten leren voor dat proefwerk morgen? Waarom fietsen ze zonder licht met z’n vieren naast elkaar naar huis? Hoe kan het dat er met een adolescent soms heel redelijk te praten valt, en dat diezelfde adolescent even later stampvoetend met deuren gooiend naar zijn of haar kamer verdwijnt?

    Onderzoek naar adolescenten
    Adolescenten doen vaak risicovolle dingen waarvan ze zelf eigenlijk ook wel weten dat die misschien niet heel erg verstandig zijn op de lange termijn. Ontwikkelingspsychologen proberen dit typische pubergedrag al heel lang te begrijpen. Sinds kort weten we dat dit gedrag verklaard kan worden door te kijken naar de manier waarop de hersenen zich ontwikkelen. In de adolescentie verandert er enorm veel in het brein.

    Ontdekkingen in Nederland
    In Leiden maakt Linda gebruik van functionele MRI, een techniek waarmee activiteit van de hersenen in beeld kan worden gebracht. Zij heeft met haar collega’s laten zien dat de gebieden die belangrijk zijn voor het controleren van ons gedrag langzaam ontwikkelen en pas “af” zijn wanneer we begin 20 zijn, terwijl de gebieden die gevoelig zijn voor beloningen sneller ontwikkelen en overgevoelig zijn in de adolescentie.

    Illustratie: oplichtende beloningsgebieden in de hersenen

    Hierboven is te zien hoe het beloningsgebied bij adolescenten sterker oplicht in een fMRI-scan, dan bij kinderen of volwassenen. Hierdoor is de balans in deze fase van de ontwikkeling kwetsbaar. In de adolescentie zijn emoties heftiger, en zijn veel dingen in potentie “cool” om een keer te proberen, terwijl het vermogen deze emoties te controleren nog niet zo goed is, het gevolg van deze kwetsbare balans is typisch pubergedrag.

    Meer informatie: http://www.brainanddevelopmentlab.nl/

    Voor wie tussen de 8 en 25 is en het leuk lijkt om zelf eens mee te doen aan fMRI onderzoek: http://www.juniorhersenen.nl/


  • Tot slot nog een paar opmerkingen
  • Allereerst
  • Deze man,
  • Generating Generation?

    1. 1. Genererende Generatie
    2. 2. UGC
    3. 3. Gejat Geleend Gebruikt
    4. 4. 1906
    5. 5. “These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country”
    6. 6. “When I was a boy.... In front of every house in the summer evening you would find people singing the songs of the day or the old songs”
    7. 7. “Today you here these infernal machines going night and day”
    8. 8. “We will not have a vocal chord left. The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution, as the tail of man when he came from the ape.”
    9. 9. Cultuur
    10. 10. Read-Write
    11. 11. Participeren
    12. 12. Creeëren
    13. 13. Hercreeëren
    14. 14. Creeërend vermogen verliezen
    15. 15. Read-Only
    16. 16. Creativiteit Geconsumeerd
    17. 17. Top down
    18. 18. Mis!
    19. 19. ++ Hoeveelheid ++ Kwaliteit
    20. 20. UGC
    21. 21. Voorbeeld
    22. 22. Mijn vertaling
    23. 23. Larry Lessig
    24. 24. Juridische beperkingen
    25. 25. Copyright
    26. 26. HET MAG
    27. 27. Toestemming
    28. 28. Beperkingen
    29. 29. Beperkingen Mogelijkheden
    30. 30. Mogelijkheden
    31. 31. James Surowiecki
    32. 32. Wisdom om the Crowds
    33. 33. Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations
    34. 34. Ongeorganiseerde beslissingen
    35. 35. 3 types/voordelen
    36. 36. 3 types/voordelen Erkenning Stroomlijning Samenwerking
    37. 37. Voorwaarden
    38. 38. Voorwaarden Diversiteit van meningen Onafhankelijkheid Decentralisatie Aggregatie
    39. 39. Mislukkingen
    40. 40. Internet bubble Krediet crisis
    41. 41. Valkuilen
    42. 42. Valkuilen Te homogeen Te gecentraliseerd Te verdeeld Te veel imitatie Te emotioneel
    43. 43. Collectieve denkkracht
    44. 44. Generating Generation
    45. 45. E-democratie
    46. 46. Voorwaarden voor E-democratie
    47. 47. E-vangelist
    48. 48. E-theïst
    49. 49. Andrew Keen
    50. 50. “Buzzwords from the old dot.com era -- like quot;cool,quot; quot;eyeballs,quot; or quot;burn-ratequot;-- have been replaced in Web 2.0 by language which is simultaneously more militant and absurd: Empowering citizen media, radically democratize, smash elitism, content redistribution, authentic community”
    51. 51. “This sociological jargon, once the preserve of the hippie counterculture, has now become the lexicon of new media capitalism.”
    52. 52. Marxisme
    53. 53. Geen exclusiviteit op activiteiten
    54. 54. Iedereen kan alles worden
    55. 55. Schrijver
    56. 56. Schrijver Fotograaf Journalist Muzikant Regisseur
    57. 57. Van alles een beetje
    58. 58. ipv alles van een beetje
    59. 59. “Instead of Mozart, Van Gogh, or Hitchcock, all we get with the Web 2.0 revolution is more of ourselves.”
    60. 60. Voor - Tegen
    61. 61. Wie?
    62. 62. Waarom?
    63. 63. Abraham Maslow
    64. 64. Manfred Max-Neef
    65. 65. Need Being (qualities) Having (things) Doing (actions) Interacting (settings) subsistence physical and mental health food, shelter, work feed, clothe, rest, work living environment, social setting protection care, adaptability, social security, health co-operate, plan, take social environment, autonomy systems, work care of, help dwelling affection respect, sense of humour, friendships, family, share, take care of, privacy, intimate spaces generosity, sensuality relationships with nature make love, express of togetherness emotions understanding critical capacity, curiosity, literature, teachers, analyse, study, schools, families, intuition policies, educational meditate, investigate, universities, communities, participation receptiveness, dedication, responsibilities, duties, cooperate, dissent, associations, parties, sense of humour work, rights express opinions churches, neighbourhoods leisure imagination, tranquillity, games, parties, peace day-dream, remember, landscapes, intimate spontaneity of mind relax, have fun spaces, places to be alone creation imagination, boldness, abilities, skills, work, invent, build, design, spaces for expression, inventiveness, curiosity techniques work, compose, workshops, audiences interpret identity sense of belonging, self- language, religions, get to know oneself, places one belongs to, esteem, consistency work, customs, values, grow, commit oneself everyday settings norms freedom autonomy, passion, self- equal rights dissent, choose, run anywhere esteem, open-mindedness risks, develop awareness
    66. 66. quot;In the future, everyone will be world- famous for 15 minutes.quot;
    67. 67. Linda van Leijenhorst
    68. 68. Tot slot
    69. 69. (a)
    70. 70. Tim O’Reilly
    71. 71. “We expect to see battles between data suppliers and application vendors in the next few years, as both realize just how important certain classes of data will become as building blocks for Web 2.0 applications.”
    72. 72. (b)
    73. 73. Kennen
    74. 74. Kunnen
    75. 75. Einde.
    76. 76. Sebastiaan ter Burg Mensen helpen verhalen te vertellen. www.ter-burg.nl sebastiaan@ter-burg.nl 06 480 88 615 twitter.com/ter_burg

    ×