The Tyranny of Big Ideas

I am a person who loves big ideas. You may have noticed.

I can’t really help it. I get inspired by other people’s bold thoughts, sweeping visions and prophetic pronouncements. I walk around with this sense that we are living in radical times and believe that the scale of change around us requires a comparable measure of audacity, brilliance and courage.

I am not alone. The world is filled with people who are ever-watchful for the next brilliant solution to a once seemingly intractable problem. You find these people, people like me, more often than not, watching TED Talk videos.

John Spencer sees a problem with TED Talks. TED Talks are conceived as being a way to jump start meaningful conversation about worthwhile ideas. The point of the conversation is, of course, to vet the ideas and improve them through critique. Spencer doubts the quality of the conversation that follows.

Spencer describes TED Talks as a kind of “Secular Scripture”, a text that  cannot be refuted. For Spencer, TED Talks are sometimes brandished as a kind of idea bomb that gets tossed his way whenever he offers a counter-narrative to the prevailing wisdom. This has not happened to me, but I see the danger of the experience he describes.

Big ideas can be habit-forming. Big ideas can be addictive. There is an element of wishful thinking that sometimes hounds the believer of big ideas, a willingness to trade away the obligation to be skeptical and mistrustful of ideas that have not yet proven themselves or arrive unaccompanied by detail and practice.

This is where most big ideas suffer. Big ideas are often celebrated and lauded before they get connected to details and practical application. Worse, big ideas get praised as half-solutions before the nature of the problem is fully explored. And then, the person who is casting doubt is a naysayer. But the work of skeptic is necessary. Otherwise, we lurch from big idea to big idea, each time willing ourselves to believe that problems have been solved, really and permanently solved, simply because we would like for them to be solved.

Sometimes big ideas are used as a tool for political manipulation. (Recommended listening: DecodeDC’s “There’s a Plan for That”)

It can very difficult to argue with big ideas. This is partly because bold ideas are generally conceptual in nature and painted with broad strokes. It is hard to deconstruct broad strokes without nitpicking. Nobody likes a nitpicker.

Sometimes, big ideas arrive with such force that there is no space left for critique or examination. In Spencer’s view, if TED Talks are a conversation, the original presenter gets to speak with a megaphone and everyone else answers in scattered whispers. The TED Talk viewer is given easy access to new, challenging ideas but does not often see those ideas presented in context with opposing, contrarian views. In this way, TED Talks can sometimes become a kind of sales pitch — quick, to-the-point, ready to sell and, ultimately, unanswerable.

Spencer’s critique is fair. Like Spencer, I think TED is an excellent site rich with powerful, challenging ideas that deserve to be shared and discussed widely. We just need to be sure that we aren’t giving these ideas a pass just because they are big, bold and lovely. Ideas get improved by being pulled apart, debated, and, sometimes, refuted. Not all ideas deserve to be implemented. Not all big ideas need to be tried.

More to the point for me, there is a warning here to beware the lure of the big idea as a magic tonic that cures all ills. People like me are called idealists. People like me have a lot to offer the world, but we have to be careful. We should never expect big ideas to save the world. Ideas never saved anyone or made things better. Hard work makes things better. Easy to forget sometimes that the way to change the world is to work hard. The process is iterative. The process is incremental. The process can be frustratingly slow. Without the work, however, the idea is just a false comfort, a fun diversion that keeps us from the discomfort of disagreement and uncertainty. Nothing useful ever happened without discomfort and uncertainty. We work through that.

We need big ideas. Sometimes, though, it doesn’t need to be so complex. Sometimes we need smaller idea, so long as it is the right small idea and it is coupled with lots and lots of work.

Open community access to wireless is no longer optional for quality library service

I had a peculiar experience today. A community patron called, asking if they could come to the Roane State Community College library to use our wireless to buy books for her 9 year old granddaughter’s Nook. She bought the Nook for her granddaughter because she loves to read, but the grandmother lacks the home internet access required to download eBooks.

She contacted a local public library and was informed that current policies do not allow community guests to access their wireless network with personally owned devices.

The grandmother contacted us to ask if we had freely available wireless access for guests. We do. I told her we would be glad to help her connect and purchase eBooks for her Nook. However, if she just needed free wireless access, she might consider McDonald’s as another convenient option.

She’s coming to visit us, and I am glad. It was a peculiar feeling to suggest that the local McDonald’s might be more conducive place to obtain eBooks than her local public library.

This is not a criticism of our local public libraries. They are doing the best they can with the resources at hand. Just a bit disorienting to ponder this one as a hint of what 21st century librarianship has become.

Open access to wireless internet is no longer an optional add-on for quality library service. Easy, reliable wireless access has become the backbone of everything we do.

****

Note: This entry is cross-posted at TBR Mobile Libraries, a new blogging project I am sharing with other Tennessee Board of Regents librarians. That blog is focused primarily on TBR efforts to establish mobile-friendly library collections and services. Occassionally, posts there intersect with concerns of  Ubiquitous. Quotidian., which remains my own personal blog-child.

Kirk Cameron gets schooled on the First Amendment

One of my major pet peeves: people who claim their first amendment rights are being denied when they get criticized for saying stupid things in public. What a joy to read John Scalzi’s open reply to Kirk Cameron who recently complained about the negative public outcry when he shared his ideas on the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality.

This post isn’t about homosexuality. It isn’t about naturalness or unnaturalness. It isn’t even really about Kirk Cameron. It is about the quality of public discourse.

To be fair, Cameron complains about his treatment in the media but does not directly claim that his first amendment rights have been denied. That would be silly for someone who just had the rather unnatural opportunity to speak on the Piers Morgan CNN talk show. If anything, Cameron has been afforded an abundance of opportunity to speak.

And that’s what I love about Scalzi’s post. He reminds us that the First Amendment wasn’t intended to prevent people from getting offended. Quite the opposite. Some people, maybe most people, need to be offended.

We are forgetting our Enlightenment heritage. America’s genius is that we are a laboratory for ideas. America is a place where people from all walks of life rub up against each other, influence each other and challenge each other to make something new. We are strong when strong ideas are born. Strong ideas are born through opposition to lesser, weaker ideas. It is a kind of survival of the fittest. Don’t be afraid to put your opinion out there but be ready to get crushed by the force of other opinions.

Scalzi says it best: “If you want people to respect your ideas, get better ideas.”

SOPA author attribution error: the kind of funny that makes you want to weep

Turns out SOPA author Senator Lamar Smith violated the terms of his own bad legislation. His reelection campaign website (www.texansforlamarsmith.org) recently featured a background image illegally “pirated” from photographer DJ Schulte. Schulte posted the original image under a Creative Commons license requiring non-commercial users to attribute the image source when reposting. That didn’t happen. Don’t bother checking Smith’s site. The image has been removed.

There are lots of great articles about this. It seems that this article at vice.com started it all. Nice work!

I will support reasoned efforts to curtail blatant piracy and will line up behind attempts to help artists preserve the integrity of their own intellectual efforts. I can’t support SOPA. SOPA is written so broad it will further confuse people about what can and can’t be posted or published online. Our culture works through remix. We are constantly mixing ideas, writings and creative expressions into our own work to make something new. That’s called art. The web is really great for that. The so-called Stop Online Piracy Act is not about protecting copyright. It is about preserving corporate control over our own culture so that companies like Disney and Viacom can endlessly repackage and resell our own culture back to us over and over again.

Do not support this legislation. It is bad for artists. It is bad for Web users. It is bad for American culture. Find out more. Do something.