Opposable Mind

Perceiving through synesthesia

While trying to understand a coworker today, I realized that the way that she made sense of her world was very foreign to me. In part, this realization struck me with more force than usual because I have lately been struggling to understand just these kinds of differences in perspective when interacting with my wife.

Misunderstandings, and perpetual arguments, with a significant other are particularly infuriating, because it can seem like our partner is purposefully misinterpreting what we say, twisting our words in some kind of weird logic simply to watch our tormented reaction. Knowing deeply and rationally that my wife has no such intention, I still perceive viscerally and in immediate emotional confrontedness that she can have no other intention, I come to the realization that her experience of me must be similar! I must seem like the jerk.

Usually, in my intimate relationship, my rational curious self can't find a space to wriggle into the fixed closedness of my emotional conundrum, but with a less threatening situation, I can actually find a bit of humor.

So it was with thinking about the dance between customers and developers when wrangling over requirements. And I realize that what seems like nonsense to me, makes perfect sense to the other person, and vice-versa.

Picture a black and white image of a squat cylinder, a cube, a cone and a sphere. The woman is describing the way she wants them to be arranged with one another, and the man is trying to understand. She says, "the green one should look up to the liquid, instead of down at it." The man, can sort of get the relational sense of up and down, but the 'green' and 'liquid' references through him. For a moment, he imagines the sphere as a billiard ball, and can imagine green. He asks, "so the roundness doesn't dominate, but is drawn to the pointed-ness?"

She looks puzzled, "what? no, the one that smells like peanut butter is central."

He rocks back, "which shape is the peanut butter, and where do you want it?"

"Shape?" she asks, "you mean which relationship smells like peanut butter? The smooth with the round of course."

And it continues. I'm imagining it more absurd, and a bit abstract for effect. The difference in perception is clear. They are not looking at the same world. What he sees has nothing to do with peanut butter, green, or liquid, and yet he is trying to map those descriptions onto what he does perceive. I can almost hear him thinking, well, the cylinder is kind of like a jar of peanut butter, so that must be the one she means.

The layers of context provide the orientation for sense-making, and when those layers of context don't sufficiently overlap, mutual sense-making is impossible.

I think of someone who is gifted with profound synesthesia, and describes green as pointy with a flat bottom. I often think in terms of the movements of diffuse shapes, analogically imprecise, but capturing the sense of a situation, and I'm not very good with the details. I sometimes must listen for quite a while before I have enough information to piece together a working legend for the map that others don't even perceive as a map.

It seems to me that good designers are excel in this kind of translation between maps, and can pick out fundamental elements that speak more universally to a variety of constituents. When conversations go bad, it feels as if both parties assume that their internal legend is self-evident... no, more than that, they feel as of their orientation is the one, true, obvious orientation, and all else is nonsense.

I'm reminded of Buckminster Fuller, who insisted that "up" was no way to orient to the sky, but "out" was more accurate. Clearly, there is a dimensionality that gives a different orientation to the common perspective. It is as radical as realizing that the world is round, and revolves around the sun, rather than being the center of all existence.

Funny how all of this seems so intimately tied to the BBC program about Cantor, Boltzmann, Godel and Turing (http://is.gd/e6s - 1.5 hours long, but extremely worth it if your nerd streak works that way).

Riffing on Theory of Fun

Raw response to (and applications for): "Theory of Fun" podcast: http://tinyurl.com/ywpx8t

[PREFACE: After 2007 SXSW keynote by Will Wright, 2008 SXSW keynote by Jane McGonigal, and listening to the above podcast from 2007 Etech by Raph Koster, I'm thinking there is some real meat to explore here. All of the following thoughts don't even touch on the idea of Games that Matter that involve Sustainability as an overt goal. But interestingly, game design theory is all about sustainability... I'd like feedback, if you have any to offer, on which of these sub-topics you'd like to see me develop].

Make process design that is micro-rewarding and feeback rich.

Entreprenurial game that rewards teamwork and competition at different levels to foster collaboration and differentiation.

Ways to form guilds easily (and allow solos so that individuals can showcase and hone their talents). Everyone should have an opportunity to be the alpha warrior in their own specialized domain, so my guilds best map-maker goes against yours. The rest of the guild can support their warrior, and coach them afterwards on what could have gone better.

Concern: Raph's talk focused on Amazon vs. Ebay, and I can see evil folks trying to figure out just how to milk us of dollars. Not really a concern though, if we figure out how to "game" that and go one better. The audience, if knowledgeable about the larger structure, becomes the game designer through interaction.

Social network stuff for most people is either an initial turn-off (too hard a ramp to even start - unclear objectives or feedback), or an initial novelty that soon wears off (like a one-trick toy, mall copters)

Make magazine does a good job of getting people to a high-level of functionality on cool stuff by giving detailed instructions. Need to provide a path into understanding the micro-detail so that I can dig into changing the interaction without it just failing. They don't have to do this, but just encourage their audience to do it and let it go.

Transform the landscape of game-play such that experienced players fair better by meaningfully tutoring, or at least meaningfully redirecting, noobs rather than mocking them and trying to keep the space noob-free. This has to do with macr0-structure of self-perpetuating awesomeness (which the SXSW talk was not a self-referential example of).

Public Radio as a game for folks to delve into their passions, mine value, and crossmarket their exploits, including fund-raising and audience skill-building.

Have a team of consultants who really digs into this, understands Raph's work, Jane McGonigal (SXSW) talk, and WIll Wright's game structure (SXSW2007 keynote). Then offer a $50,000 workshop to a company. They have to at least seriously try your game design, and if they don't like it, they get their money back. In fact, have guilds of trainers who do this better or worse, and have an obvious feedback system.

Make it easier for people to invent self-expression filled roles.

Thought: trying to transform college/university to teach with game design in mind is probably a waste of time, just need to provide a compelling alternative that works on it's own, and either makes some/all aspects of higher ed obsolete, or makes them want to emulate.

SXSW, Monday

Sitting in Room 8, for Games for Change. So far, have attended fewer of the sessions, and more discussions than in years past. Bill Anderson and I attended the Social Design Strategies talk yesterday, with Messina, Josh Porter, Daniel Burka and Max Kiesler. One of the better sessions I've attended, with useful and thought provoking content. We're doing a follow up impromptu session tonight in the Crucial Conversations room (Ballroom E) at 6pm. We'll also be talking about Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks. If you're at SXSW 2008 and interested, or know someone who is, we look forward to seeing you.

Semantic Web: A Tinker Toy Elevator to the Moon?

I really appreciate that the discussion around the issues behind the Semantic Web (or GGG -- Giant Global Graph) are starting to mature significantly. Still, I find it very interesting and relevant that I stumble upon these discussions more frequently than having them dished up for me by my mechanical servants. This perennial frustration of relying on luck points to a spot very close to the heart of the problem. The gestation period of knowledge seems to be retarded by eloquence rather than accelerated by it. My navigation within the WWW or GGG is still much more luck or brute force than inspired intentionality. If one could map the related concerns, irrespective of the relative eloquence of the missive, we might start seeing a greater acceleration in quality contributions which do more than reiterate the same oft-repeated vollies.

This post is inspired by a great case study; brought about because a friend sent me a link to Nova Spivack's 2003 post extolling the wonders of RSS. In the side navbar, I happened to notice that Nova's latest post from today was a response to Anne Zelenka's post comparing the aims of the Semantic Web to making machines more like the autistic Rain Man, able to recount facts in extraordinary precision and relations, but unable to use that data to further a real human connection. (I read Anne's article after I read Nova's... I found Anne's perspective extremely refreshing).

I like Nova Spivack. I don't know him personally, but I really like the quality of his thinking. It is particularly because he can be so eloquent that I feel compelled to reply. For me, the most cogent sounding and practical speakers on this particular subject are unfortunately arguing for a system that will never get us to our destination, even though the technologies they are working on are the best that we have to date. It is abundantly clear to me that we are going to have to discover a radical paradigm shifting solution to actually get to where we're pointing. And it seems that these eloquent arguments for tinker-toy elevators for space exploration are just giving just fueling the fire for skeptics who claim that the goal itself is absurd, and that we should just resign ourselves to the conclusion that algorithms will never amount to more than an interesting deterministic diversion from the real work of human powered thinking.

The position that I take falls in neither of the popular camps. I'm not looking to technology to pull some Deus ex machina rabbit out of its binary hat, nor am I inclined to believe that the forward march of technology can only enslave us. (Here is where I wish I were more eloquent myself.) I think we can pull ourself up by our bootstraps with the assistance of our technology, but it is going to require a radical new perspective on the way we approach problem solving. Simply jacking up the horse-power on existing technologies isn't sufficient in my opinion. And while Semantic Web (RDF/OWL) is a spiffy new sparqly toy, it doesn't have the quantum level nano-tube like strength to overcome the gravity of our nuvo-cognitive situation.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, relates very closely to David Weinberger's thesis in Everything is Miscellaneous; I don't trust man or machine to get the meaning of a piece of data right in an absolute and general way, because the meaning has everything to do with the context with which I want it in this very moment, and not so much to do with the intent of the person who wrote it down. Imagine if every poet encoded the semantics of each poem along with the poem. There are two obvious problems, one is the inflexibility of deciding the meaning at one point in time from one perspective, and the second is the problem of using that metadata to find a specific instance when the tags are so universal and common as: 'Love', 'Loss', 'Beauty', etc.

My wife contributed significantly to a successful solution that defined an interchane language/protocol for the oil industry. It was a massively complex but useful tool, and significantly simplified that the task of exchanging data stored in a wide variety of formats. But trying to envision a general purpose approach to extending that elegant solution to all of human knowledge is futile to the point of inducing despair. The reason that the solution she worked on is so successful is because the solution is closely tied with the intent for which the data was being used. Petroleum engineers know the data is there, know very much what the 'shape' of the data will be like, and have specific questions they are asking about the data. The intent of the how the data will be used only appears to be bound to the data itself because of the shared concern with others who would use that data. Thinking that the intent can actually be bound up with the data in a way that the 'concern' can be discerned by looking only at the contextual-less data and metadata misses the crucial point about data that Anne makes so well: meaning isn't simply constituted from facts, no matter how flawlessly the facts are memorized and cataloged.

Just to make sure that my point isn't lost in my ineloquence, I not only think that computerized-assistance with meaning-discernment is a good idea, I think it is inevitable, positive, and empowering. The catagorization scheme that I would like to see used would allow me to compare and contrast various perspectives on a given problem, not by finding the "right," "true," or most popular perspectives, but rather by giving me the ability to map the various perspectives and navigate among them irrespective of what any given authority thought about the correctness or popularity of any given perspective. Even, and perhaps especially, when that expert happened to be the author of the said perspective. Just because I disagree with Nova and Tim Berners Lee about the method of storing, retrieving or constructing meaning, doesn't mean I don't wish them all success. I genuinely hope I'm wrong. Just not so much that I can sit by contentedly and wait to see what they come up with. I would love to be able to easily find all the other people who look to where we're going and see other facets of the discussion that need to be had. Unfortunately, right now, I can only rely on the A-listers for a particular topic to link to them, or hope I stumble upon them in the comments, or through forwarded links from friends.

Post Script: An interesting aside. In discussing this idea with my wife, another whole perspective emerged. She indicated that she wasn't only uninterested in how anyone went about solving this particular set of problems (whether be GGG or some other new paradigm), she was concerned that such a solution may interfere with the expression of our humanity. In trying to discern why exactly that was, I think I narrowed the concern down to one of limitation enforced by algorithmic determinism imposed by machines. There are also issues and concerns around privacy, autonomy, freedom, etc., but to try to simplify the discussion, I asked that we think of an analogy: what if you had a faithful and skilled human servant who knew your patterns, could anticipate your concerns, and presented a simplified menu of choices, with full capability of expanding that menu of choices if you indicated that you wanted such. Trying to imagine a future in which computers could perform these tasks as well as a human servant (or assistant if you prefer), in her mind the human assistant is acceptable and desirable, but the computer assistant borders on repulsiveness. This response has nothing to do with the efficacy or beneficiality of the solution, but of the ethical sensability of the situation. It's a position that absolutely must be taken into consideration, even if the major participants in the discussion don't see it as particularly important.

Web Consulting for Fun and Profit

Jon Lebkowsky, Bill Anderson and I met this morning for another round of "what specifically are our offerings at Polycot Associates?"

These meetings are simultaneously fun and frustrating for me. The fun part is arguing about all kinds aspects of the latest social/technical aspects of our culture. The hard part is nailing it down to something focused enough to be considered a business.

A bit of background: Jon and I have been running in to one another for about 18 months or so, and notice just how dang much we have in common. I met Bill at the 2006 SXSW Interactive (Bill "heckled" me at my Beyond Folksonomies panel (mp3 available) -- actually, Bill had very good comments, and strong opinions; he and I have a quite a bit in common as well).

The driving question is for our potential clients: how does today's web intersect with me and my business?

Business websites are the norm now, though the majority of small to medium businesses, and a surprising percentage of larger businesses still use the web as a replacement for print brochures. The flow of information is all one way, and too often sounds like market-speak. When Cluetrain Manifesto was born, the notion of a dialog across the web was practically unheard of. Today, technology makes it almost trivial to allow not only a two way conversation between customers and providers, but to also enable the tangential discussions among customers, potential customers, and passers-by. How widely one should enable this, and to what degree one becomes transparent to the market place is a necessary discussion to have; this topic really shouldn't be ignored.

The array of options can be overwhelming, and implementation, while becoming easier, still begs for a bit of hand-holding. Blogs, wikis, tagging, RSS, forums, social networks, mashups, web2.0; what is a business to make of it all? Simply focusing on the technology will almost certainly fail to foster the desired results. Social Technology is generating quite the buzz; many companies will miss the mark by focusing on the technology part without understanding the social piece.

Business is Social. The Cluetrain Manifesto was all about bringing awareness to the fact that the psuedo-social feel good marketing blather that we have long learned to filter out no longer works. Technology doesn't replace the human touch, it only accelerates the speed of the transaction. It is even more important in this environment to listen to the praises and grumbles of the marketplace. To be able to respond to the shifts in customer satisfaction and market demand.

The technology is getting better at a fast pace. The social protocols are in need of a tune-up, and in some cases, of an overhaul. There aren't enough people helping with the social aspects of business.

 

AI research headed in the right direction?

I stumbled upon Eliezer Yudkowsky's video presentation regarding the Singularity Institute's initiative to create a friendly strong AI.

I heard him speak at the Accelerating Change conference in Sept. 2005, and my thoughts on the pragmatism of AI research have matured since then. I think that research is definitely warranted, and a good idea even.

I'd like to see more research dollars going into the understanding of natural intelligence in addition to the work on artificial intelligence. Eliezer talks about the existence proof of our working intellect, so artificial intellect must be possible. I don't argue with this, but I think it's probably too early to recreate it on a different substrate from scratch. We don't yet understand intelligence well enough to recreate it. We hardly know what it is we'd be looking for.

Introspection and reflection, as pointed out in the video, are things machines don't do yet, but tasks that we spend a lot of time on. I think we could learn a lot more about our internal processes by recognizing and studying the boundary conditions of intellect in sub-identity processes (bigmind.org and the Institute  of Heartmath) and super-identity processes (collective intelligence/wisdom and emergent mind).

It seems many scientist-types have a near-allergic reaction to studying such aspects of cognition, but  it seems clear that there is so much more than psychology/psychiatry that we can find out about the mind if we get creative about the research.

The hard-core trans-humanist position seems to be "there is no such thing as god, but if we work hard enough, we might be able to invent a close approximation." Could it be that we are trying to invent a parental savior entity? We are that entity. If you listen closely, you can hear the connection to the cosmos. It thrums deeply inside of you.

Ah, yes... I'm caught preaching again. Clearly I have my own doubts, or I wouldn't feel the need to be so adamant. Still, I wonder what we could accomplish with comprehensive intelligence research.

Does intent signify intelligence? Can intent be discerned in nano-assemblers that nature has devised to replicate DNA ? (You have to watch the second half). How about intent in the substructures of our galaxy, which appear to serve the metabolization of smaller galaxies which it consumes, aggregating hydrogen into nurseries, and distributing the heavier remnants of exploded stars in such a way that life is possible. And this continues to unfold on an unfathomable scale.

Perhaps devising intent at the molecular level or galactic scale is asking too much. A more approachable scale is intent within social structures, not as simple reductionistic causes attributed to individuals, but of something the culture of humanity, in all its diversity, trying to accomplish something that we can't yet discern.

No U-turn: adding insult to rigidity

Sharon and the kids are headed to Branson, MO again. She is currently in Oklahoma, and a bit ago called me frustrated at bureaucratic stupidity. Evidently, from Hwy 69 near Mcalester, she took the wrong exit for the Indian Nations Turnpike (mistakingly exiting for south instead of north). Realizing her mistake, she looked for a U-turn .. no luck. She asked the woman at toll booth what to do.

Toll-y: You'll have to continue to the next exit and turn around

Sharon: How far is that?

Toll-y: 25 miles

Can't believe it? Neither could Sharon. She looked for U-turns, but all of them are marked for Emergency Use Only. When she called me, she was incredibly frustrated that there wasn't an easy way to fix this 5 second mistake without spending an hour of unnecessary driving.

I tried to help by looking up the information online, and finally called the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. After three transfers, they confirmed that wrong exits result in a hour detour. I strongly suggested that in the future, they should design these to allow for the correction of simple mistakes. I looked again at the tagline on the OTA website: Your life just got easier.

Not in this case. If this is what passes for "authority" these days, we're in deep mess indeed.

24weeks.com

while still shaking my head about yahoo's brickhouse, i get a message to check out 24weeks.com; this tav seems to be onto something. i could instantly feel myself breathing a sigh of relief. ahhhh.... breathe with me. you can read more about history (i think) here

Housings of cards

My good friend Alex Rollin pointed me at this presentation by David E. Martin on Asymmetric Collateral Damage currently showing on the Arlington Institute's site. I haven't yet viewed it, but its high on my list.

SessionSaver Alternative

Argh! SessionSaver doesn't work with the latest Firefox update. How do I keep track of all of the interesting links that I have open?

How about I just blog them? That way, I can come back to them later, and you can too. Here are the tabs I just can't bare to close right now:

Evident, David Weinberger's Table of Contents
WorldChanging blog on Pattern Language by Heath Rezabek
Mind of the Swarm article that I'd like to explore further
Business Week article on Co-working (thank you Chris Messina - note to self, google: whurley co-working
Pattern Language applied to Social Media, based on a conversation with Tom Parish
WetPaint page for OpenIntegral that I created months ago and forgot
Current Amazon Wish-List-athon based on my search for this book on a nondualist theory of mind
Cool article on Alternative Reality Games (found via link via link via link)
SXSW Community Blog (jonesin' for a SXSW kickoff in a big way, just 3 more days)
The WorldCat page for Pattern Language near me here in Austin (who knows about WorldCat - Thanks Heath!)

Whew. I can breathe a little easier. I just wish I could coherently verbalize the conversation that the aggregate of the above links inspire in me. It's on the tip of my mind. Maybe you can help out... ?