[pdonis]

See the other comments downthread. If he had used the word "inform" instead of "influence", for example, I might buy your interpretation. But "influence", to me, means he's taking it upon himself to decide what to present based on "what the audience needs to hear", instead of deciding what to present based on the subject matter--what needs to be presented to enable the audience to understand. Yes, this is a judgment call: as I said in my OP, your mileage may vary. But that's how I read it.

[espeed]

Bret is trying to get people to see what he sees because he knows it will lead to a leap in humankind's ability to transfer knowledge.

He sees a way to amplify the world's ability to learn and understand. This transformation in how to design and present content will accelerate learning by making the impenetrable accessible.

He's making this his life's work, and it's clear he has spent countless hours pondering and working it. A hallmark of a genius is a rare and valuable perspective -- a unique mental model -- that has been built up over time through long periods of deep contemplation. As a result, these rare and valuable perspectives enable you to see what few (if any) have seen before.

Bret sees a lever that will amplify human understanding, and he knows how to get there.

The difficulty is transferring his mental model to others because the gaps in understanding are often too great. We might get a glimpse of what he sees, but it will be only a sliver until we have explored what he's explored from every angle and have reconstructed the model in our mind.

Part of the challenge is showing others how to get to this golden lever, but the first step is to others to recognize its significance so they are inspired to begin the journey. This is what he meant by influence. However, inspiring others to take action can be hard when they begin with only a fuzzy notion of what he sees.

But notice the premise of his talk is about providing a solution to this problem. By fundamentally redesigning our interfaces to knowledge, it will be easier for one to transfer their mental model to others -- he states this premise at the beginning. His talk provided a glimpse into what's possible -- to help people snap out of fixed mindsets and point them toward a path beyond incremental improvement. The examples he provided weren't the end game -- they are just the beginning -- meant to whet our appetite.

Seeing his work and watching his presentations, you feel his passion and know he lives with these ideas ruminating in the back of his mind everyday. He has explored them farther than almost anyone else in the world.

Shinichi Mochizuki is another recent example of someone exploring an idea and following it out to a place no one else can see.

Mochizuki spent years working on a proof for the ABC conjecture (http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/11/03/abc-proof-too-to...). Mochizuki posted four papers for the proof on his website, but he has yet to publicly engage the mathematics community.

During this process, he invented his own language -- he was in a mathematical world no one had seen or conceived before -- so his papers have been impenetrable to the world's top mathematicians. The gaps in understanding are too great.

When Bret said he decided to present on "what the audience needs to hear", I suspect he's starting slow by giving them a glimpse of what he sees, rather than trying to distill everything into an hour talk. He's trying to influence people to think beyond their preconceived notions of what's possible. He's trying to get them to think different -- to inspire their work by illuminating a path that leads to transformative understanding.

[pdonis]

Bret is trying to get people to see what he sees because he knows it will lead to a leap in humankind's ability to transfer knowledge.

No, he's trying because he believes it will lead to a leap in our ability to transfer knowledge. He admits he doesn't know, because nobody knows what will be important in 100 years.

My question is, what if he's wrong? Consider:

(1) If he's wrong, then so are all the people he's expended all this effort to influence. It's not just him going down a wrong path, it's everyone he's convinced to share his vision. Epic fail.

(2) If he's right, why bother expending all this effort to influence people to see what he sees? Why not just use what he sees to actually do what he describes? He has an idea for building better tools for thinking? Great! Go build some and show how they're better. If he's right, he won't need to influence people; the benefits of his approach will be obvious. But, if he's wrong, it will only be he that's wrong; other people will not have wasted their efforts on a blind alley as well.

[espeed]

My question is, what if he's wrong?

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." -George Box.

Models get refined over time. Only the omniscient see the entirety. Newton had an incomplete picture of gravity, but it put us on the path.

It's the fundamental shifts -- the leaps in thinking -- that illuminate new areas to explore.

If he's right, why bother expending all this effort to influence people to see what he sees?

Have you ever been inspired by a great teacher? Great teachers begin by inspiring their students.

"It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge." --Albert Einstein

"We expert teachers know that motivation and emotional impact are what matter." -- Donald Norman

He admits he doesn't know, because nobody knows what will be important in 100 years.

The residual impact from communicating your insights can last well beyond 100 years, especially if you provide new puzzle pieces that fill in our gaps of understanding, connect domains, and contribute to a more complete picture.

"A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops." --Henry Adams

Someone who did not try to communicate their understanding would be doing a disservice to us all. You never know what pieces someone else may be missing.

[pdonis]

"All models are wrong, but some are useful."

Sure, but all this means is that you and I should both have used the word "useful" instead of "wrong". It doesn't materially change what I said: he doesn't know his ideas will be useful, he just believes they will, and the impact if he's wrong about that is still just what I said.

Have you ever been inspired by a great teacher?

Sure, but he didn't use the word "inspire". He used the word "influence". The great teachers that inspired me didn't tell me what to work on; they just told me I had a lot of potential and I should find something good to do with it. What he's saying is a lot more specific than that.

Someone who did not try to communicate their understanding would be doing a disservice to us all.

Again, he's not just communicating his understanding (which I agree is beneficial). He's trying to get people to do something different than they would have done otherwise. He doesn't just think "this stuff would be useful for others to know". He thinks "people should devote their time and energy to this thing I believe in". That's a very different matter.

[espeed]

So you're pro-"inspire" but anti-"influence"?

Not to go all Webster on you, but the primary definition of inspire is to influence:

  in*spire

  verb (used with object)

  1. to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting
     influence: His courage inspired his followers.

  2. to produce or arouse (a feeling, thought, etc.): 
     to inspire confidence in others.

  3. to fill or affect with a specified feeling, thought, 
     etc.: to inspire a person with distrust.

  4. to influence or impel: Competition inspired her to
     greater efforts.

  5. to animate, as an influence, feeling, thought, or the
     like, does: They were inspired by a belief in a better
     future.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inspire

BTW: You do realize your entire thread has been an argument of influence, advocating your point of view?

[pdonis]

So you're pro-"inspire" but anti-"influence"?

When appropriately defined, yes. See below.

the primary definition of inspire is to influence

Ah, you would rather continue to play word games than actually address the substance of my argument. But sure, I'll play.

I could quibble with your claim that the primary definition of inspire is to influence, since in that definition, "influence" is used as a noun, not a verb. But that's really a side issue, because you didn't bother to ask me in which sense I was using the word "inspire" (or "influence", for that matter), or to take into account the context in which I used the words. That context should have made it evident that senses #2 and #3 of "inspire" are the ones I meant, and those do not mean the same as "influence" as a verb.

I suppose, for the record, I should also make explicit that I am using "influence" in sense #8 of the dictionary definition, taken from the same dictionary you used:

8. to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/influence

You do realize your entire thread has been an argument of influence, advocating your point of view?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make this play. :-) Fortunately, it's easy to refute since I just gave the dictionary definition of "influence" in the sense I've been using the term. I'm not trying to move anyone to any action; I'm just trying to explain why the post bothered me enough to rant about it, and then to clarify my position in response to questions and counterarguments. I don't want or expect anyone to drop what they're doing and devote time and energy to something else as a result of what I say. If anything, I hope that people will be less likely to do that in response to "influence", as a result of what I say.