Like most American citizens, I was called to jury duty and I really enjoy the opportunity to participate in democracy. I think it is amazing that as a society we have decided that a group of professional judges should not have the final voice on whether a suspect is guilty or innocent. Instead we collectively trust a randomly selected group of individuals from all walks of life. When you think about it, it is really amazing - we take the truckers, the school teachers, the convenience store employees, the naturalized citizens, the lawyers, the doctors, and the farmers and throw them in a room together to decide the fate of another individual.
The first thing we did at jury duty was listen to a senior state judge discuss our responsibilities and while I forget who the judge was, something she said struck me. She explained that we use the system we do because we need average citizens to provide their judgment in how the law should be applied and that getting that judgment cannot be achieved any other way.
Human judgment. What a concept.
Then I think about how we've approach software for so many years. Algorithms...if we just have the right algorithms we can deliver the 'right' results.
But it turns out that, with information, we need judgment to make it 'living' information vs. data. We typically trust information based on our trust in the judgment of its source - whether an individual or an organization run by trusted individuals. And judgment is impossible to achieve without humans. And for years, we've accepted tools that don't incorporate the judgment of our peers, colleagues, and friends. That is really what 'social' software is all about.
The first thing we did at jury duty was listen to a senior state judge discuss our responsibilities and while I forget who the judge was, something she said struck me. She explained that we use the system we do because we need average citizens to provide their judgment in how the law should be applied and that getting that judgment cannot be achieved any other way.
Human judgment. What a concept.
Then I think about how we've approach software for so many years. Algorithms...if we just have the right algorithms we can deliver the 'right' results.
But it turns out that, with information, we need judgment to make it 'living' information vs. data. We typically trust information based on our trust in the judgment of its source - whether an individual or an organization run by trusted individuals. And judgment is impossible to achieve without humans. And for years, we've accepted tools that don't incorporate the judgment of our peers, colleagues, and friends. That is really what 'social' software is all about.
Comments