Steve: I think the mind mapping developer you are thinking of is Ron Newman -- ron.new...@gmail.com
TJ ============================================ Tom Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) Society of Professional Journalists <http://www.spj.org> *Check out It's The People's Data <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Its-The-Peoples-Data/1599854626919671>* http://www.jtjohnson.com t...@jtjohnson.com ============================================ On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Glen - > > I have found concept mapping tools to be helpful in this context, but > usually in live-brainstorming sessions... with one (or more) operators > clicking and typing and dragging and connecting while others chatter out > loud, then shifting the mouse/keyboard(s) to another(s). > > I know we have a mind-mapping ( I prefer concept-mapping) tool developer > on the list... I'm blanking his name, though I know he has been active off > and on! I hope he catches this and pitches in. I believe he was heading > toward web-enabled, simultaneous editing capabilities. I did some tests > and provided some feedback on an early version a few years ago.. > > My only significant experience in this is with CMAPtools and a few others > driven by various project-lead's preferences, but never really adopted by > myself. > > I was in the process of developing some more formal tools with UNM for the > NSF a few years ago, based on formalisms being developed by Tim Goldsmith > (dept. Psychology) at UNM. The presumption WAS (IS) that we all have > reserved lexicons and for a collaborative group to develop a common one, > there has to be a lot of discussion and negotiation. Our example was a > group of climate change scientists who (un)surprisingly used identical > terms in very similar contexts with very different intentions and meanings > in some cases. It isn't too surprising when you realize that an ocean > scientist and an atmospheric scientist are very interested in many of the > same physical properties, but with different emphasis and within different > regimes. Pressure, density, humidity, salinity, vorticity all seem to > have pretty clear meanings to any scientist using them, but the relative > importance and interaction between them has different implications for each > group. > > Needless to say, we didn't finish the tools before the funding ran out. > This is now nearly 8 years old work... the ideas area still valid but > without a patron and without SME's to "test on" it is hard to push such > tools forward. My part included building the equivalent of what you call > "mind maps" from the differing lexical elements, floating in N-space and > "morphing" from each individual (or subgroup's) perspective to some kind of > common perspective... with the intention of helping each individual or > subgroup appreciate the *different* perspective of the others. > > This is modestly related to my work in "faceted ontologies" (also > currently not under active development) where "multiple lexicons" is > replaced by "multiple ontologies" or in both cases, the superposition of > multiple lexicons/ontologies. > > I haven't worked with Joslyn since that 2007? paper... but we *tried* a > joint project with PNNL/NREL a couple of years ago, but it failed due to > inter-laboratory politics I think. He's an equally brilliant/oblique > character as you... take that for what it is worth! > > I liked Frank's double-dog-dare to you. I think that is one of the good > things you bring out in this list, all kinds of others' feistiness! It was > also good that you could both call it for what it was. It makes me want to > read Kohut... I have special reasons for trying to apprehend alternate > self-psychology models right now, though from your's and Frank's apparent > avoidance(/dismissal?) of Kahut and my immediate phonetic slip-slide to > Camus, I'm a little leery. > > On 6/8/17 2:33 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > >> We quickly polluted that thread, too. But it drives home the point that >> an email list is _not_ a (good) collaborative production tool. >> >> Aha! I haven't heard from Cliff since my work for the PSL< >> https://www.psl.nmsu.edu/>. He supposedly works up at PNNL. Thanks for >> that article. >> >> Yes, I took Owen to be calling Russ' post a trolling post. But "troll" >> is like "complex", meaningless out of context. >> >> I'm completely baffled why "layer" isn't understood ... makes me think I >> must be wrong in some deep way. But for whatever it's worth, I believe I >> understand and _agree_ with Nick's circularity criticism of mechanistic >> explanations for complexity, mostly because of a publication I'm helping >> develop that tries to classify several different senses of the word >> "mechanistic". The 1st attempt was rejected by the journal, though. 8^( >> But repeating Nick's point back in my own words obviously won't help, here. >> >> Yes, I'm willing to help cobble together these posts into a document. >> But, clearly, I can't be any kind of primary. If y'all don't even >> understand what I mean by the word "layer", then whatever I composed would >> be alien to the other participants. One idea might be to use a "mind >> mapping" tool and fill in the bubbles with verbatim snippets of people's >> posts ... that might help avoid the bias introduced by the secretary. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software >> I also don't care that much about the meaning of "complex". So, my only >> motivation for helping is because y'all tolerate my idiocy. >> >> >> On 06/08/2017 12:52 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> >>> I admit to being over my depth, at least in attention, if not in ability >>> to parse out your dense text, and more to the point, the entire thread(s) >>> which gives me more sympathy with Nick who would like a tool to help >>> organize, neaten up, trim, etc. these very complex ( in the more common >>> meaning of the term) discussions. My experience with you is that you always >>> say what you mean and mean what you say, so I don't doubt that there is >>> gold in that mine... just my ability to float the overburden and other >>> minerals away with Philosopher's Mercury (PhHg) in a timely manner. >>> >>> I DO think Nick is asking for help from the rest of us in said >>> parsing... to begin, I can parse HIS first definition of "layer" is as a >>> "laying hen"... a chicken (or duck?) who is actively laying eggs. A total >>> red-herring to mix metaphors here on a forum facilitated by another kind of >>> RedFish altogether... a "fish of a different color" as it were, to keep up >>> with the metaphor (aphorism?) mixology. >>> >>> I DON'T think Owen was referring to you when he said: "troll", I think >>> he was being ironical by suggesting Russ himself was being a troll. But I >>> could be wrong. Owen may not even remember to whom his bell "trolled" in >>> that moment? In any case, I don't find your contribution/interaction here >>> to be particularly troll-like. Yes, you can be deliberately provocative, >>> but more in the sense of Socrates who got colored as a "gadfly" (before >>> there were trolls in the lexicon?). Stay away from the Hemlock, OK? >>> >>> I'm trying to sort this (simple?) question of the meaning (connotations) >>> of layering you use, as I have my own reserved use of the term in "complex, >>> layered metaphors" or alternately "layered, complex metaphors"... but that >>> is *mostly* an aside. I believe your onion analogy is Nick's "stratum" >>> but I *think* with the added concept that each "direction" (theta/phi from >>> onion-center) as a different "dimension". Your subsequent text suggests a >>> high-dimensional venn diagram. My own work in visualization of Partially >>> Ordered Sets (in the Gene Ontology) may begin to address some of this, but >>> I suspect not. >>> >>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4935.pdf >>> >>> I may continue to dig into this minefield of rich ore and interesting >>> veins, but it has gotten beyond (even) me as a multiple attender who >>> thrives on this kind of complexity (with limits apparently!). >>> >>> I think I heard you suggest that YOU would volunteer to pull in the >>> various drawstrings on this multidimensional bag forming of a half-dozen or >>> more branching threads... I'll see if I can find that and ask some more >>> pointed questions that might help that happen? >>> >>> I truly appreciate Nick's role (as another Socrates?) teasing at our >>> language to try to get it more plain or perhaps more specific or perhaps >>> more concise? Is there some kind of conservation law in these dimensions? >>> >> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
