Hi Allison: your project sounds great, please keep us posted. There is a tangentially related project in the early development stage here in Santa Fe that may offer some opportunities: a "community interaction platform" offering tools, applications, servers, and bandwidth for a rich-media online social-network space for the Santa Fe community.
WikiPolicy (or an offshoot) might be just the kind of thing that some of the sub-communities would like to have available in the tool-chest. If you'd be interested in seeing it tested in a real-world setting with a manageably-sized community, let me know ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) All best and good luck with the project, David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allison Pinto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 6:00 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. > Hello all, > > This is a fun discussion to be following. The use of technology to > influence the emergence of socio-political processes & dynamics is > something > that I've become interested in as well. I've begun working with some USF > Complexity Brownbag colleagues on developing a web platform of sorts to > facilitate the "co-creation" of policy...we call it "WikiPolicy" for > short. > We plan to use the policies and issues relating to the institutional abuse > of youth as the pilot issue / policy, as I am aware that there is already > a > lot of web-based discussion and community-organizing occurring in relation > to this issue. As we've conceived of it so far, in WikiPolicy there will > be > a "room" for each perspective: let's say youth, parents, program > operators, > child-serving professionals, and legislators. New rooms may form as > additional perspectives show up, such as educational consultants, > transport > services, and others involved in "the industry" of private residential > treatment. Each room will include a mechanism for uploading & tagging > stories (either using Dave Snowden's Cog Edge Sensemaker software or > possibly Theodore Taptikis' Storymaker software), a wiki for a collective > & > continually re-worked "our perspective" statement, a wiki for the > continual > tweaking and editing of an actual policy relating to the issue(in this > case, > we'll go with George Miller's H.R. 1738 which died last year in committee > but we hear will soon be revived) and a chat space for continual > sense-making among participants. The idea is that policy makers could > then > tap into the WikiPolicy site to get a more detailed sense of how different > folks feel about the issue and what more specifically people take issue > with > in terms of proposed legislation, rather than just flying in a few people > to > provide testimony to inform the crafting of a given piece of legislation. > If it really took off, it might even change dynamics relating to lobbying. > Also, we think it would be interesting to see what happens when > individuals > / sectors with different perspectives are able to become more familiar > with > the particulars of one another's perspectives, and then to see how this > might influence self-organization in terms of decisions and actions > regardless of what plays out with regard to policy. > > If anybody's got suggestions for us, technology-wise or otherwise, I'd be > glad to hear your thoughts & ideas. > > Allison Pinto > > > -----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
