Discussing 2.0 more and more

Maybe I have been reading too many marketing books and reading too many magazine articles.

Web 2.0 is everywhere. They say that it was originally coined as a way to describe the 'second wind' that has sprung up with this new wave of Internet focused companies. Some say that it is all about social and community web vs the 1.0 sites that were digital version of brick & mortar commerce. Then there are a few (myself included, when I first heard about Web 2.0) that believe it is more technology related, the use of AJAX, RSS, etc = Web 2.0.

I personally think that it is human nature to want to classify things, people, eras, movements, etc.

I mean look at how we typically refer to decades. Take the 60s for instance, the decade of "Peace and Free Love" or at least that is what I typically associate with the 60s. Course, there was plenty else that happened in the 60s.

When it comes to people. There are the personality types, Type A, Type B. In movies and what not you see flight attendants discuss the different types of folks, again classifying them in to categories.

I guess, my point is. While I think just about everyone can agree with the idea that stereotypes and putting people or things into a generalized container is not a good thing to do. A sort of "Don't judge a book by it's cover." mantra.

However, I think everyone can admit to using stereotypes or classifying things and people into generalized container categories.

I mean I think about all of the descriptions that I have heard or read about how one describes what a new company does. "Well it is like company X, but for industry Y."

I mean who out there has heard something sort of like this "It is like Google, but you know for travel." Or maybe "She is like Shannyn Sossamon, but in that sort of Shannon Elizabeth way."

My point is, I think it is human nature to try and use categories and stereotypes to be able to get a generalized picture of what to expect without having to really go into full detail about a thing. I mean, take the definition of a Mammal.

By stating that an animal is a Mammal, that instantly tells you a fair amount about the animal. Not all of it, but you end up having a good idea.

The same goes with 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0. It is human nature to classify things. I also believe it is human nature to want to be unique, to be special, thus rebel against being easily classified.

I know from reading articles and attending some speaking sessions at conferences that many of the folks that are thrown into the Web 2.0 space, don't enjoy the fact that there is a name or classification. Part of this rebellion I think comes from not wanting to be easily classified.

You might be wondering what has me thinking about all of this?

Two things. Discussions at Jaduka, in terms of trying to define ourselves (uniquely). And the other was a movie on TV today.

The movie was Duplex. Which had a lot of the same feel (to me) as another movie, Money Pit.

General premise of both movies.

1. Young couple buys a home.
2. Home needs a little work, but is otherwise everything they have ever wanted.
3. Home has some quirks to it that were not known to the couple at time of purchase.
4. Couple must over come adversity and keep it together.
5. Couple ends up winning in the end. (sort of)

When I was finished watching the movie, I felt like saying "Duplex is Money Pit 2.0".

There have been a few other movies that I have thought about how they reminded me of a different movie. I mean in the end "There is nothing new under the sun." or as the aptly named South Park episode says "Simpsons already did it."

Just remember that no one likes being stereotyped, particularly if it is has negative connotations. But at the same time recognize that it does seem to be part of human nature to classify people, places and things.

Time to go make dinner,
Laterz.