Five Simple Sobriety Steps for Web 2.0 Kool Aid Boozers

Hi. My name is Steve and I am a recovering Web 2.0-aholic. Like millions, I am passionate about technology. I am particularly bullish about the long term prospect of the web becoming a true platform and its potential to change business and society. However, recently I learned I have a problem. You see, I am skunk drunk on Web 2.0 Kool Aid. (Exhibit A.)

More recently, though, I have sobered up. Inspired by others, here are the small steps I try to take every day. It doesn't exactly mirror a traditional sobriety program, but it's helped me nonetheless. Maybe it will do the same for you.

1) Study History - The history books are littered with manias (both financial and otherwise) that followed by reality setting in. The dot-com crash, of course, is only one. There are many others. Study them. Humans created human nature.

2) Diversify Your Sources of Information - God bless Techmeme. It does a fantastic job of tracking what the blogosphere is thinking about. But what if the global brain is dumb? Diversify your sources of information. Seek out those who at first you may disagree with. Nicholas Carr and Robert Cringley are two to start with. Find new blogs, ideally those written outside of SillyCon Valley and consider what they say.

3) Question Conventional Wisdom - Conventional wisdom is always right, right? Not. Read Freakonomics. If a lot of people start saying something is true, look behind the curtain and poke at what's there.

4) Don't Ignore Data - I didn't think it would ever matter, but my lack of love for math makes me wish I spent a little more time in school. Today, data rules. I am reading an awesome book on this subject called Super Crunchers. Skip what pundits are forecasting and look for hard trend data that shows how people are interacting with the Net. I keep a good collection here. Also take a look at Google Trends too. It conveys a lot about our interests. Notice how Second Life searches, for example, plummeted.

5) Talk to Real Humans - One of my favorite bloggers is Dwight Silverman. (I used to pitch Dwight during the Web 1.0 era.) Hailing from Houston, Dwight has seen many technologies come and go over the years. He constantly reminds me in public and private conversations to talk to real people - from Iowa or Planet Houston. When some of my colleagues started telling me to do the same, I got with the program. Do your sister or brother's friends Twitter? Probably not. Now that doesn't make it unimportant. Why? Because they all Google. Talk to both humans and geeks for broader perspective.

Comments

[Dan Schawbel]

It's always good to get a full perspective, not just from Silicon Valley. There is a lot of talent not in that area that have ideas.

[Sheila Scarborough]

Great post; I certainly agree with #2, much to my feed reader and mailbox's disgust. I read/scan piles of stuff from all sorts of places, including (gasp!) dead-tree print media.

Also thanks for the plug for TechBlog's Dwight Silverman; he's an old friend of mine from way back and he's the guy that convinced me to blog. His thoughtful TechBlog posts also helped convince me that Twitter wasn't silly (his next project is to get me to videoblog.)

Dwight's like finding a great mechanic for your car, or a wise college professor (most likely liberal arts) -- he's such a great BS meter and he's been around long enough to have heard the same songs and dances before.

[Rob Hyndman]

Hilarious and inspired.

[Pramit Singh]

Great post. I have learnt much from your recent posts, arguing sense and sensibility in web 2.0.I hope my startup Bighow.com can do at least 1% of what you have suggested.

[ann michael]

Congratulations, Steve. I like your 5 step program. I knew I had a problem when every time my husband spoke about something "2.0" related (he is a total cynic) I would just get mad at him! He has some great points.

It's great to experiment. It's fun to watch, but at the end of the day only some of these amazing and innovative ideas will get traction - because only some of them really serve (or sometimes even create) a need.

[Terry Heaton]

"Humans AND geeks," LOL.

[Open English]

Thanks so much for this post, sometimes one spends so much time in the 2.0 world that you either consider yourself an expert when you're not, or you completely forget that there is a real-world out there.

[David Parmet]

Ask the next ten people you see on the street if they know what TechMeme is.

nuff said.

[AEklund]

As much as I've so thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog, I'm finding it absolutely fascinating that these concepts seem new to you and many people reading this blog. There's a sort of Warren Buffet-style practicality that, yes, doesn't always make 2.0 all that attractive or sexy but, in pure business terms, makes most 2.0 concepts entirely questionable, sometimes viable, and mostly not urgent. (Of course, Buffet is from Omaha, and I'm from Minneapolis, so this all sort of runs native to us.) While we often look to Silicon Valley for early adoptive behaviors, I don't look to it all the time for trends. It never surprises me on my regular visits to the Bay area that everyone seems to have the latest gadget, Twittering away, and rendering old media useless. The problem is once you hit, oh, say, east of Lake Tahoe all of the behaviors drop dramatically. So, for me, unless of all my clients are in the Bay area, I need to continuously ask myself, "Who's really using this stuff?" Is this "now," "later" or "never"?

[David Scott Lewis (Zytech Solar, a Going Green 100 Winner)]

Can you get Scoble on it? ;-)

Seriously, Steve, this is long, long, long overdue. But better late than never.

Next step: Drop Twitter.

[Misty Khan]

I'm a pseudo human - trying to embrace web 2.0 for marketing purposes, but most of my clients just don't live in cyberspace. Like the point about how 2.0 is still relevant though because of Google (which my clients and prospects do use). Also love to hear my home town Houston mentioned in the same sentence as the word Technology!

[David Scott Lewis (Zytech Solar, a Going Green 100 Winner)]

As a follow-up to my previous comment, the biggest problem as I see it is that we're all reacting rather than thinking. Life gets defined in 160 characters. I can't believe that this is a good thing.

And although I'm an evangelist for Particls (it's great for newbies, although I haven't found it terribly useful -- in some ways, it's a bit aggravating, after all, I know how to add an RSS feed to my readers), APML is too small a step, and perhaps in the wrong direction. After all, APML doesn't really add to thinking versus reacting; it simply aggregates (and perhaps heightens) what we're already reacting to!! It's like making a bad habit even worse. Still, there's more positive to it than negative, but it's not what's needed.

Let's see how Twine works. Looks like it might be a step in the right direction, especially as you (Steve) start reading more Nicholas Carr and less Robert Scoble.

Steve, if you really want to gain new perspectives, wrestle with forward thinking ideas, try reading Future Survey. You'll love it. Guaranteed.

http://www.wfs.org/fsurv.htm (Future Survey home page)
http://www.wfs.org/fsrvsep07.htm (September issue)
http://www.wfs.org/fsbest06.htm ("Best Books & Reports")
http://www.wfs.org/fsrvabst.htm ("Abstract of the Month")

[Michael Tangeman]

And, not long ago I thought I was on the outs for doubting some elements of social media.

Did hear something recently, think it was on NPR, about skepticism, along the lines of the distinguishing characteristics of the Greek Skeptics being that they cared enough about something to doubt it, to debate its veracity. Had they not cared, they would not have even bothered to doubt, making them, in effect, cynics.

Glad to see you care enough to doubt!

[Josh Bernoff]

Welcome to reality, Steve. We're very glad to have you joining us.

Seriously, though, being immersed in consumer data, plus a decade or so of tracking this stuff, is a perfect cure for Kool-Aid drinkers.

[Amanda Chapel]

12 Step... Note particularly #s 8 and 9:

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all; and 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible.

So when do I get my public apology from Edelman?

Well, that is unless you're blowing smoke about this, too.

Sincerely,

- Amanda Chapel