bpope’s blog

In between bouldering problems yesterday I was reading a back issue of Rock and Ice magazine (R&I), probably from about 5 years ago.  At the beginning was a really interesting letter to the editor.  I don’t have the exact text, but the author was very upset with RI for an article it had published in an earlier edition.  From what I could gather, the article in question described climbing in Yosemite, and how to avoid authorities while living in the Valley for months at a time.  The letter-writer pointed out that, to date, the transient community was what it was because only adventurous and “non-risk-adverse” people take a chance and try to live in Yosemite.  Furthermore, only the clever ones figure it out!  By publishing, essentially, a how-to guide, R&I threatened the composition of that community, inviting a different sort of folk to try things that they wouldn’t have previously risked.

Essentially this boils down to a question of how available information should be.  By publishing the article, R&I made widely available information that was previously only available by word of mouth to those who had demonstrated serious commitment.  In the internet age, information, specifically advice, is more widely available than ever before.  More and more people are becoming empowered in ways never previously considered.  Without a doubt, empowering people is one of the great successes of the internet.

This train of thought reminded me of a line from The Incredibles.  Syndrome, the bad guy , is a non-superhero, spurned as a child by Mr. Incredible.  Later in life he developed a number of technological solutions designed to allow him to compete with supers.  This leads Syndrome to exclaim “Everyone can be super! And when everyone’s super…no one will be!”

But is that true?  It certainly seems to be what the letter-writer thought.  To some extent I think they’re right, widespread availability of information ought to  level the playing field significantly.  Really, though, this should just allow the true elite to emerge, including those who might have previously been disadvantaged.  Yes, this will result in people trying things they would never have before considered.  Unlike the writer that got me started on this train of thought, I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing, though.

This is a complex and nuanced issue, I think, and I don’t pretend to do a full analysis, that would take much more time and space than either you or I really want, I think.  Obviously information is a powerful thing, and it needs to be dispensed carefully in some situations, but in most cases I support openness.  At the same time, there will always bee some secrets.  Some things need to stay magic.  Sometimes you need to “never show anyone. They’ll beg you and they’ll flatter you for the secret, but as soon as you give it up… you’ll be nothing to them.” [The Prestige]

(And for your non-climbers reading this, beta is climbing slang for tips that will help you get up a route.  The perpetual beta status of gmail is an entirely different subject.)

for those of you that are interested by design, technology, and innovation, this is a really interesting piece in the NYT about how collaboration and interaction result in incremental developments that are often only perceived at the ‘eureka!’ moment.

The really important message here is that the results of this man’s research/observation can be used to improve businesses and research ventures. Especially in this climate, I’d say that’s exactly what we need. (Speaking of which, click on through the link, the Times could use your help too!)