“Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the means men use to communicate than by the content of the communication.” – McLuhan.

The book “The New Social Learning” by Tony Bingham and Marcia Conner dates from 2010.

That’s why we can offer you a discount on your various and big mistakes.

“The new Social Learning” clearly demonstrates the erroneous way in the United States – which eventually became mainstream – of thinking about technologies and the role of media in society.

In fact, numerical analysis lacks some requirements:

Thomas Kuhn (1922 96), who teaches us that when we don’t understand something consistently, it’s time to look for new paradigms;

and, in the search for new paradigms, in the case of digital, to delve deeply into Canadians, who inaugurated the coherent and standardist study of media 70 years ago.

What can we learn from the book?

Precisely, how common sense thinks of technologies and new media and how we propose to think of them.

We have said here that the philosopher Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) introduced the narcissistic wound of the fourth civilization into society.

The fourth civilizational narcissistic wound introduces into society a disomnipotentiation that the human being does with technologies what he wants – which is wrong, because they promote both objective and objective changes in our lives.

As McLuhan teaches us, technologies are created and recreate the human being.

McLuhan makes us review the relationship of Sapiens to both technologies and media and inaugurates the phase of Social Sciences 2.0.

Social Science 2.0 is one that recognizes that we are a techno-species and that each time we introduce new media into society, we are ushering in new civilizational eras.

McLuhan manages to help us overcome the anomaly that existed in social sciences 1.0, unable to understand civilizational media revolutions in their true dimension.

Thus, we have Path 1.0 in the face of Technologies and Media and Path 2.0, Post-Mcluhan:

In the 1.0 gaze on technologies and media – we have the fantasy of neutral technologies and media as a technology like any other, without distinction from others;

In the 2.0 way of looking at technologies and media – we see technologies as active and media as one of the core technologies of the species, responsible for ushering in new civilizational eras.

Note the conceptual errors and the adjustments that we propose.

From the very beginning of the book, in the preface, Daniel Pink approaches the question of the media as if they were technologies without considering them as a specific type exerting a certain influence.

“We used to see social media as marketing tools (…) but now they are also learning tools.”

Let’s break down the issues.

First, acupuncture this ‘Social Media’ concept.

The concept “Social Media” is VERY inadequate to understand the current phenomenon, since, since the beginning of the Human Journey, all media have always been social.

Orality was social, writing was social, electronic media was social, and now digital media is social. I strongly advise against using “social media”, which is a weak concept that creates confusion!

Just because a concept has become popular doesn’t mean it’s strong. The strength of a term comes from its ability to lead us to better understand the facts, generating Strong Methodologies!

The School of Toronto’s study of media over the past seven decades identifies it as one of the core technologies of Sapiens, which exerts influence in virtually EVERY area of ​​society.

The more areas a technology touches, the more central it is, and the more it plays a significant role in changing the brains of more and more people.

McLuhan says, “It changed media, it changed society. »

Thus, the Media, whatever the era, have been and will always be tools of interaction, with different applications, such as marketing and learning, among others.

Such views on media and technology are the children of perceptionism – a primitive way of doing analysis based on sensations and not on the historical pattern of phenomena.

Perceptionism is the initial analysis of phenomena – usually carried out in pre-science – which cannot serve as a basis either for the creation of theories or methods to deal with them.

You have to understand that.

Each of the technologies invented by Sapiens has particularities, which make it possible to operate certain changes in society, namely: Energy, mobility, medical, space observation technologies.

When studying the possible developments of new technologies, it is necessary to:

define the specific role each plays in society;

compare this specific role with similar recurrences in the past;

and analyze the consequent effects of the arrival of this particular technology on society.

We can thus suggest that we have two types of analysis on Technologies and Media in general:

More simplified analysis of technologies – without seeking the essence of different types of technologies and their specific effect on society and without analyzing the recurrences of their arrival in the past;

More complex analysis of technologies – which researches the essence of different types of technologies and their specific effect on society and analyzes the recurrences of their arrival in the past.

The preface in Portuguese by the Brazilian Conrado Schlocauer says:

“Social learning can also be defined as networked learning, when people interact with each other, whether or not mediated by technology.”

If we analyze that orality is a technology – which we can call biological media – we have never had a learning experience without the influence of media.

The sentence above is an emblematic example of a more simplistic media analysis.

There is no possibility for human beings to interact without having a technological means – a medium (what is between people).

(The only exception is for very sensitive interactions, such as the exchange of looks or affection, but which fall outside the scope of media analysis, from a survival perspective.)

The problem with toxic inductivism in the face of digital is that it seeks:

understand the Digital without going back to the past;

media is not compared to other technologies;

and we imagine that Sapiens can have a pure life, without the influence of technologies, which is impossible for a Technospecies.

In the preface we have the following expression of the Brazilian Conrado Schlocauer:

“You have to learn to think beyond the tool which, on its own, is incapable of generating change. People do that.

Here we have a typical example of the simplistic view of pre-Macluhanian media analysis on technologies.

We can call this vision technological and media neutralism.

Technology and Media Neutralism is a way of viewing technologies as if they are neutral and do not play an active role in people and society.

In the preface we have the following statement:

“To learn to assume its strategic role, it must be part of the culture of the company as a value and cease to be a subject reserved for a few professionals in the organization to be experienced daily by all. .

In fact, it is necessary here to separate two types of learning: formal and informal.

The formal has always been more mediated by specialists and the informal has always been based on interactions between people through watch media.

Finally, at the beginning of the book, there is also the erroneous view that we live in the age of knowledge blah blah blah blah.

Let’s move on to the author’s text.

When we analyzed the authors’ text, we continued to have problems.

“By moving from information pressure to knowledge acquisition, you free up creative energies for your team to succeed in a fast-paced environment.”

Fundamentally, the traditional management model necessarily involves mastering change.

This idea of ​​learning quickly and everyone starting to innovate is a real fantasy within the current model.

“Learning studies are very clear on this point: the more people interact, the more they are able to learn. In other words, the more questions they ask, the stronger the learning process. Social learning makes it easier for people to find their questions and their voice. »

We have the following question: the way people interact and learn must be in harmony with the command and control model being practiced. And the command and control model practiced depends on the media available!!!

A new decentralized medium enables the creation of new ways of learning, which requires a new model of command and control.

That’s why I joke that the motto of a traditional organization is: “innovate can but never change”.

Innovation in a traditional organization is always very controlled because it always comes from the center towards the extremities.

There is a misunderstanding in this structural book, because it does not understand that we are creating a new environment of intermediation that allows more dynamic and decentralized learning to serve as a parameter for the necessary changes.

“We need new ways to make sense of the mountain of information moving our way. We need new ways to filter data, store information, and ask questions from trusted sources. »

The problem with this type of approach happened to me at one of my clients. When a young man asked me if we were experiencing a revolution in administration or communication.

I have to understand that the communication revolution causes a survival revolution and the survival revolution is the great revolution.

The far north of the Survival revolution is the search for a more decentralized command and control model, which gives more freedom to people to more autonomously solve the complexity of the problems we have today.

This is why I believe that the days of leadership are numbered.

The future points to curation.

The book was suggested by Bimodal: Fernando Villar.

Is that what you say?