The biggest problem with such ideal systems here is an old one. First, knowledge, even opinion, equal wisdom? Second, does a majority (plebiscite for example) automatically produce what is best or the right policy? Is what the majority wants best for preserving or enhancing what is the highest good for society? Third, he who defines the problem defines the solution. How is the invisible structure of software, be it GIS, networking systems, or electronic voting machines, to be made transparent and how do we know? Each of these questions points at an issue that needs to be examined when developing such systems. Also, the issue of flaming, death threats, copyshop editing of personal sexual attacks, and bloggs and as recently put forward can generate a death blow to any uncontrolled discourse. The form and content of the language of discourse is critical here. Compare Congress with the US Senate up until fairly recently. The Federalist papers attempted to deal with the first set of problems by postulating a controlled form of conflict and protection of minority opinions. The later problems have not been dealt with yet, at least in the virtual world.
Gus Gus Koehler, Ph.D. President and Principal Time Structures, Inc. 1545 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 Cell: 916-716-1740 www.timestructures.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Francisco Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 7:09 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Hi Allison, You must be familiar with the European consensus conference concept? There has been some work in STS that looks at these sense-making spaces (see Frank Fischer's work (Fischer F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham and London: Duke UP.) and Stefan Sperling (http://www.sts.rpi.edu/colloquium/sperling.html)). WikiPolicy is, it seems to me, is an online version of such a social space. The affordance of the Wiki though is that it produces social network data and that network data seems to be one of the main resources that policy makers would draw on to position the perspectives. Your idea of WikiPolicy is also exciting from those of us who study knowledge production becuase of the medium's affordance for producing detailed and wide social interaction data (communication network data) on a topic that has only been able to be studies through ethnogrpahic participation or discourse analysis--as we all know very well it is extremely difficult to gather network data from a face-to-face interactions especially from spaces that are inhabited by powerful people who often don't like being monitored. You may want to take a look at how computatioanl social scientists are approaching the study of online knowledge communities. The main work that comes to mind, which I just recently learned about, here is Greg Madey's group's study of collaboration networks in the SourceForge community. They're using agent-based modeling techniques and network analysis to better understand the community. I'm sure others here in FRIAM can situate this work much better than me. And I bet that there are other similar case studies. This area seems to be very rich and your project is quite exciting! Matt On 4/15/07, Allison Pinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you all have already seen this clip, sorry for the duplication, but > if not, this definitely seems to fit in with the conversation that is > alive right now re: phase transitions relating to technology: > > http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/introducing-the-book-p1.php? > > :) Allison > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Michael Agar > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:15 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. > > "Reflexivity" is one of those terms... Nice and neat in set theory, a > relation R is reflexive in set A iff for all a in A aRa is true. > Then there's the ethnomethodology version, which means talk and > situation dynamically co-constitute each other. Then there's the > focused ethno version I learned, namely that the ethnographer is part > of the data. Then there's the critical theory version, namely putting > a project in broader historical context to evaluate interests it > serves with a critical evaluation vis a vis a model of the good society. > > Almost as bad as trying to define "complexity" (: > > Mike > > > On Apr 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Matthew Francisco wrote: > > > Dr. Daniels, > > > > I want to make sure I understand you. See below... > > > > On 4/13/07, Marcus G. Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote: > >>> reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and > >>> cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of cybernetics > >>> too... > >>> > >> For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems: > >> > >> 1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the > >> world. > >> To ask the right questions means having unbiased data on how people > >> in some context of interest actually behave. > > > > I take it that when you say context of interest you are inferring > > that this is a model of the world. I understand you as meaning that > > context is unstable, always shifting, as a natural outcome of > > reflection. The act of shifting contexts and perspectives and > > between models of the world is reflexivity. That's a good way to think of it! > > > > Asking the right questions means settling on a few world models at > > the most but one, a context of interest, is preferred. I'm, > > however, unclear on the relationship of unbiased data to the > > framework you are proposing. Does biased data arise from gathering > > data in one model of the world, moving to another, gathering more > > data, moving to another model of the world and so on? I believe > > that there is some other criteria that you have for determining if > > data is biased or unbiased that might not be related to one or many > > world models and the shifting between them, but I'm unsure. I > > acknowledge that I may be asking the wrong questions here. Please advise! > > > > > >> > >> 2) It's typically not possible to sufficiently influence or observe > >> people to understand cause and effect across individuals or groups. > >> The insights gained from reflexive participation will just be the > >> kind of models we get living life (but with fancied-up language to > >> sound more important than they are). Seems to me this kind of > >> modeling is more the domain of the intelligence agencies than > >> universities. > >> > > > > I take it that when you say that there is an impossibility to > > influence or observe then you are speaking from a particular model > > of the world. I cannot understand what you mean by sufficiency > > until I better understand where you are coming from. I think that > > it is most appropriate here for me to take responsibility for my > > ignorance on this because I don't think that I adequately explained > > the model of the world that I'm living in when I speak of > > reflexivity much less interpret how you think about it based on what > > I said or what you already know. I really would like to share it > > with you if I can, but I also don't want to bore FRIAM (I'm absolutely capable of that!). > > > > I think that if reflexive participation, as you put it, by an > > analyst could get at the world you experience living your life then > > it would be a highly successful approach. That's a pretty radical > > claim you're making! I'd say that such analysis would give some > > insight into another person's world but definitely not a replication > > of the same model. > > > > I recently watched a whole slew of spy movies (The Conversation, > > Syriana, The Good Shepard.) and I think that you're absolutely right > > that the model of reflexivity your proposing, shifting between > > models of the world, fits with the narratives portrayed in these > > films. You defiantly gave me an entirely new way to think about > > reflexive sociology! Does such an approach not belong in the > > University?!? I'm intrigued. Thanks for this response, you really got me thinking! > > > > Have a good night > > > > Matt > > > > > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > >> http://www.friam.org > >> > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
