Details view: Frames - Worldviews

Frames - Worldviews - Engagement logics

Discussion on Purplsoc paper

On the engagement logics image:

11:15 PM Nov 4

love this frame, could it be used to locate actions, individuals, groups?

9:55 AM Nov 5

Yes, and probably to recognize narratives, and the 'adjacent possibles' of each of these, as well as areas of overlap. In relation with what you comment below.

On 'Gathering' in communities of practice, around social objects:

11:26 PM Nov 4

key event... how do we catalyze this? my answer involves a standard protocol for value equations and governance equations (and ultimately codified values, visions and goals) where individual groups are defined by their weighting and modifiers of rates of accumulation for dimensions of value/governance, thus creating attractors that are computable

Show less

11:30 PM Nov 4

in fact, selections of parameters may indicate values (results only workplaces vs solidarity approaches)

9:56 AM Nov 5

Worth creating a section on Debategraph to dig into this (& yr comments to this whole worldview section) further.

8:35 PM Nov 5

yes this is a 5 lunch program - one more point, I see 'gathering' as an 'engagement spectrum' simplified currently as the (artificially) quantized (for the sake of defining measures) *attention - *participation *contribution - *delivery dimensions of value, which can form a sub-function of the value equation (or 'value function' more properly as you've pointed out elsewhere)

Show less

8:36 PM Nov 5

I think that publishing value networks using a common protocol forms the attractor for this 'gathering', really a catalyst for gathering that would otherwise rely on random happenstance

On groups themselves, commonality & differentiation:

"there is a universal aspect to what drives social and sustainability movements across the globe, which could help connect and coordinate all these differentiated logics. "

11:27 PM Nov 4

key container (boundary in alexander).. membranes? membership definition/ algorithm? permeability? stocks required?

8:37 PM Nov 5

just saying that 'membership' rather than a binary setting, can be an algorithm, and that member rights (such as inclusion and decision making) may be algorithmic (using decision types and governance equations/functions attached to decision types)

11:33 PM Nov 4

how common is the interesting question there are degrees and dimensions of commonality within any group), and is 'shared' based on a statement that members subscribe to or based on a computation of behaviors and degrees of engagement

11:49 PM Nov 4

important here is differentiating objective agreement from inter-subjective overlap

8:40 PM Nov 5

to illustrate, consider two approaches to defining an open value network using governance functions and value functions - either you get people to agree up front (objective) or you adjust the value function and governance function based on the personal functions of the members (inter-subjective) - I actually argue for the former, with the latter being a dashboard element to ensure the center has not drifted away from the current memberships desires, and this drift may trigger reviews of the governance and value functions or of the purpose of the OVN

11:21 PM Nov 4

key insight into the driver for differentiation (mental model simplification) and tribe formation, could tie into learning styles (you strike me as visual-spatial, hence comfort with iconographies and graph oriented approaches, for example

9:57 AM Nov 5

Yes I've been wondering if this isn't a bias I actually introduce, and whether we shouldn't look into the different ways of expressing similar things to encompass several learning styles/cognitive preferences in addition as you say to the mental model differentiations.

8:40 PM Nov 5

one miracle at a time, it is sufficient right now to recognize the bias

12:06 AM Nov 5

so a key question is how to describe the differentiation (possibly as a series of choices against a basic rule set that can describe not only existing arrangements, but allow combinations to propose new arrangements, and general random combinations that suggest un-thought-of arrangements) Pierre Levy's work in the Semantic Sphere comes to mind - he describes his work as a 'language' not a 'model' for this reason - interesting a lot of dimensions of value come out of his basic combinatorics

Show less

12:12 AM Nov 5

sorry to be unclear, but the idea is that you can identify dimensions of value, in particular those that people tend to approach differently (timebanks focus on time, results only workplaces on deliverables) or that can be applied to solve different problems (showing up at a time and place (the appointment dynamic from game theory) can be important for retail, but not so much for R&D where impact is more important) - see my list of these dimensions in the "value" mind map on mindmeister - consider if we put this in a linear equation form, where the left side of the equation is some abstract currency and the right side is a list of these dimensions added together, where the user of the system assigns constant factors in front of each dimension (including zero to exclude that dimension) and a decay/accumulation function (such as your exponential and linear elements) to describe accumulation over time, (this is simplified as we are ignoring issues of point in time verses accumulation over time for brevity) one could imagine that selection of these weightings would produce widely diverging emergent behavior sets, and that the settings of these variables would themselves describe the groups making the settings - analysis of which settings produced the best results for what types of endeavor would also be a rich area of research based on this dataset

Show less

12:14 AM Nov 5

in fact the equation is profoundly non-linear so the effects of setting the constants and decay/accumulation functions would be difficult to predict - which would launch a whole new study into the relationships between variables to reduce the non-linear equation to a linear one - that'll keep some academics busy for a while :-)

12:26 AM Nov 5

one of the complications is that things happen as events at a time within a time delineated by events (beginnings ends middles) which are effectively a shared narrative - for example, the idea of risk is that somebody puts in time on a project before the project is successful or likely to be successful - risk is a dimension of value - for risk to have meaning you need to agree on the beginning of the project, the participants, and the probability of success at any given point in time (or an agreed event, which for now can be what I call a 'liquidity event' or the system getting 'paid' or otherwise reinforced by transaction (a consumption event for example), but this is only in transition.. another complication to be explained some other time)

Show less

9:59 AM Nov 5

Same as above. Need to further discuss / work on this. Great possibilities!

On Funelling people through our own frames:

11:22 PM Nov 4

stems directly from mental model simplification and the attachment to that model to minimize the effort to acquire new knowledge, and to maintain cohesion in a group that has spent considerable resources creating a shared mental model

11:45 PM Nov 4

is it possible that differences in how people understand (and understand together) creates the perception of competition, rather than a necessity of it? (i.e. I want to understand you from my frame (in part to validate my frame and adjust it as necessary) rather than me implying that my frame is 'better')

11:47 PM Nov 4

is it possible to reduce the cognitive dissonance associated with seeing FROM another person's frame?

9:58 AM Nov 5

Isn't it about recognizing each other's frames, to expand our individual frames? Relates to participatory clarity as described by Bonnitta Roy, Mushin Schilling & Ann Caspary in some of their recent work.

Your comment brings Argyris' ladders of inference and his 'walking thru' each others reasoning to better understand each other's frames of reference, to mind...

Show less

8:42 PM Nov 5

will check these references

On discrepancy of view abstract / reality & intersubjectivity

3:03 PM Yesterday

"Systems dynamics" in both the conceptual models of people (formal systems) and in the natural organizations of the environment (natural systems). That's something we are oh so slowly realizing really needs to be clearly recognized... and we find the use of multiple conceptual models as pattern language viewpoints (as in this Henshaw version of the Rosen diagram)(please credit) can be greatly useful for linking all together.

Show less

3:14 PM Yesterday

Yes sorry, the credit in the figure itself is very small. Plus do you have a paper where this figure is visible so I can insert it in the bibliography? That's the draw with receiving author insights directly by email! :D

3:56 PM Yesterday

I will try to add something in the line of what you have written in this comment.

4:07 PM Yesterday

It's a new diagram, and I'll send you a larger version. It's one of many papers I'd be working on if I could get down to steady work. Credit is important for images, as they're direct quotes.

I think the important thing here is not to expect the reader to carefully study the complex meaning of the diagram. It's to crystallize the idea for the reader in the text. I'd do that by giving a name to the diagram, to make it an element of the pattern language. So in the scope of the paper I'd guess you'd call it the "Henshaw-Rosen diagram" and say what you're using it for in a way that makes people think about the elements.

Rosen himself had a horribly difficult time getting the idea across. I think it was because he had no way to distinguish "nature" from "science" as science has long treated nature as what it's theories defined. So nature remained a "concept" that science invented... instead of being a "subject of interest", the actual relationships of our world and lives... that science studies.

When you have two or more sciences studying the same natural reality, as with pattern language, it makes the multiple views of the subject essential to each view. With two points of view of a common reality, what you call "existence" becomes all three. Today most scientists can still only refer to reality as their own theory. A "one legged reality" in which nature is missing, rather than a "three legged reality" in which nature and all substantive views are included.

Show less

4:40 PM Yesterday

Maybe the problem comes from the fact that 'nature' evokes a bunch of trees and birds singing in many people's minds... I found that talking of 'realtity' could convey the meaning quite well. A good exercise could be to express 'nature' in each of the action logics in the figure page 4... What is the 'nature' you are talking about for say the techno-strategists? How could we remane it, describe it in different logics?

Show less

11:09 PM Nov 5

love this point, I talk about this as inter-subjectivity instead of the pursuit of objective truth (which doesn't actually exist (in my worldview) and so it merely distorts reality when we believe in it or try to work within such a frame)

11:10 PM Nov 5

"in the sense of reconstituting its inner workings rather than constructing it as an abstraction" - alan watts 'does it matter' has an essay (the first in the book) that covers this territory nicely, though philosophically not pragmatically

9:08 AM Yesterday

Link?

6:59 PM Yesterday

book at: http://www.amazon.ca/Does-It-Matter-Relation-Materiality/dp/1577315855

article snippets at:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/29/alan-watts-on-money-vs-wealth/

11:14 PM Nov 5

key point, and the core purpose of my attempt to develop a protocol for describing and creating political-economic paradigms, to allow description of existing choices as a special case of the more general set of choices possible, to create space for change and experimentation with the benefit of the ability to locate oneself in the field of possibility

Show less

9:15 AM Yesterday

That's our total point of convergence, synergy, overlap.

9:20 AM Yesterday

On another (though adjascent note) have you seen this: https://github.com/HeleneFi/Holoptic-Borderspace-Visualization (quite conceptual)

and that https://github.com/HeleneFi/linked-data-exploration-graph (a bit more concrete and directly related to your comment above)

On learning and "discovering new possibilities of solutions and possible partners, in automated as well as conscious ways."

11:14 PM Nov 5

important capabilities, any thoughts on how?

11:16 PM Nov 5

this notion of discovery (automated and conscious, intentional rather than accidental or assumed) is a key capability

Frames - Worldviews - Engagement logics

Enter task details