Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ideas and information in action
Ideas and information in action


It's quite obvious that while you fritter away your time posting items that have been posted in a thousand other places by ten million other people, there's nothing like real human exchange taking place.
In effect you're living on white sugar and white flour ... no nutrition at all.

I'm seriously thinking about deleting my account here and on FaceBook. **

Though in the past I helped create this stuff ("web weaving" university CS late 1970s; SGML early 1980s; creating hyper-docs late 1980s; introducing university groups to HTML and WWW late 1994) at present my activitiy serves only to validate actions and activities that are detrimental to social health.

* It isn't right that I was gagged because I wrote "choose either yuppies (same old same-old) or cracKKKers (vicious dishonesty)". This all shows that yuppie culture has no sense of integrity at all.
Add a comment...

Fact is that being mindfully reasonable and making an effort to be authentically present and simply honest ... opinions come up.
And when we share those opinions? we see that people who disagree with us are actually reasonable too.

What I call "forensic-quality propositional analysis" ... how do members of my cohort make use of that?
As an excuse not to think. They (quite reasonably?) intuit that such processes are real brain strain, brain draining effort. And time, too!
So? so they form no reasonable opinions.

Bumper-sticker slogans only with right-wingers? of course not. Pseudo-progs and quasi-libs love their version of that. And right-wingers with what I call "fortune-cookie wisdom"? Nope. Those folk gag on such as that ... while my cohort use them in place of actual thought.

Add a comment...

I was only young pre-teen when I came across the idea that definitions could be and should be "operationalized". What impressed me more deeply than even the principle itself but that we could engage something as evanescent as knowledge and our activities with information.

If we proceed to inquire into social media and public information by operationalizing certain aspects we soon enough find that our comfortable assumptions have practically no basis in reality.
Do individuals read more than headlines? Encountering some "bumper-sticker slogan" or "fortune-cookie wisdom" do persons pivot to explore that idea? and follow it to an explication of the matter itself? Does material that is obviously "link bait" move people to be ever more discerning on what they graze? does browsing become ever more effective? ever more sophisticated? We could make a list of our most optimistic assessments in these regards and mark each plainly: FALSE. It is painfully evident that the cheap thrill of tribal loyalty swamps the very instinctive and very slight yearning for truthful information.

Add a comment...

Exhibitum / ProTension could have been deployed a decade ago, fully a dozen years before we found ourselves in the post-truth era that saw Trump elected.

2018 and billionaire Elon Musk dedicates himself to supporting citizens' ability to fact check. And ends up supporting a very credible system deployed by a very reputable institution. That the system was out of date the day it was created ... is not noticed.
Innovation is intensely social. Musk has uber-traction. I am a man of no credentials. And that's how the world goes to hell.
Add a comment...

In my persona as Independent Solution Vender (ISV) I need to stay current with the body of commentary on such as information flow and data security. As a technologist, it's my business to stay aware of developments, keeping an eye for the scale of breakthrough that would strongly recommend some new "version" of my workflow.
In neither of these am I scholar or academic, so it is //not// my business to draft learned commentaries on our world and its movements.

My point is this: very few people (almost none, really) are affected by the nature of internet transactions at a level that would make them well informed analysts. #GroupDynamics and #SocialPsychology are not common currency.
And yet practically everybody who uses the net or the web or apps has some sort of pedantic one-liner.

That severely affects my ability to communicate. The way that effect propagates is precisely what I'm attempting to comment on here.

I remember a few bits and pieces from my Grade XII economics class. "Marginal propensity to save and to spend" and such like.
The one that's stayed with me: the "Quality" of money is //inversely// related to its Quantity and Velocity.

Guess what, sports-fans ... exactly the same is true of information in the lived domain of "social media".

So? so something I've worked to clarify has approximately the value of a single fortune cookies. Needless to say, one can get fortune cookies by the pound for around $3.

So I'm stuck.
Not only do people act as though they're entire naive when it comes to how our world is coming apart, but they blow off reality as though in the audience of some afternoon talk show. And that leaves me to do ... what?
Add a comment...

Tomorrow will be 14th anniversary of what might be my first / singular / one and only "EUREKA!" moment.
Proposition-based evidence for discourse-based decisions
The emphasis is on human reasoning rather than technocratic data analysis i.e. human meaning and values more than abstruse/arcane transcendental forensics.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
+Austin Cherry - Simple mindfulness allows us to notice ?what? something like synchronicity.
"The Death of Expertise; The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters"
The sorta thing that comes to me now and again.
I'm samurai when it comes to judgment/condemnation. I don't cause suffering. Though I'd cause death as the situation requires.
Sanity is about simplicity ... parsimonious ... Occam's razor and all that ... triage.
Add a comment...

How to combat stupidity and false news? Forensically. Precisely. Comprehensively. Thoroughly.
#DeliberativePolitics #Exhibitum #Protension
Add a comment...

Why has my project taken so long? cuz ahh ain't schmart is why!
"Convergence" is tech talk for "reaching some agreement".
Major problem: folk (meaning you) are actually pessimistic to the point of cynicism when it comes to working through conflict by talking rather than fighting.

My "discourse-based decision support system" is so simple that nobody gets it. The method's effect is so obvious, nobody sees it.
I needed to find an intermediate step. Which I did. Working name "Ice Pick".

Given some disagreement on some issue any discussion almost immediately gets tangled in who's saying what about what.
So? Something we've never been able to do before the age of "cloud" and "big data": a comprehensive list of issues and arguments.
If //one party// can clearly identify precisely what they're arguing about (I really do mean "in detail") they can share that with the "other side" of the argument.
And here's where your pessimism kicks in. You'd like reply something along the lines of "So what / who cares?!"

Clarity of concept has nearly magical powers to act on our mind/brain functioning. Kinda like how sometimes we form a mental image of a notion or concept.

With the exact issue precisely in mind ... "convergence" is right there, within reach. What stops it? either ignorance (about a precise something) or dishonesty (with very clear evidence).

#DeliberativePolitics 3DEC2016
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
It really does come down to "... as though persons matter". If ever these brilliant systems grapple with meaning perhaps then we'll take at lease a tiny step towards real social justice.
I've never been other than extremely skeptical of the whole ‪#‎BigData‬ thing but +David Colarusso's work had me re-think and now I see that this actually could integrate with ‪#‎DeliberativePolitics‬ and ‪#‎Discourse‬ without dehumanizing the entire situation.
‪#‎Lateral‬: I remain practically allergic to sociology.
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded