- The issue is not one of motivation. When an individual enters the intellectual field,
the structural problem is where one will fit into the apportionment of attention.
This cannot be evaded, whatever one’s values of modesty, self-effacement, or
commitment to intellectual virtues. - Strictly speaking, for a successful IR, participants should match similar CCs, so
that they have something to talk about. For creative intellectuals, CCs cannot be
completely similar, but should overlap enough so that one or another participant
can contribute new CC to the others, and CCs can be recombined to produce new
ideas. Participants do not match EE levels the same way. What is necessary for a
successful IR is that at least one person have relatively high EE, to take the initiative
in getting the interaction flowing and bring the available CC into the conversation.
The law of small numbers suggests that one person tends to get the most attention
in each intellectual group; two persons with very high EEs would tend to negate
each other by competing over attention. The formula for a successful IR is:
matching CCs, complimentary EEs. - We can be even more definitive. Being calculating is a particular kind of conscious
thinking. Insofar as thought is itself determined by CC, EE, and surrounding
network opportunities, there are structural conditions under which individuals will
have sentences going through their minds such as “What will happen if I do this?
Wouldn’t it be better if I.. .” We could also specify the conditions under which
individuals think nothing of the sort but merely go with the flow. In circumstances
of steady energy flow, whether high or low, persons tend to follow their path
without reflecting about it. It is when energy flows are sharply contradictory, owing
to network locations which pull one way and another, that conscious calculation
is more likely. At the extreme, low success in IRs leading to low EE, combined
with a multiplicity of unattractive interactional opportunities, can lead to paralyz-
ing self-reflectiveness. The IR chain model expanded in this direction would con-
stitute a sociological psychiatry. - In the United States, the number of published writers of commercial (trade) books
is estimated at 45,000 (Kingston and Cole, 1986: 36). - Kuhn’s theory asserts that there are fundamental differences between those fields
(sciences) which possess paradigms and those which do not (humanities and social
“science”). But stratification of creativity and recognition appears to be rather
similar in all fields. Analysis pointing to similar structures underlying artistic
careers is given in White (1993); see also Kaufer and Carley (1993); for mathema-
ticians and sociologists, see Crane (1972). - Chambliss (1989) gives a compelling image of the differences among ranks of
achievement in any competitive field, intellectual, athletic, or professional. The
reality for those in the successful inner circle is simply “the mundanity of excel-
lence”: a smoothly applied routine of using finely tuned resources with the con-
fidence that one knows how to make them pay off. To those in the outer tiers,
even those in the second competitive rank, there seems to be some mysterious
quality that the successful possess, and this sense of difference generates a barrier
of anxiety which makes it all the more impassable. - This sketch of a conversational artificial intelligence is amplified in Collins (1992).
Notes to Pages 39–50^ •^949