Re: dates

Hi Alex;

  I don't just agree with everything you have said (below), I adamantly support it (or could you tell from my usual posts on "critical thinking" [= "knowledge"?]?)

 Now, is there an ulterior motive for the reticence of librarians to be collaborative and innovative? Here's a hefty concept: Would you perhaps put any stock at all in the concept that the MLS is possibly a last resort in a pressure-filled, competitive world, resulting in an aggregation of escapists from reality seeking solace in isolation?  

 How about a project suitable for an "Information Alchemist"? I'm personally a believer that all behavior emanates from particular neuroanatomical issues (brain structures), such as "psychopathic" power and control games arising from one having less "gray matter" in the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex, and/or less "white matter" between them.

 Thus, it would be interesting to correlate the complex of behavioral similarities typifying librarians (presuming they exist... the similarities, that is, and you mentioned quite a few) with neurophysiological research relating to their causes. One possibility that keeps popping up in my research is Asperger Syndrome (Possibilities: underfunctioning high-level neural connections and synchronization, an excess of low-level processes, weak central coherence [limited ability to see the big picture], delayed mirror neuron activation, impairments in ascribing mental states to oneself and others, hyper-systemizing [can systematize internal operation to handle internal events but are less effective at empathizing by handling events generated by other agents],serotonin dysfunction, or cerebellar dysfunction [all snatched from Wikipedia])

Cheers!

jgm

John G. Marr
 PO Box 702
 Tijeras, NM 87059
 jmarr_at_flash.net
 jmarr_at_unm.edu


--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen_at_GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Where are the library lawyers who could make a case for
> such systems?
> Where are the top librarians who could instigate such a
> process? Where
> are the guts to push this when it is SO DARN FRIGGIN NEEDED
> RIGHT NOW
> THAT I CAN'T SAY IT LOUD ENOUGH HOW IMPORTANT IT IS!? For
> the library
> to survive, it must become relevant to the public.
> 
> But no, the usual library position is never to rock the
> boat, only do
> as much as we can with our limited resources without daring
> to push
> ever so slightly in fear of cut in budgets and political
> unhappiness,
> to be in the mercy of politicians rather than the people,
> and in this
> drain of guts we see the drain of the library ideals and
> function.
> Yeah, I can hear you know; how dare you paint so broadly,
> look at all
> the stuff we're doing? Organisation X and library Y has
> done some
> project that does something slightly interesting ... Yeah,
> yeah, it's
> always been a little project here and a daring (by library
> standards)
> movement there, but the library ideals and the concept of
> what a
> library is is going down the tubes to become mere
> archiving
> institutions.
> 
> Tell me, when things *are* digitized and e-readers are like
> TV's,
> what, exactly, does the library offer that smart software
> and
> crowd-sourcing don't? The reference librarian who cannot
> give a biased
> opinion? Or simply the catalogers who will become redundant
> with
> clever software and OCR?
> 
> I'll tell you the answer, because I fear a lot of you have
> forgotten
> it; knowledge to the people. Not information, not data,
> because any
> odd archive can give you that. Understand this distinction,
> and make
> yourself relevant to the people who not only crave but need
> that
> knowledge.
> 
>. I said libraries are different, and they need
> to stand up
> for that difference so that people and politicians both
> hear and
> understand it.
> 
> I'm tired of telling librarians about library
> ideals,
> about archiving distinctions, about knowledge management,
> about
> persistent identification needs and politics, that "books"
> is a
> library-destroying concept you need to get away from, about
> the need
> for embracing technology fully and stop playing in the
> sand-pit with
> toys only the librarian think is cool, I'm tired of
> repeating over and
> over that what the library world need right now are strong
> leaders,
> people who are gutsy, that you need to initiate projects
> that are
> daring, you need to collaborate across nations and library
> categories
> to together make yourself relevant enough for people to
> become
> indispensable to the future. You need to do something big
> and drastic,
> and all you #$&^%#$*& care about are the minutea of
> AACR2, the
> stupidity of RDA, the generally incomprehensibly FRBR, and
> all the
> warts of MARC. At no point have you said, hey, how about we
> come up
> with a new and crazy way to create reliable meta data? Or
> how to deal
> with digital resources? Or what does access mean in a
> digital economy?
> ... you better have some clear idea[s] ... before the
> politicians makes some unwelcome decisions based on *their*
> ideas) It
> just might save us from the impending doom of cumulative
> information
> we *cannot* keep up with.
> 
> You all got library degrees.
> Are they
> relevant to what you want to do?