Society of specialists?
The topic has been driving me around for quite some time: Why are the individual groups in our society, for example professional groups, clinging so much to one another that no discourse is possible anymore?
That the different groups are practically alien side by side and do not understand each other? That this gap, due to the Internet, is growing ever greater? And what can you do about it?
Spotted over scoffers
One could say: Lobo scoffs at the scoffers in his column. More specifically, it targets those valued 50.000 people who somehow contribute to the discussion of the digitally networked sphere and represent the vision of a free and open Internet. "
Because they behave like digital masters, who rise with great hubris other than others: namely the unsuspecting offliners and the ignorant Internet printers, which they shower with malice and contempt.
At Lobo on the couch
Lobo says, the net people themselves are ignorant. And puts the German Internet scene very skillfully on the couch:
- Group dynamics and foreclosure tendencies: The Internet scene behaves like most other groups too. Although she negates to be a homogenous group at all, the members nevertheless behave frighteningly homogonously outwardly. You obviously do not notice that at all.
- Hubris out of uncertainty: Lobo attests to the Internet scene lack of self-esteem. For haughtiness and malice are often signs of it. Reasons: The dependence on the others. And your own weakness, for example, lack of interest representation.
- Stubbornness and a lack of willingness to compromise: The nerds are concerned with the matter, what is missing is the ability to negotiate and convince. On the contrary, diplomacy and compromise are perceived as superfluous, even as deviant.
The result: No result
Unfortunately, Lobo is right, and the result is not the desired result. Just because you want to stand out from others, you do not reach the others. It then turns out that one hundred times as many average citizens can explain the commuter flat rate aptly as the net neutrality. And that is the point of the crack like Lobo at the end of his text, politically speaking:
"Most experts - not just ours - are convinced that we are on the path to the networked, digital society. And from our circle, from the Internet scene, would actually recruit exactly the digital intelligence, which publicly thinks about what this way can look like. To do this we would have to put off our defiant and counter-impetus-generating impertinence and approach the entire society without condescension with the openness we constantly demand. "
Is Gunter Dueck asocial?
As I said, in this statement I give Lobo quite right. But his arguments are in part a little bit wrong. There is, for example, Gunter Dueck, whom he calls antisocial. Reason: Dueck had shown very exaggeratedly on the re: publica 2011 how the Internet changes our social system and also the working world - for example with questions like: "Do not believe, if someone has an illness, that he knows ten times more after two Hours of surfing as his doctor? "
Well, if you take that literally, you can actually see the "grotesque mockery of education, professionalism, and science" that Lobo sees in it - as well as the pandering to the public. I did not take Dueck literally because he was overdone to provoke.
How the network changes our professional world
Above all, ME wants to point Dueck to the decisive changes our society brings. For example, because some professions lose their importance, which we can do ourselves thanks to the Internet. For everything else, we need better equipped hands and the ability for constant flexibility and lifelong learning - Thomas has made a very good contribution to this.
Dueck's merit, however, is for me to point out the insanity we are heading for faster and faster thanks to rapid social change: namely, that many training paths and the resulting job titles are now obsolete and that new professions are constantly being created uniform designation is missing - more in this article.
Who populates, loses?
Which brings us to the basic problem - according to Lobo - in the whole discussion. Namely the way of discussion. That is a lot wrong - and not only on the Internet. For example, the one who always gets the most attention is the one who shouts the loudest.
With the result that the differentiated, quiet sounds are usually not heard. To be seen in pretty much every public discussion that takes place on the internet or elsewhere in the media. And I know what I'm talking about: I have it in my books for years or on Best of HR – Berufebilder.de® tried with differentiated, soft tones.
And what about Sarrazin?
Therefore, I can not agree with Lobo: whoever populates, does not lose, he wins. The fact that the number of discourse-relevant best-sellers from Germany to the digital sphere was zero in the year 2010 is not due to the missing offer, but to the way the German publishing and media landscape works.
There are probably good books, only they do not know a sow, because they are not sufficiently advertised, do not come into the press or the title is not provocative enough. As a bestseller, here is a reading recommendation. Instead, permanent suspect Thilo Sarrazin, who is also 2011 sits in the talkshows.
"What to do?" Said Lobo
Lobo gives himself self-critical: "Like many discussion-joyful members of the Internet scene, I find it far too difficult, definitely, but friendly to present the same arguments as in the one hundred confrontations before and to respond to any populism just not populist or lulz-heischend."
His demand: The abandonment of populism - and even in this text is more than populist, such as when he speaks of the digital master man or the antisocial Gunter Dueck. Or when he cites the CDU politician Jürgen Doetz, who accuses re: publica of "fascistic tendencies" (and about whom I just read interesting news on netzpolitik.org the day before yesterday).
But only one communication problem?
Precisely because Lobo has already realized that, annoyingly, there seems to be no alternative. Because the people are hard of hearing. However, Lobo only knows how not to do it, namely by paying the same with the same. After all, he has also recognized that the blame for the deep discussion ditch is not just on one side - and thus exposes the whole dilemma as a communication problem:
"In spite of all criticizing hybris of the network community, however, one must at least mention that the opposing forces from time to time argue from their own interests, unobjective, populist or even contentwise wrong. This should not be trivialized - but it is more common with interest groups. Therefore, our discussion behavior should not, after the third provocation, slip into exasperation if we really want to achieve something. "
Wanted alternatives and ideas
You can see that: The other side continues to build diligently on the ditch. But how do they overcome? And that is Lobo's failure in this otherwise good text, something that I really miss painfully: the demonstration of practical solutions, how to slowly fill the trenches again. Something like: KniggeCourses for nerds for example. Or anything else nonsense.
So then again just hollow words and the usual abuse critiques instead of ideas? Stop, there are ideas, namely with Stefan Urbach, who explains here very clearly how people with different knowledge background could still cooperate well. Maybe a start!
More knowledge - eCourses or personal advice
Offline download: Download this text as PDF - Read usage rights, Because we do not automatically submit the title of this text for privacy reasons: When buying in "interests" the title register if support is needed. After buying text exclusively Download at this URL (please save).
Your eCourse on Demand: Choose your personal eCourse on this or another desired topic, As a PDF download. Up to 30 lessons with each 4 learning task + final lesson. Please enter the title under "interests". Alternatively, we are happy to put together your course for you or offer you a personal regular eMailCourse including supervision and certificate - all further information!
Consultant packages: You want to increase your reach or address applicants as an employer? For these and other topics we offer special Consultant packages (overview) - For example, a personal phone call (price is per hour).