Conversation

I suspect we’re about to see a zeitgeist-level design ethos swing from “ideas worth spreading” (TED, media lab etc) to “jankiness worth fixing” The specific sordid reasons the trend is reversing now are actually not that important. It would have happened even without scandals.
6
79
Not to overindex on my own theories, but this feels like a big part of the winds shifting from premium mediocre to domestic cozy
1
15
Even the maker movement which might seem like stealth/grassroots is actually kinda premium mediocre at present. Lots of 3D printing cuteness and crapjects and starter arduino “blinking LEDs” stuff on the margins while mainstream stuff gets more closed and less repairable.
2
29
The last “maker” thing I did was built a kit robot with a Stamp 2 microcontroller back in 2006, before the scene blew up. It was underwhelming and not as much fun as I’d hoped. I dumped the project after writing some hello worked programs like “go in circle, stop at obstacle”
1
10
All the things I’ve done since then has been “jankiness worth fixing” things. Messiest was replacing a broken motor in our litter robot. Extremely yucky/smelly repair job 😬 It’s all been basic repairs, jury-rigged workarounds etc. Stuff that’s 10% harder to do every year.
2
10
I feel kinda bad about drawing a very large circle around the media lab shitshow and tarring about a dozen other key institutions in the literary industrial complex with the same brush. They may not be infected, but they are vulnerable to the same kind of entryist exploitation.
1
11
Glamorous institution syndrome: — Prioritize intellectual-glamor branding — Manufacture a vision surplus — Overpromise/underdeliver — Overvalue PR as a KPI — Big on manifestos — Charisma engineering as core competency — Fear “boring” perceptions — Spotlight-driven funding
4
43
These are neither good, nor bad. They are just features that present a particular kind of attack surface to predators/parasites. Domestic cozy ethos is the opposite and has its own attack surface (often based on silent neglect and decay)
1
11
The media lab events should serve as a warning for institutions cut from the same cloth. - Pivot the brand now - Swap out impresario leaders for quiet bureaucratic-heroes - Reduce funding reliance on PR - work on problems that are unsexy and hard not stunts - refactor > vision
Replying to
It is possible to overcorrect and overcompensate and end up with the opposite pathologies but let’s start the swing back
1
5
As a general principle, you “brand values are my adverse selection pressure”. Just like “your margin is my opportunity” Your brand values will likely hide a brand premium that is attractive to those who can pay the premium but don’t share the signal values.
2
9
What is your weakness on flip side of strengths? Glamorous orgs = big marketing budgets = starved backoom ops. They are relatively inefficient fundraisers/spenders. Weakness: you need to raise $2 for every $1 a non-glamorous org does. Who do you think is willing to overpay 2x?
8
Replying to
This seems like a plan to kill the Media Lab. It's supposed to be visionary, so you need a visionary leader, or one that's good at picking visionaries to lead labs. They need to double down on vision, but likely a new vision.
1
Show replies
Replying to
Do you know the answer to this?
Quote Tweet
Does anyone know how productive the MIT Media Lab has actually been and how Ito leaving will affect that? Their list of research groups sounds like a hippie in Golden Gate Park was asked to brainstorm tech ideas... "Camera Culture"? "Lifelong Kindergarten"? "Poetic Justice"?
Show this thread
Image
1