meta-roj

so, perhaps i got a clue to this communications problem that’s been frustrating me of late.

the clue is: unspoken agendas.

this does echo all the way back to my original post here, and it does, of course have to do with language.

you see, in the latest example it seems i tossed the wrong word into the mix (that word was “micropayments”), and that triggered an unknown (and as far as i know unspoken) agenda. ultimately, that agenda trumped my agenda.

i was trying to dismiss the whole micropayments thing as “common to all approaches at this level, and so safely ignored” and it ran face-first into “the word micropayments must be ridiculed out of existence.” now, both of these agendas basically dismiss the subject, and they’re closer to each other than they realized (at the time), but the worm had turned, and it wasn’t a turn i was interested in, so i just wandered back to my thinking chair and let the conversation proceed without me.

so, now, thanks to kevin, i have a clue. i still don’t know what to do with it.

a while ago, i made some comments about tools and how you use them. a while later, i had some comments on communication among geeks domain experts specialists (it’s that definition thing). just hours ago, i watched a conversation grind to a halt because we had to re-define si prefixes and fairly common terms before we said anything substantial. my funk apparently continues.

then, today, i finally stumble into this. while that doesn’t really address the gap in language (syntactics, semiotics, metaphorics, semantics, pragmatics, whatever) that’s been bothering me so much lately, it’s someone’s attempt to improve the social standard. and i appreciate that.

but i’m still trying to buy a clue. does anyone have a clue they can spare?

tonight i was trying to spark a little discussion about music business models, since that’s one of those occupying a lot of my time. it didn’t get very far. with the frustration of running into a dead-end, i think i’ll keep the guilty nameless, but it went something like this:

blah blah blah blah…. music business model links and brief comments… blah blah blah…
[person_a] it sounds like quickly you are at the micropayment level
[me] i think anytime you talk about individual “tracks” you’re pretty much automatically into micropayments
[me] depending on your definition of “tracks” and “micropayments” of course 🙂
[person_a] true
[person_b] define micro
[person_b] centipayments
[person_b] micro implies 10^-6
[person_c] does mini imply 10^-3?
[person_b] no, milli does
[person_b] decipayments

and shortly thereafter, it became a dead-end. i managed to come to a common language quickly with “person_a” but that wasn’t good enough for the rest of the participants. call that a partial success, maybe? but the substance of the conversation still vanished in a flood of math and si prefixes.

i’m not impressed with our ability to define the problem.

micro means “very small” or “involving minute quantities or variations” it is also an si prefix, but not necessarily so. and payments aren’t the same as dollars, so micropayments aren’t the same as microdollars. i didn’t feel like arguing about definitions until we found a common set of definitions that everyone could agree on, the discussion was over.

i’ve got things to think about. you’ve got interesting perspectives. can someone tell me how i can discuss the model with you and skip some of the constantly re-debating the definitions? we’re missing something valuable by constantly picking the nits (and so often, the same old nits).

update: just in case there’s any confusion, i’m not pissed about this. just frustrated – and to me there’s a big difference. we have these incredible communications tools, but it often (and this is one example) feels like we haven’t figured out how to communicate. text is such a limited medium, and i’ve often said as much. the real loss that happens with these things is the “shutdown” – and this was just a brutally clear example, so i had to use it. i harbor no ill-will toward any of the “persons” mentioned. really.

this is a very active topic in the front of my little brain, so it’s a bit refreshing to find it at least resonating with some others (so, thanks, crystal flame – is that two words?)

shortly after i made my comments about tools and results, i was visited by a very loud, very disruptive guest. i didn’t have much time to think in my own absence (duty called), and i’m still catching up on things in the electronic world, so you’ll probably notice several updates here as i do.

while weeding out the accumulted spam (and becoming more and more convinced that email is broken, i dropped a few comments in an irc channel. i present, here, the revelevant snippets (with links and edited for brevity):

<rvr> Artificial Development is building CCortex?, a complete 20-billion neuron emulation of the Human Cortex and peripheral systems, on a cluster of 100 computers – the largest neural network created to date.
<_joshua> Sadly most of the advances in neural network stuff was merely reimplementing statistics invented in the 1950’s
<rojisan> how strange that it should take that many years for knowledge to cross communications barriers between fields
<rojisan> it’s as if those poor bastards spent all their time picking each others nits and never noticed the other monkeys across the river
<morphex> somebody should teach more monkeys the game of connect-the-dots
<_joshua> computer science loves reinventing things
<ClosedGL> i think it is true in all fields where people don’t do their research properly. I think the open source movement, or rather the philosphy of code reuse might exactly break the exception; where implemented.
<rojisan> i have too much spam to dig through to really make the point, but there’s a hecklebot implication here, and something about out-of-hand rejection of unfamiliar ideas, or those ideas that are not presented in the preferred terminology
<crysflame> hm, i wonder if that’s a known bug in being strict about terminology, discussion paths, etc. you keep away the ignorant, but you lose the crossbreeding that helps your field, to some extent.
<rojisan> ah. excellent. crysflame can carry the torch for me while i continue my disaster recovery

all i can say is that yes. it’s a known problem.

i hope someone else has done more thinking on this than i have, so i’ll just leave a comment, as it were… or a request…

specialization is a good thing, but please welcome those that come to your specialty with different language, a different set of preconceptions, different applications. maybe i will be that person nosing into your turf someday.

update: fixed bad links.

ok, i’ve noticed that i’m exploring some recurring themes here in this public space, and one of them is determinism. another is the geek paradigm, and the third is the rant that started this whole blog – domain experts.

today, i’m going to bring these threads together into a braid (three theads is a braid, right? anyway….)

this is a rock.

1) you use this to pound grain to make flour to make bread.
2) you use this to beat on someone’s head and take their bread.

same tool, same result, different approach.

today’s lesson: it’s all in your approach.

in this example, we know that the first approach had to come first – someone has to make the bread before someone can take the bread. sometimes that’s not so obvious.

this object lesson comes from three incidents i either witnessed or was party to in recent days. they both concern relatively intelligent people, who, at this time, shall remain nameless. i have great (in one case) or at least some (in the others) respect for these intellects. recently, i’ve lost respect for them in the “vision” department.

in all cases, these people are intelligent enough to have established some credibility (and this is a good thing). they also come to the discussion with a set of preconceptions and experiences that shape their opinions (and this is an inevitable thing). the problem arises when they are faced with new, different, or unfamiliar approaches to something they think they know. since they think they know these things, they already have all the answers (and this is a bad thing).

probably the most important cost of this situation is that an off-the-cuff comment from an otherwise intelligent and credible individual can completely stifle the discussion. “bad idea. won’t work.” from the right person is enough to end the train of thought – without contributing any substance (and this is important – remember, we’re talking about approaches).

i, personally, happen to be just arrogant and unreasonable enough to dismiss otherwise credible people that say these things to me, because, in keeping with the geek paradigm, i know best how to do what i want to do – these people are simply wrong. that’s ok. everyone is entitled to be wrong once in a while, and i’ve certainly been wrong myself (twice, actually, but that’s material for another entry 🙂 ). what is important for me to realize (and demonstrate on a continuing basis) is that i may be wrong, but i’m engaged. i know i don’t know all the answers, and my answers adapt over time as i discover new, relevant material.

what bothers me is that these otherwise intelligent, credible people might actually have something constructive to contribute – either directly (such as by suggesting a new approach, or a relevant model) – or indirectly, by asking intelligent questions and forcing the consideration of new material.

in a dialogue, being “dismissed” like that is fine. particularly if your “domain expert” is a busy person and has other material to focus on. where this is not appropriate is in a public forum where these off-the-cuff comments result in the end of the multilogue. everyone shuts up, because the expert has spoken.

we all struggle to develop and express our ideas, and we are likely to fumble around and pick the wrong metaphor or example to make a point. that metaphor or example may sound like something you already know, but be careful when jumping to conclusions. maybe this person is just trying to give you an example in terms with which they think you’re comfortable. engage. or, at the very least, if you’re not going to engage, then disengage in a polite, non-stifling manner and let the rest of us flail around until we realize you were right all along.

it is all in the approach.

perhaps the problem isn’t interesting to you (and i mean you as a “domain expert” or “geek”) – but please, be very careful throwing your opinions around – especially those that are not well-considered. with credibility (power) comes responsibility. and i hate to knock you down a notch, but you don’t have all the answers, and the rest of us are trying to make some progress out here.

really, this is nothing new…

george bernard shaw (1856 – 1950)

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

and just for fun, i’m going to throw in a little pop culture too (because shaw appreciates good company)….

ed solomon, maybe (you figure it out)

Everything they’ve ever “known” has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat. Fifteen minutes ago, you knew we humans were alone on it. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.

update (2003.09.20): something i probably should’ve included in the original post: if you have credibility and your approach isn’t appreciated, you are very likely to be ridiculed ferociously. fair warning: beware the heckle.

AKMA provides us a beautiful, eloquent and refreshing perspective. it begins…

It’s difficult to talk about various ways of faith without the risk of offending someone. And it’s probably not worth bothering to say the calculatedly inoffensive remarks that would be left over after you filter out all the possibly offensive ones. Is it more important to make quite sure not to offend anyone (I know I haven’t attained that anyway), or to add a different perspective when an important, possibly offense-giving, topic is being bandied about? I’ll take the risk.

as clumsy as i am (with words and otherwise), AKMA has given us something worth reading, and reading again. it is merely for me to acknowledge. thank you for taking the risk.

the tragedy is not the shrill voice of the bad people, it is the silence of the good people.

I’ve seen several people blog on the subject of trust and networks lately. My thoughts in this post are not direct – i’m trying to sythesize some common threads here. Perhaps my readers will enjoy parts of the journey i’ve taken myself. if not… skip ahead a bit…

Joi comments about developing trust and networks and finding a job. Antoin discusses trusting the voting system (and i dropped a couple links into a comment there). Digging way back in the archive (because it’s related to more recent material), Tim Oren talks about “venture capital, trust networks, and information theory.” Ross Mayfield has some thoughts on Joi’s thoughts.
Also, in the weblog way-back machine, there is a set of comments i made over at the Venture Blog on the subject of “getting to know” a potential business partner (and quite possibly shooting myself in the foot in the process).

outside the realm of the link-i-verse, i’ve recently discussed or read material on the subjects of id systems, contracts for cd baby, record label cartels, diamond cartels, the commercialization of blogs and the growth of “social networking” websites.

finally, well outside the blog-i-verse there was a recent piece in the New Scientist about personal information floating around in the dimly-lit corners of the web.

which, handily brings me to the metaphor i wanted to discuss. diogenes. diogenes is a metaphor today because he carried a lantern in broad daylight, and looked into the faces of his fellow greeks, in search of “an honest man.” now, whether diogenes himself was up to his own standards (and, really, who among us are?) is an open question. (ok, so the truth is he was probably a complete nutball, but i know his name a couple thousand years later, and that’s saying something.

now fortified with linkage and metaphor, i’m going to ask the question:

with all this technology, and these expanding human networks that literally span the globe and the clock, is there, today, enough “light” to find an honest man?