Let's keep mapping some folks into the POVSpace.
This is risky stuff. It's similar to critiquing someone else's work without their involvement, or even permission. You just hope that if it's done in a spirit of fairness and generosity then that intent shows through.
There's a very good and popular podcast that some of you probably listen to: 2Bobs. The hosts, David C. Baker and Blair Enns, make for an interesting pair to map into the POVSpace. Here goes:
Imagine that whatever topic these two are discussing on an episode of their podcast lies at the center of the POVSpace map.
You can easily see how David and Blair will approach the topic at hand from differing perspectives. They might agree with each other. That would be alignment between the content of their POVs, but they would arrive at their conclusions by different means (data vs. experience, for example).
I'll make a claim: this is part of what makes their podcast so interesting to so many people.
They're both funny. That helps.
They're both smart. That helps too.
One of them is conventionally handsome.
And the podcast is well concieved and produced. That also helps.
But I can't get over the idea that them coming from different places in the POVSpace creates a tension -- a lively interplay between how they see things -- that is compelling and always interesting to listen to.
|• • •|
A question for you, to help you think this stuff through:
If you were putting on a niche conference for those you serve, what would you want the POVSpace map for presenters and audience to look like? Would you want everyone operating from the same POV, or would you want some tension baked into it? If so, what configuration of tension would be most valuable?