Hi Michael, I was really thinking of something deeper than a Delphi-style repository. Often I've had to negotiate between two diametrically opposed groups. I do this by resorting to what a mentor once taught me as 'mange by fact'. If you strip away the emotions, opinions, assumptions, etc. you can often find commonality at a basic factual level. Once you've gotten there, you just work your way back up to a agreement of some sort. I prefer coding, but it's a useful skill :-)
As it works well to solve sever disagreements, a larger computer enabled fact repository might also make the world a happier place. Perhaps. Paul. Sent from my iPad On 2013-09-08, at 9:32 AM, Michael Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > "To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It > needs to be better organized, better understood and far more > accessible. It can't keep getting caught up in silos, and it really > needs ways to share it appropriately. The world changes dramatically > when we've developed the ability to fuse all of our digitized > information into one great structural model that has the capability to > separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but I've always > thought it was possible..." > > Not to be crass here, but incentives matter. And "appropriate sharing" > is very much in the eye of the beholder. This is why prediction > markets often work better than Delphi-style expert-opinion-gathering. > Talk is cheap. To "separate out fact from fiction" is expensive. You > have to make it worth people's time. And you have to make the answers > matter to those offering them, in a way that future discounting can't > dent much. In Delphi, you can always shrug and say, "the other experts > were just as wrong as I was." And your reputation is still secure. > With prediction markets, there's an automatic withdrawal from your > bank account, as well as from the accounts of all the other experts > who were wrong. > > The Engelbart vision (also the Vannevar Bush vision) was incubated > very much within a government-industry complex, where realistic > organizational imperatives are limited by the forces that > bureaucracies can marshal. Beyond a certain scale, that model falls > prey to inevitable bureaucratic infighting, contention over resources, > indefeasible claims to having "the better team." If we have less unity > in the government-industry informatics mission now, it's probably > because the backdrop is a silly War on Terror, rather than the > conflict that was contemporary for Engelbart and V. Bush: the somewhat > more solidly grounded Cold War. > > Truth is not a fortress whose walls you can scale by piling up > soldiers anyway. Sharper eyes and minds are not for sale, if it's only > to march in one of Matthew Anold's "ignorant armies that clash by > night." For some information-aggregation problems, you need the sniper > you can't see yet, until there's a muzzle flash. At which point, if > you're the one who's wrong, well, too late for you! C'est la guerre. > > Regards, > Michael Turner > Executive Director > Project Persephone > K-1 bldg 3F > 7-2-6 Nishishinjuku > Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 160-0023 > Tel: +81 (3) 6890-1140 > Fax: +81 (3) 6890-1158 > Mobile: +81 (90) 5203-8682 > [email protected] > http://www.projectpersephone.org/ > > "Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward > together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry > > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Alan Kay <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Paul >> >> I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, >> and I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in >> this direction. >> >> However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and >> especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their >> training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and >> environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but >> it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Alan >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Paul Homer <[email protected]> >> To: Alan Kay <[email protected]>; Fundamentals of New Computing >> <[email protected]>; Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> Hi Alan, >> >> I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I >> think we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but >> individually people still make important choices based on too little >> knowledge. >> >> In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of >> 'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards >> reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by >> individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the >> classic Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by >> giving people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not >> a 'borg' style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be >> used to make descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would >> have made normally. >> >> To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs >> to be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't >> keep getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it >> appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the >> ability to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural >> model that has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long >> way off, but I've always thought it was possible... >> >> Paul. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Alan Kay <[email protected]> >> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> Hi Jonathan >> >> We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others >> on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jonathan Edwards <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a >> problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to >> work on or are you soliciting proposals? >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> From: Alan Kay <[email protected]> >> To: Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) >> Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> Hi Dan >> >> It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, >> but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. >> >> Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and >> wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my >> time for the last 5-6 months. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alan >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Dan Melchione <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM >> Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? >> >> Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or >> put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tt mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt >> _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
