Blogging is a real-time social sport.  Real-time writing, real-time reading.  On the writing side, I, like Doc Searls, have tested positive for AKMA.  On reading side, there is a whole other set of categorizations to describe the different way people read blogs: 

• T-people: Title readers, rarely follow links, make quick opinions, probably RSS too many feeds
  
• D-people: Deep readers, follow all links, think carefully about the blog, rarely comment
  
• Q-people: Questioners, read quickly, follow most links, assimilate information, and comment frequently

I am sure there are many more, but you get my point.  I fall mostly into D, but enjoy commenting. 

Because blogging is a social sport, it always takes two to tango (i.e. my AKMA writing style interacts with various reading styles to create different results).  Here is why I am writing this:

Corante brother Kling seems to be a T. Why?  Well, when he countered my blog yesterday, The Future is Emotional Economics with Emotional Noneconomics it wasn't entirely his fault that he missed my point.  As a real-time sport, quick decisions are made and published.  Sometimes word choice might not be perfect, especially when putting a title on a blog.  Right before I published, I changed my original title, The Future of Emotional Economics, for reasons of impact/emphasis.  And the rest in real-time history.

Because he is a T, with respect to my AKMA, he followed the link to the economist article, and thought he understood my point, and then decided to comment, when in fact he missed it completely, commenting:

The last attempt to overthrow mainstream economics--Marxism--led to a totalitarian disaster.  To repeat that mistake would be the most irrational move of all.

That was not my point....

If he read down to the bottom, followed through all/most of the links and thought about the questions I was attempting to raise (not qualities of a T), he would have realized that my point was that behavioral economics has an interesting/bright future, not that I was suggesting it was going to replace conventional economics. 

This is not the first time my AKMA has got me in trouble.  Just last week Virginia Postrel nailed me in her "Not Brave" post for calling Bill McKibbens new book brave.  My intent was to make a slight reference to Huxley's Brave New World (a book I highly admire but think has some bass-ackwards assumptions), thus putting McKibben in the same category of, great topic, nice writing, wrong assumptions. 

But because Virginia is a D, she, in her third paragraph, stated that my blog on "Neurotechnology before Genetic Engineering" was in fact a good read.  She followed the story to the conclusion. 

So the moral of the story for me is, choose my words more carefully.  But I won't, because that would ruin the real-time fun we are all having.  However, maybe Ross should consider choosing his words more carefully, see Shirky in a World of Hurt. But he won't.