[Update the day after the gig]: Yo! My apologies for not posting my lecture slides (pdf) until now (got an unexpectedly busy afternoon yesterday. Anyway, thanks to all of you students for being so interested and conversant, even though I tended to mute you. Here are the links to the video stream from the first part of the lecture, the video stream starring students, and the photo stream. Well, the latter is kind of thin, will be closed for input within the next few days. As you can se in the comments below, the conversation goes on.

In May 2007 I did my first guest lecture at a course in Media psychology and Media development at Stockholm School of Economics (SSE). The course is led by Professor Richard Wahlund, and you can check my documentation for that gig (in Swedish). Unfortunately the SSE Web site sucks (e.g. here is the result of Wahlunds ”Teaching” link: http://www.hhs.se/404b). Hence, I do not know much about other stuff in the course and I am sort of hanging loose. I do not even know where I am supposed to show up. Furthermore I have to bring my own loudspeakres. But Wahlund is a great professor and the students so far has been wonderful. So, I am sure the lecture will be rewarding. At least our experiences from the previous ones support such an outcome.

  • Richard Wahlund

    Hej Richard!

    Jag hittar inget telefonnummer till dig! Ring mig på 08-736 95 80 eller 070-6535687. Tack!

    Ciao, Richard Wahlund

  • Adam W

    Thanks for keeping us outside our comfort zone in class today!
    You covered many topics (too many?), but they were bleeding edge, which is unusual in lectures at SSE. I enjoyed it.

    So here are some followup points and questions on the topics from today:

    1. If machines are actors, not just media (as they change and create information, not just transport it), what are the differences from human actors when we try to analyze them?

    Ironically, to me it feels that humans are MORE predictable than machines, as human nature and even social patterns are more stable than super-quick, networked machines operating 24/7 with ever changing technologies.

    2. Are Conversations (few-to-few) eating into Communications (one-to-few & one-to-many) in terms of time, attention, or quantity? Or are we just more effective at conversing and communicating?

    3. Will transparency lead to less hypocrisy? If hypocrisy makes incompatible talk, decisions, and actions work somewhat by separating them, what will happen if transparency puts heavy pressure on this hypocrisy? Can companies for example communicate that they don’t care about gender equality, or be open about their lack of sustainable production? Or should they implement all CSR-plans (that already exist on paper) and force their production to a halt?

  • Richard, my phone number can be found at http://www.richardgatarski.com/contact/

    Adam W, glad you enjoyed it (even though I think it was too much – mea culpa). You pose a number of good questions, that all demand long answers. Here are some shorter ones, and will see to that Professor Wahlund gets some copies of my dissertation for those who are interested – for free. Also, please bear in mind that I no longer act in that field of research.

    1. My research ambition was to denote machines as actors in order to stimulate research into the issues you bring up. One of my ideas was also that also look into the similarities.

    2. Yes, I beleive so. But have no hard scientific evidence. Effectivenes is another issue…

    3. Many of us believe that increased transparency will lead to a better world. That is, it will become increasingly different to say something and act in some other way. This includes us as consumers/citizens/etc.

  • Hello Richard, thank you for an insightful lecture!

    Maybe you wanted to cover a bit too many topics, but as being one cut short, I feel I will have to defend blogging a little.

    As the general opinion of the class was expresserd in ”I think that blogs could be good for education, but nowadays everybody just writes about themselves” I must protest on both statements.
    The truth is that I believ blogs are already good for education, mostly because you are provided with a multitude of voices that sometimes contradict what you get from other sources. Also, blogs provide a condensed viewpoint, where the author has already done a media scan.

    Secondly, even if blogs are used to write about the authors themselves, there is immense use of them, firstly as entertainment and secondly as a social medium. What better way to leartn empathy (or hate) than through putting oneself in somebody’s shoes?

    Luckily, we don’t have to choose between shallow and educated, we can have both as there are millions of gazillions of blogs to choose between. Just because you don’t like blondinbella doesn’t mean that you won’t like the blogs residing at Dagens Nyheter, and vice versa.

    On another note: Regarding transparency, I’m not sure whether it will lead to a better world, transparence of what, for whom? A rather famous dystopic novel from 1941 made it clear that what we’re going towards, transparency of citizens towards the state, might not be the best of things.

  • Thanks Anton, a line of good pro-blog arguments. With respect to blogs in education, there are of course a bunch of services focusing that. For example EDUblogs.