Even after so many questions and conversations about identity during the past four months, I can safely and confidently say that my definition of identity has not changed during the past four months. That would be too simple and finite, implying that I have reached the end, or a destination in terms of understanding. No, my definition of identity has not changed; it has evolved, moving forward along an existing journey, with more twists and turns ahead in every future conversation. You know the conversations: after a few minutes, someone makes an excellent point that really drives home the idea of identity and silences everyone for a few seconds as they retreat into contemplation of the idea. Then, someone begins, “That makes sense, but…” and sheds light on the exception to that rule, the one that reignites the discussion for another round.

Really, is this evolution and flexible certainty over the definition of identity any different than my identity itself? I have been the same person for the past 10 years of my life…for the most part. I am the same person with this set of friends as I am with that set of friends…generally speaking, of course. I know who I am…usually. I behave predictably…most of the time.

In a previous blog post about an individual’s identity varying between communities of which they belong, I state that the same person demonstrating one set of knowledge and abilities can be simultaneously viewed differently by two different communities. The example I gave is that I see myself as someone interested in researching camps. In the research community, I am sometimes identified as a ‘camp expert,’ whereas in the camp community I am sometimes identified as a ‘research expert.’ Both the research and camp communities would find the idea of me identified as an expert in their respective community to be humorous. What define my identity for each community are the elements of my identity that set me a part from other members in that community.

Naturally, this led to discussion with classmates who disagree with this idea. The ideas and arguments include identity being as simple as your name or avatar, how others perceive you, or a thing that resides within you. Who is right? Is anyone right? Are we all right? Is one of us more right than any of the others?

While thinking about the idea that identity is strictly something that resides within you, I remembered a sound bite from a talk show. It occurred after season 1 of Donald Trump’s The Apprentice had ended, when contestants were doing reunions and other talk show appearances. Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth was addressing how she was portrayed on the show in similar fashion to her quotes in this article about “the evil sista of reality television.” Omarosa was the villain of season 1, but she continually claims that she was the victim of editing, and that she is really a pleasant person. The other person at the interview said something to the effect of, “They can only edit footage that they have, sweetheart.” In essence, the other person was telling Omarosa that she can claim the screaming, aggressiveness, unhappiness, and laziness were part of an attack on her but those actions and traits are part of who she is. The editors couldn’t make that up unless it really existed.

Identity can be defined and perceived in many ways. It can be split into little bite size samples, like appetizers at Fridays, with different people each getting a little slice. Sometimes you control who eats which appetizer, and sometimes the other people grab at the plate before you even see it. Identity can also be a concrete thing that changes when viewed by others, like a piece of art in a gallery. Determining whether the Mona Lisa of your identity is smiling or frowning really is in the eye of the beholder, even though the expression is identical on the canvas. Identity can be defined by an individual and redefined by others – or the individual.

I wonder what my identity is with regards to my classmates in CI597C. Am I a pain the butt, or a humble apologizer, thanks to my post on Have Nots? Am I a technologically fluent person who likes to talk and philosophize? Am I a camp dork? Am I a Mac lovin’, Tweet rockin’ geek? Am I someone who loves The Office and Scrubs and invites you over to watch? Am I a car-selling, house-buying, bike-riding, job-hunting adjective-verb lover who shares with the community? Or are these suggestions merely my own construct of my identity, and how I think and prefer I appear to you, based on who I think I am when I am around you. I’d be interested in hearing you tell me what you think my identity is…

The point is this: in the argument of whether your identity is something that resides in you or is determined by other people, you have to remember that they can only edit footage that they have, sweetheart.

The funny thing is, I am not referring to Barack Obama. Nor am I referring to Bill Clinton. And I am certainly not referring to Jerome Bettis – wow, PSU really was the center of the universe last week!

The speaker I am referring to is Lawrence Lessig, keynote speaker for the 2008 TLT Symposium. Lessig’s presentation, which cleverly explained and explored digital creativity and its surrounding issues to, at times, John Phillips Sousa, writing, and Latin, has opened my eyes to need for an updated, intelligent revision of copyright law. Enter Creative Commons. Fortunately (and appropriately), Lessig has made his speech available to the PSU community, though this version omits some of the brilliance of the slideshow that is playing behind him (and Read My Lips is slightly out of sync, comprising the effect). I recommend you watch it in its entirety.

While Lessig is awe-inspiring and worth more than what I have written thus far, I would like to dedicate this entry to the TLT Symposium itself and the community of which I am now a part. I am fortunate to have found my way into State College, then PSU, and then CI 597C, where I have met the awesome Cole Camplese and Scott McDonald. They have opened my eyes and mind to new resources and possibilities in the pedagogical process. One such resource was Saturday’s symposium.

I am part of Team Tweets, a group that selected Twitter as the technology to present. We selected Twitter because we had never heard of it, not quite aware of how much potential it would have. When Allan Gyorke sent his 8 Steps for the TLT Symposium that included the plea to use Twitter, we saw an opportunity for our class to actively use Twitter in their own teaching/learning experience at the symposium. I think we are all glad that we did!

Several blog entries (John, Micala, Reginald, Renegade) have been posted expressing how Twitter helped enhance their symposium experience. They, as do I, credit Twitter and the sub-community it facilitated with making this conference more meaningful to us. I, while sitting in a session on Collaborative Techniques for First Year Seminars, was able to communicate with a new Twitter-friend who was in a session on Social Networking. While we were discussing the same topic and having an active conversation, it wasn’t until about 30 minutes into the session that we realized we were in different rooms!

Later, as I was fulfilling my responsibilities at the Tag Team Table, I met several nice people who had written their Twitter names on their name tags. I added my Twitter name and we struck up a nice conversation. In fact, we have still be following each other’s tweets and I have even been following their blogs (hopefully you are following mine now, Micala and Reginald!). Twitter helped facilitate small talk — or did it eliminate the awkwardness of it?

These are just two of many observations and thoughts I have regarding Twitter and the new community to which I now belong. I need to save the rest for my discussion in class next week so that the class hears new material =)

Another emerging issue is the awkwardness of using Twitter while attending a presentation — be it lecture, session, etc. Is sacrificing eye contact with the facilitator worth the added benefits of discussing the lecture topic? For which parties is it beneficial: facilitator, participant, or both? What other challenges does a Meet & Tweet present?

These and many others are issues we need to tackle as a group in addition to focusing on the positives of Twitter. “The group” includes CI597C as well as the new community who is hopefully following our class’ blogs. Feel free to participate!

For now, I need to change my copyrights to Creative Commons licenses!

TweetsTwitterWiki.mp3

Here you go:

1. Log in to your Twitter account.

2. Go to an individual’s Twitter page (a full list is below). The address for any individual’s profile page is www.twitter.com/[username]. For example, Cole’s username is colecamplese, so his profile page is www.twitter.com/colecamplese

3. Click on “Follow”, which is under the username.

4. You are now following that person (in this example, Cole Camplese). Rinse, repeat. Well, don’t rinse, but repeat steps 2-3 for each person you want to follow. Another option is to look through any user’s “Following” list, which is located on the bottom right of their profile page. Hovering your mouse over any user icons reveals the users name. Simply click on that icon and you will be taken directly to that user’s profile page so you can complete step 3.

CI597C Classmates (and other pertinent users) on Twitter:
Here are the usernames for CI 597C classmates. To follow any user, just go to their profile page – www.twitter.com/[username]

1. The TLT Symposium feed: twitter.com/TLTSymposium
2. Me – rubywahoo
Other classmates (I won’t share real names since it is their choice to protect their identity and this blog is publicly available):
3. smcdonald
4. rookmdc
5. donnamar
6. psugal
7. teamtweet
8. dbrunner02
9. bennettulmer
10. bburns
11. jjd24
12. JeanMarieD
13. skerlin
14. micala (a new member of our community!)
15. robin2go (a new member of our community!)

Enjoy!

Here are instructions for creating a Twitter account and finding classmates to follow. If you already have a Twitter account, my next blog entry will help you find CI597C classmates and other pertinent people (like the TLT Symposium) who are on Twitter:

1. Go to Twitter.com
2. Click on “Get Started – Join!”

I guess I am wondering why Cluetrain’s authors felt the change would happen so powerfully, and how quick was the diffusion of the innovative use of the internet in the market — be it business, classrooms, or other educational environments.

Today’s world and communities are designed around instant gratification. Food can be prepared and consumed in seconds through fast food and microwaves.Trivial information is immediately accessible, thanks to Google, Wikipedia, and smart phones like the iPhone. TV shows, music, and movies are seconds away thanks to iTunes and Zune, for the two people in the world who use it. Communication with a friend has progressed from a handwritten letter delivered by pony to delivery by truck to telegraph to telephone to answering machines to cell phones and email to text messages and twitter (still not buying into it). What took as long as weeks to deliver via pony express now takes seconds thanks to texting and twitter. Your network is always instantly accessible; you don’t even have to wait for them to return home to hear your message! Even coaches in sports are expected to win NOW!

If instant gratification is so much a part of our culture’s design, it is easy to understand the immediacy and passion behind The Cluetrain Manifesto. But is accurate or reflective of the way innovation works? Is there a way to change this design, or is it even necessary?

I intend to post this now. It frustrates me when my internet connection takes 4 seconds to do so!

The ideas behind Elements of Diffusion are very similar to the ideas behind Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. (while that link takes you to the book on google, you can read about the book in Gladwell’s blog). In the Peruvian Village, it is suggested that Nelida’s attempt to diffuse the technology of water boiling failed because she only focused on those similar to her, or social outcasts. She did not target influential members of the village. This is very closely related to Gladwell’s first rule of successful epidemics, which suggests that tipping points – which are very much a part of diffusion and innovation – rely on certain types of people to make them successful: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen. When Rogers suggests that Nelida would have been more successful if she had target influential village members, which he calls village opinion leaders, who could activate networks to spread the message, he is very much talking about the same three types of people that Gladwell says are important.

A case of note, from Gladwell’s book, which shows the difference that targeting the right people can make: We’ve all heard of Paul Revere and know that he warned John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the approaching British Army. But fewer people are familiar with William Dawes. Dawes was the other rider sent with Revere that night. According to Gladwell, Revere, a Connector, notified influential members of the communities on his route; Dawes, like Nelida, employed a less effective approach by notifying many people but not many influential people.

Clearly, the lesson is that spreading the word, or an innovation, is more dependent on the types of people you know in the community than what you know or how good the innovation is. I experience this every summer at my summer camp; key staff members or campers rise emerge, and any successful movement through the camp usually gathers speed and momentum once it reaches these people. The key, though, is that these community leaders don’t have to just receive the information; they have to buy into it!

Cole is pretty passionate about the potential benefits and opportunities that arise from using blogs, podcasts, and other web 2.0 technologies in educational environments. Penn State supports him, or else I imagine he wouldn’t have his job and the resources to put together the many projects he is behind. I have bought in whole-heartedly and feel lucky to be involved in the early part of this movement. My impression, however, is that this innovation and its possibilities has yet to spread through the rest of PSU. Is Cole targeting the right people: PSU’s version of influential village members, and its Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen?

Will Cole be Paul Revere, or William Dawes?

“#12 There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.”

#12 reminds me that we as consumers have a voice and, thanks to the internet, it has the opportunity be a loud voice. Good news travels, but bad news travels fast. Sites exist that easily allow users to rate restaurants, professors, and many other goods or services. A company’s identity can thrive or flounder because of this. Doing well is good, but floundering is possible when a company does not respond to feedback or otherwise alienates its community. Take MCI and the NPR story for example.

“#25 Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.”

One example of what happens when companies realize they are not connected to their consumers occurred after Digg removed a controversial blog entry from their website. The entry contained an encryption key and was removed under pressure from the AACS. Digg also banned several members for posting it. Digg users, in response, staged a mass revolt and posted the key. Digg heard this collective outcry and vowed to never bow to the big guys again. I bet the users of Digg are more loyal now that they know the site operators listen to them.

#86 When we’re not busy being your “target market,” many of us are your people. We’d rather be talking to friends online than watching the clock. That would get your name around better than your entire million dollar web site. But you tell us speaking to the market is Marketing’s job.

Has this ever happened to you: first you email a company’s customer service through the “contact us” link and receive no response. Then, you spend way too long waiting on hold due “the high volume of traffic,” and then your call gets disconnected shortly after a live person greets you. The process is repeated until either your problem is solved or you realize you are helpless. Then, you see a commercial for the company that promotes how happy and friendly they are to the consumer. This experience always makes me want to punch a Care Bear.

The company is using the commercial to project their ideas of how I should feel. Unlike the cybersexually active 16 year-old in Turkle’s Identity on the Screen, the company is so caught up in fantasy that they are ignoring the fact that this is a two-way relationship and I have needs, too. The company has alienated me, and I don’t identify myself as the company’s target market. Honestly, I am not going to tell my friends how great the commercial was, or that they have great marketing. I am instead going to tell my friends that the company has turned me into a threat to the Care Bear community, with the entire species guarding their sensitive tummy symbols. And in my community, that message is more powerful than a smiling model engineered to appeal to 25-34 year olds.

After reading assigned sections of The Cluetrain Manifesto, I am amazed at the difference in tone between several entries. I agreed with the ideas behind The 95 Theses, but I wondered what the authors had experience that day that left them so bitter and angry towards the existing market/audience system. Was it that they were forced to eat soggy Cheerios? Or did they have an experience similar to Julie Snyder’s with MCI, as shared through NPR’s This American Life episode #253: The Middle of Nowhere? In it, Julie attempts to rectify an overcharge on her account, but nine months later is stuck in bureaucratic neglect and playing the company’s games. Give it a listen; it’s frustratingly refreshing. And while the Foreword (written by someone else) and Elevator Rap are not as aggressive as the 95 Theses, they share the same contempt for the ‘current’ design of markets and audiences.

But then I reached the Introduction. Wow! Did the same four people write this section? This section is filled with hope and optimism, and left me believing that the Internet can change business and the world with it. The relationship between markets and audiences is shifting drastically. Markets, and the humans inside of them, are becoming audiences and audiences are, well, remaining audiences. But now everyone in the audience can have a voice, and everyone has an opportunity to hear that voice. The companies that hear the voices and truly listen are better poised to adapt their identities to better fit in with the new design. And once they evolve, they are better equipped to function in the new community envisioned by the Cluetrain authors.

Alas, the authors have poured themselves a new, crunchy bowl of Cheerios. (And Movable Type has left my bowl out for too long.)

The word ‘disruptive’ has such a negative connotation that I am interested in why the instructors would select that word for the title of this course. The definitions of disruptive all seem to center around the idea of disorder, and the image that pops into my head when I hear the word is that of a hyperactive, misbehaving child calling out and otherwise interrupting the order of an activity.

It is my understanding that the instructors of this course positively view the use of technology and are seeking ways to use it (it = blogs, podcasts, email, etc.) in new ways. Basically, some forms of technology have the ability to disrupt he status quo of information sharing and community interactions. Referring back my mental image of the word ‘disruptive,’ I would assume that technology is the hyperactive child and the current state of information sharing and community interactions are the ordered activity that is being interrupted.

I look forward to future disruptions. Just don’t tase my blog entries, bro!