Perhaps 5% of what you’re viewing passively has value. And I have absolutely no objection against this, as we’ve all grown up and thrived on these 5%.

But what I would argue is that there is at least one medium out there where this ratio can be influenced by choice and interaction (true also for rentals and VOD).

Where only 5% of additionally spent energy can yield 95% more value to you as a consumer.

But let me get back to the cognitive surplus.

Can it be tapped?

Parhaps, or perhaps not yet – I think the problem is the amount of choice we are facing.
Human beings are generally bad at making wild choices, and the more things you get to pick from, the higher the chance that you’ll just procrastinate it all away …

The Internet has opened up like an endless straight line of fascinating books … but where do I start? Do I take this one? I looks cool … No, wait, there is a better one 20 steps ahead … No, wait … An endless array of choice.

The mainstream consumer needs someone to build shelves, arrange the books alphabetically, by category, by age group, by sex, build a cafeteria in front of it, brand the stuff, make room for parking, etc.

While this is being done, the average consumer will have to put up with being served the first 20 meters of the line over and over again … yes, comfortably in their couch, but with no one to talk to or influence the choice.

Anyway – awkward analogy, but you get my point.

I do think the cognitive surplus can be tapped … but it will take time. And once we are all immersed in the new mesh of quasi perfectly connected nodes, I am sure a new surplus will come along that our grandchildren (or – even better – the mouse ) will tease us about …

Take DNA for example. It is rarely mentioned that most of the DNA is rubbish. There are far more genes in DNA that do absolutely nothing, than the ones that seem to control the organisms that come out of that DNA. Let me speculate, or better guess, that there is less than 5% of useful DNA within the genome. Or maybe 1%?

Take the brain for example. Do you remember the often repeated chant about how much of brain’s capacity we’re really using? 5%? 1%?

Or take advertisements, as another example. Why are there so many really bad ads around, and so few intelligent ones? Again the 95% to 99% trash observations holds true, doesn’t it?

This ‘trash ratio’ pops up in system after system. The question is whether trash is really trash. Maybe ‘trash’ is not the correct word. Maybe the word that should be used is ‘average’. It is somehow clear that above average only appears if there’s average too. And below average as well.

And another thing here’s the measure by which we’re measuring things. Above average only comes out if we measure it against something. If we change the dimension of measurement, we often find that something that used to be above average is that no more. And vice versa.

Take an apple for example. Viewed from the dimension of nutritious value an apple is great, but don’t forget that it comes with a lot ‘trash’ or average to below average companionship in the form of the apple tree, the leaves, the branches, the trunk, the roots, even the soil in which it grows. Is all of this edible? No! So, if edibility is the measure of value, then 5% of value is accompanied by 95% of non value.

But you object, don’t you. Well, if you object here, why don’t you object when you think about people in front of TVs as useless?

So, coming back to cognitive surplus, let me ask this question: Is cognitive surplus really a resource that can be tapped? What about if this cognitive surplus is already employed, alas it’s not a surplus anymore.

Anyhow, I am glad that the new generation is looking for the mouse.

BigBrother –> this really gets on my nerves…