Just getting back from DevLearn08 I've decided to jump into the Twitter thing. You can follow me @WillWorkLearn. Before I fully begin my Twitter experience, here's a thought experiment regarding Twitter. If I could talk to God (or some other all-knowing entity), would it be useful for me (if I'm interested in gaining knowledge) to give up a minute of that precious time to talk with the multitudes? No it would be foolish to give up a 100% chance of gaining true knowledge in a quickly-efficient way for a lesser chance at learning from the mulititudes. I'm assuming of course that neither God nor any other true-knowledge entity is following me on Twitter. What information-gathering entity has time for that? Of course, knowledge is not everything I might desire. I might want to feel part of a community. I might want to make friends. I might want to do an ethnographic study of The Tworld just for fun. If this all-knowing entity was a bore or decided to use its wisdom to politely keep some personal distance from me, I would be better off talking with the multitudes. But since this is a blog that focuses on Learning, not Relationships, let's get back to the knowledge-gathering question. Since it is unlikely that some all-knowing entity will have time for me, I will have to rely on entities that will provide me with less than 100% knowledge. If I find a 99%-true-knowledge entity, wouldn't I be better off talking with it, than talking with the multitudes? Yes, I would think so in most cases, though I suppose it depends on its knowledge gaps, and how fast I need the knowledge. So, where is the breakeven point where I'm equally likely to get true knowledge from a true-knowledge entity and from the multitudes? Is it an 80%-true knowledge entity, a 50% true-knowledge entity, or a 20%-true-knowledge entity?  Here's the point I think I'm making: If I have access to relatively good sources of information, how do I decide to forsake those sources for the multitudes, where information may be less valid or slower to access? In other words, would Twitters be better off reading a non-fiction book, an article, or a trusted website? I suppose we ought to divide our knowledge needs into categories. Deep knowledge, gained over significant amounts of time, requiring a subtle understanding of a topic area, its contingencies, its boundary conditions. Shallow knowledge, gained from one or a few experiences, not weaved tightly together with a network of knowledge. If we need deep knowledge, we ought to go to a true-knowledge entity (if we know of one). If we just need shallow knowledge, we may be just as succcessful going to the multitudes. I don't know, what do you think oh wise one? And then there is the matter of the time horizon. I may learn small things quick or build big understandings over time by interfacing with my multitudes. And then there is the matter of truthiness. What risk is there in getting information from the multitudes? Probably depends on the query. I don't know, what do you think oh wise one? WINK.

In a recent comment, Don Roddy asked why I just started using Twitter. Answer: I just thought I ought to know about it. I saw Michelle Lentz give a breakfast byte session at DevLearn. She gave some good examples of how it might be used for learning. I thought I ought to check it out.I admit I'm skeptical.My Twitter ID: WillWorkLearn, if you want to follow me.So here's my first observation. Twitter's one question is, "What are you doing?" Wouldn't a better question be, "What are you thinking?"I suppose it would be too complicated to have two options, a thinking-doing dichotomy. Or maybe thinking is doing. But the prompt connotes action, not thinking...And I think I'd rather know what other people are thinking. At least some other people. Maybe Twitter could enable us to elevate some people to the "What are you thinking?" level, while keeping most in "What are you doing?" level.Anyway, if you've been thinking you want to check Twitter out, come join me for the ride. It's free to use. Apparently they don't have a business model. I do think Twitter might be an excellent way to stay in touch with my family. I'm going to see if I can talk them into it. 

The incomparable Jane Hart has a list of Learning Professionals on Twitter.

Three great workshops in Washington, D.C. (United States) upcoming in a few weeks. Come join me, and/or Brent Schlenker, and/or Mark Oehlert.Brent and Mark: Web 2.0/Collaborative Learning Brent and Mark: Immersive Learning Simulations (aka Serious Games) Me (Will Thalheimer) Creating and Measuring Learning Transfer. Thanks to Mark Oehlert's e-Clippings, from which I copied the image and links.

Read this intriguing article in Slate.It talks about how some people can elicit an emotional response in others that enables optimism and moral inspiration.Quoted from the article:University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term elevation, writes, "Powerful moments of elevation sometimes seem to push a mental 'reset button,' wiping out feelings of cynicism and replacing them with feelings of hope, love, and optimism, and a sense of moral inspiration."I don't think most training situations would benefit from such elevation, but some might. There's little likelihood that someone learning how to use a spreadsheet could be elevated, for example.On the other hand, I can see particular opportunities for socially-responsible organizations or initiatives, especially those that are led by elevation-enabling leaders. Perhaps some soft-skill training may benefit, for example, where a management-training facilitator tells stories of others' efforts to help develop the people they work with.There can be downsides to elevation as well, not least of which is that those who don't feel the elevation think that those who do feel it are either ridiculous or brainwashed. And, elevation by itself doesn't generate changes in behavior. Haidt's research shows that elevation is good at provoking a desire to make a difference but not so good at motivating real action.Still, I think it's worth thinking about how to connect with our learners at a deeper level. It doesn't have to be super-deep, just a little bit deeper may help. Let's remember that we as learning professionals have a responsibility not just to inform, prepare, and provide practice. We can also increase the likelihood that our learners will actually utilize what we teach by enabling their "motivation to apply" what they've learned. Sure, we can utilize our learners' management to promote application, but we can play a role in enabling the learners to want to apply what they've learned. Elevation may be another tool we can use in our work.

The New York Times published an article today saying that college tuition may be out of reach for most Americans. This, of course, is stunning news. If true, it will rip a gaping hole in the very fabric of our society. It will also, make the job of work-learning professionals that much harder. More remedial training. More training that teaches meta-cognitive thinking skills. Dealing more with splinter groups and labor unrest, as we further divide into the haves and have-nots. Dealing more with globalization as professional and managerial jobs are shipped off-shore. Dealing more with workers with different language and cultural backgrounds as professionals are imported to relieve shortages. Making due with fewer and fewer highly-educated workers, as fewer are college educated and more become expatriates escaping the toxicity of a more-divided, more-rancorous, more-economically volatile environment. On the other hand, perhaps there will be a need for learning professionals who can be really creative in dealing with these issues. Perhaps China is educating them now...

The eLearning Guild is offering a $400 early-bird discount if you register for their March Annual Gathering by December 19th. Check it out.Note: I'll be presenting a workshop (with Roy Pollock) on Learning Measurement, and speaking several other times, so this conference is well worth your while. AND, by saving $400, you can easily afford our symposium. 

H.M. died on Tuesday. He was a severe amnesiac. At the age of 27 he underwent surgery to correct severe and debilitating seizures. When he awoke, he was unable to remember much of anything ever again--at least not anything in the declarative memory system. He lived life as the most famous experimental subject in the history of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. I remember reading about him when I was a graduate student in the late 1980's and 1990's. What researchers learned by studying him was that there was more than one memory system. This information led to a revolution in our understanding of human cognition and learning.After years being known only as H.M., to protect his identity, in death we learn that his name was Henry Gustav Molaison, and he lived his life in Connecticut, on the east coast of the United States.The New York Times tells his story better than I can. It is well worth the read.And NPR has a previous story, that you can hear. It is well worth the listen.And here's H.M.'s wikipedia entry.

U.S. Loses 533,000 Jobs in November, the New York Times reports.The largest one-month loss in over 30 years. The economy is now guaranteed to be in the longest recession since the Great Depression.Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.Prediction: The learning-and-performance industry is about to take a big big big hit. I'm thinking a complete disaster. I'm thinking maybe my MBA will come in handy. Master Burger Administrator. I actually worked full-time as a short-order cook for a year before going to college, so I'm ready. BIG GULP!Polish up your resumes folks. Cut way back on holiday spending. Put in extra time at the office so they won't think you're quite the dead wood you seem to be. Stop eating the expensive part of meals, like the entrees and desserts. Encourage your family to become anorexic. Burn all your George Bush paraphernalia. Even if you're one of the 19% of people who still think Bush is a good president, don't tell anyone. Tell Corporate that there was a mistake in your job title, it wasn't supposed to be "Instructional Designer" it was supposed to be "Productivity Designer"; it wasn't supposed to be Director of Learning and Emerging Technologies" it was supposed to be "Director of Much Better Performance"; your CLO title didn't mean "Chief Learning Officer," it meant "Cutter of Learning Overhead." Remember, in times like these, even if you can't have your dream job in being a "Learning Professional," being an earning professional is good.My hope is that in times like these, the best of us will survive/thrive, perhaps by doing the right stuff.

A few weeks ago, I commented on a discussion list that focuses on my daughter's school. Christine Rafal read my comment and wanted to post it on her blog. I said, "sure."