Comments on: Are governments suffering from cognitive disorders? http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2008/10/04/are-governments-suffering-from-cognitive-disorders/ A member of the Gartner Blog Network Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:34:06 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Web 2.0 Apps Winners Chosen in D.C. http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2008/10/04/are-governments-suffering-from-cognitive-disorders/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Web 2.0 Apps Winners Chosen in D.C. Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:26:35 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/?p=58#comment-60 [...] Now this is the kind of active stimulation that governments need to understand the difference between aiming to citize-centric and actually becoming citizen-driven (see my earlier post for a neurological analogy). [...] [...] Now this is the kind of active stimulation that governments need to understand the difference between aiming to citize-centric and actually becoming citizen-driven (see my earlier post for a neurological analogy). [...]

]]> By: Tom Bittman http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2008/10/04/are-governments-suffering-from-cognitive-disorders/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Tom Bittman Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:35:54 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/?p=58#comment-17 Andrea, just wanted you to know I sent a link to this blog to our local board of education, dealing with questions of how much to open up tech access in the school, how to engage the students using new technologies, etc. This was perfect. Thanks! Andrea, just wanted you to know I sent a link to this blog to our local board of education, dealing with questions of how much to open up tech access in the school, how to engage the students using new technologies, etc. This was perfect. Thanks!

]]> By: Philip Allea http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2008/10/04/are-governments-suffering-from-cognitive-disorders/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Philip Allea Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:51:05 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/?p=58#comment-16 Hmmmm...fast typing and reading results after the fact sees the new term "democratic ociety" crop up in my previous posting. Could that have been an unconcious slip that such a society as described is an "ociety" (e.g., society with the "s")? Maybe it was just a slip on the keyboard. Hmmmm…fast typing and reading results after the fact sees the new term “democratic ociety” crop up in my previous posting. Could that have been an unconcious slip that such a society as described is an “ociety” (e.g., society with the “s”)?

Maybe it was just a slip on the keyboard.

]]> By: Philip Allea http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2008/10/04/are-governments-suffering-from-cognitive-disorders/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Philip Allea Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:48:27 +0000 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/?p=58#comment-15 It appears that democractic ociety has agreed to a process by which "Active stimulation" can be engaged - the election season. Once elected, a return to a more controlled environment ensues. The Richstag has a clear roof so that the citizens can always look in to see what their government is doing. Direct participation and engagement alleviates the middleman, the representative of the consituency. Can we all participate? Would we all participate? Would we engage in active stimulation in our political future as was once done in society? There were arguments in the press in the UK that the personality contest of US politics is the final debasement of a democracy. Active engagement at the level of the citizen is not based upon political discussions of the future of society but upon the personality of the candidate. I was in Sweden all this week and no one could grasp this idea that one can vote for someone because they "like them". Separation of likeability and competency as 2 axes on a matrix would illustrate that the likeable/competent is the preferred person, but the likeable/incompetent is choice 2. Unlikeable/competent is tolerated. Unlikeable/incompetent is ignored. Harvard Business Review published a study on this a few years ago for other purposes. However, it does help explain the simplicity by which voters divide the candidates and then allocate their allegiance, and their vote. A sad reflection upon the state of democracy if we are only active during election season. And, if at that time we are only willing to debate the likeability of the person rather than policies or platforms the person represents then we will get the results we seem to want - a further and accelerating detachment. It might be interesting to create a matrix of level of citizen engagement in politics versus level of happiness with their governement. Would disengagement and unhappiness be a match, or not? What would be the attributes of such a government be - their policies, the types of technology used to engage their citizens? It appears that democractic ociety has agreed to a process by which “Active stimulation” can be engaged – the election season. Once elected, a return to a more controlled environment ensues.

The Richstag has a clear roof so that the citizens can always look in to see what their government is doing. Direct participation and engagement alleviates the middleman, the representative of the consituency. Can we all participate? Would we all participate? Would we engage in active stimulation in our political future as was once done in society?

There were arguments in the press in the UK that the personality contest of US politics is the final debasement of a democracy. Active engagement at the level of the citizen is not based upon political discussions of the future of society but upon the personality of the candidate.

I was in Sweden all this week and no one could grasp this idea that one can vote for someone because they “like them”.

Separation of likeability and competency as 2 axes on a matrix would illustrate that the likeable/competent is the preferred person, but the likeable/incompetent is choice 2. Unlikeable/competent is tolerated. Unlikeable/incompetent is ignored. Harvard Business Review published a study on this a few years ago for other purposes. However, it does help explain the simplicity by which voters divide the candidates and then allocate their allegiance, and their vote.

A sad reflection upon the state of democracy if we are only active during election season. And, if at that time we are only willing to debate the likeability of the person rather than policies or platforms the person represents then we will get the results we seem to want – a further and accelerating detachment.

It might be interesting to create a matrix of level of citizen engagement in politics versus level of happiness with their governement. Would disengagement and unhappiness be a match, or not? What would be the attributes of such a government be – their policies, the types of technology used to engage their citizens?

]]>