The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

Yes, my curiosity knows few bounds. Some and not many.

Anyway, genetic testing exists today and will no doubt become much more specific in the future. Currently it can determine predispositions for a great number of illnesses ranging from ulcers to cancer to diabetes to mental illness to gender to hair color.

Yep, it's Brave New World, Gattaca and Beggars in Spain time.

There are any number of great reasons to have genetic screening. We do the macro-genetic form of it all the time on the farm. It's called animal husbandry. We want better milkers, better beef (dollars on the hoof, it's called), higher yield porkers, better layers (chickens, folks), better this and that. Forget Animal Farm. Now you have to worry about Animal Pharm.

Have a pedigree dog or cat or whatever? Same thing, not at the genetic level. Race horse? That, too.

Anybody ever read stories about the colonial America slave markets? There you go.

Many countries won't allow the import of GM foods. You didn't think that General Motors was diversifying, did you?

It's eugenics, now available at the genetic level and coming soon to an apothecary near you.

And there are excellent reasons to learn someone's genetic predisposition to things because what we know is coming we can plan for. If I know I have a predisposition to presbyopia then I can purchase reading glasses to save my eyes. Or I can become a Methodist.

There's the rub, me thinks. If I know what's in my genetically determined future, I can become proactive in determining my future quality of life.

But what if that information is available to ....

I still accept that model to a point.

The challenge is that I'm finally having another spurt of time to catch up on all the research we've done over the past few years, mostly our unpublished stuff, and I noticed something about influencers and their audience.

<ASIDE>
Let me go on the record at this point as stating that I'll accept anybody's definition of engagement as valid so long as the definition, the derivation of the definition and the method of proving the definition valid are internally consistent.

Basic law of world building, folks; You can have magic and violate the laws of physics if you want, just make sure that the laws that make magic work and the rules by which physics can be violated are self- and internally-consistent.

Not self- and internally-consistent? Sorry, the world -- or definition -- falls apart.

And while I'm <ASIDE>ing, I never thought NextStage's ability to correctly measure engagement or modify marketing material so that it would be more engaging as a big deal. Engagement was simply something we could do. In and of itself it doesn't matter much, it's just one metric among several, one lens among many.

What I do know is that the more lenses you can turn on something, the more tools (or metrics) you can apply to your study, the more information you have.

Also note that, like T.S. Eliot, I don't believe more information equates to more knowledge or that more knowledge equates to more wisdom.
</ASIDE>

While peering into these holes, however, I got to wondering about what they revealed. Logic holes normally occur when an individual or group makes assumptions -- uses what is often called common knowledge. The problem with common knowledge is that it's often what cultural psychologists sometimes call folk knowledge.

Recently Dr. Geertz and I have been corresponding about my work and the various writings I and NextStage have published. He took particular delight in my exchange with Christopher Berry (see links below) and I asked his permission to reference one such exchange in this post.

He agreed, and my thanks to him for doing so. Here are his thoughts on my attempts at humor ala Responding to Christopher Berry's "A Vexing Problem, Part 4" Post, Part 1...

My previous entry dealt with language issues and why an analytics argument won't work with any audience. Here I'll mix in cultural learning and how working memory affects how we interact with clients. It turns out that most people are not only prisoners to language, most people are also prisoners to what they've learned, how they learned it and the last time they used it.

(And at some point (tha mi duil na dhia) I plan on actually getting back to what Christopher wrote in his post)

Allow me to add a little to the discussion, some more information on how we are prisoners to language...

(and I admit now that I'm going to have some fun with this)

Christopher has since posted A Vexing Problem, Part 4 and I promise to get to it soon (heaven knows what that means with me, of course).

<RAMBLE>
It's amusing to me that I take a weekend off and several of the blogs I write get lots of traffic. Maybe I should stay away from the computer more often?
</RAMBLE>

Stephane was most curious about my "I'm also quite sure logic (at least as we're using it here) isn't the answer because the language of analytics (as exemplified by this blog, June Li's, (oh, just pick any one but not Stephane Hamel's or mine because Stephane and I use different language models, me all the time and Stephane much of the time) is to effect action, not promote logical processes. Effecting action rather than promoting logical processes is not specific to analytics although analytics really enforces that former aspect of language."

I asked Stephane if I could respond to some of his comments in a post and he, gracious man that he is, agreed. My purpose is to clarify what I meant by the above. I'll also add some when I respond to Christopher's latest.

Warner's folks received several phone calls from people simply to let them know they'd received the alert and would be on the look out. About 10 hours after sending out the alert Warner's folks got a call that Warner was walking down the middle of the road about 1/4 mile away. When they got there people were stopping traffic until Warner's parents could safely get their boy in their car.

Hats off to FindToto, folks.

Dog Information

• Name - Warner
• Sex - Neutered Male
• Breed -Beagle Mix
• Color - Black/Brindle
• Age - 13 Years
• Hair - Short
• Markings/ Distinguishing Characteristics - Graying face, Approx 40lbs, Wearing blue collar with tags

• Name - Mike& Barb Mullins
• Phone - call my office, 603 577 4575, and I'll relay the information.
• Address - 4 Santerre St, Nashua, NH
• E-Mail - snillumu (at) comcast (dot) net

Story

Warner escaped during a thunder storm. He gets terrified of thunder and loud noises. He can be skittish and may be difficult to catch. Responds well to cookies & treats. He is not aggressive toward people or other animals. PLEASE call if you see him or are able to capture him. We miss him terribly!

I wrote a response to Christopher's Part 3 and, being a Luddite, couldn't post it to his blog hence am posting it here and hoping he'll once again quote the parts he feels worthy.

Hello again,

Nice thoughts here!

I hope it is understood that my use of "fiscal conservative" was not from a socio-political perspective (NextStage has worked for politicians and political parties and I don't follow politics much), it was from a neuro-economics, psycho-socio-linguistics perspective.

That offered, it seems the two overlap based on your comments. Funny how often that happens, yes?

"The power of the status quo" -- very well stated although I'd never heard the phrase before. I'll be sure to use it liberally and reference you as the source.

"Every single amendment to a bill permanently changes it." Someday remind me to give you the semioticist's version of that statement. So close it scares me.

Do I agree with what you've written? Some of it, yes, and purely from research and observation as well as another set of paradigms.

Thank you for suggesting that necessity is the key. I'm not sure that's the entirety of what I meant, though. I believe I wrote "...there is not a strong enough case made for adoption...". Necessity is part of the mix, I'm sure, and I would be failing you if I encouraged the thought that necessity was the sum of it.