Tom Munnecke wrote: (01)
> I'd like to see readable, dense threads of asynchronous conversation,
> knowing who is listening, with background info (livingdirectory.org
> style) available if I want to drill down to find more about a person.
> I'd like to restrict my communications to only those who fully identify
> themselves to a social network, and I'd like to join/drop out of these
> threads as they interest me. I really don't care if the thread starts
> in Positive Psychology, GivingSpace, Blue Oxen, or Jack's personal
> mailing list, it the topic and the ensemble of people around it that
> interest me. So, communication becomes topic-centric, not "owned" by
> some structure. (02)
I have set up http://www.CommonChannels.com to tackle a related
challenge. How might groups share energy with each other? I imagine by
sharing knowledge of what they are getting done, even in small ways. (03)
I've set up these Channels to be endeavor-centric. The assumption is
that this is for people trying to get something done. That makes clear
the reason why we might work to get groups to care about each other. (04)
I've finished most of the coding. You can see here a sample of the kind
of the letter that would go out:
http://www.commonchannels.com/cgi-bin/letter.py?channelID=2
And you can add your own items into the channels:
http://www.commonchannels.com/cgi-bin/add.py (05)
I was sending our "ideafeeds" here before, so I may just send a few
channels here. (06)
But I'm generally interested in the social question, how to approach
different groups so that they might receive our channels. (07)
For example, Dorai Thodla from here offered to help with our channel on
"Interconnecting software tools for augmenting thinking". I think
that's fantastic. If I could find one person in every group who might
be interested, I think that's quite impressive. (08)
The question is, how might that person go about introducing a channel
into their group, especially if they are not the owner. From a
practical point of view, it's quite unclear what the right norms might be. (09)
I share my crude thoughts here, and will take the liberty to practice
social hacking here, so I appreciate help thinking this through. I
share two acts of thinking out loud, one is a "first draft" of the norms
for Common Channels, and another is my rant against focusing on the
"group mind". (010)
Andrius (011)
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
+370 52645950
Vilnius, Lithuania (012)
---------------------------------------------------------
What are the proper norms for Social Hacking?
http://www.no-hit.com/andrius/archives/000080.html
--------------------------------------------------------- (013)
Do to other what you would have others do to you. (014)
Respect the effort involved to draw together a group, to raise the
awareness of its members, and to encourage their responsiveness. (015)
Help a group reach out and connect to other groups in order to get
things done. (016)
Think in terms of the rights of the individuals, rather than the rights
of the group. The group is a fiction and morally has no rights of its own. (017)
However, the group is a space for people to be together, and to the
extent that you approach a group, give deference to individuals to the
extent that they are working to construct that space. (018)
Therefore, give greatest deference to the organizer of the group. But
not complete deference, as other individuals may also, to lesser
degrees, be working also. They all have distinct rights. (019)
The fair voice for the group is given by those who are investing
themselves in it, to the extent that they are. (020)
I think there are basically three levels of rights:
- A visitor is somebody who does not intend to invest themselves in the
group. Assuming they are able to approach the group, it is fair for
them to invite the group to work together on anything relevant to the
purpose of the group. If they receive no response, then they should
contribute to the activity of the group before they approach again.
- A participant is somebody who has invested themselves in the group,
either actively or passively. They have the right to participate in the
course of activity, and may sporadically be off-rhythm. However, they
may not be intentionally regularly off-rhythm unless they explain why.
The explanation puts them into the general rhythm, but should be
re-evaluated and updated as needed.
- An organizer is somebody who has invested themselves in the group not
just for their personal sake, but as an asset that may be shared. They
have the right to alter the structure and topic of the group, but need
to explain why. (021)
In every case there needs to be an assurance that there is a reciprocal
interest, there needs to be from somebody a return response. (022)
I note also the idea that shared knowledge is what helps form groups,
and especially, allows them to act. (023)
What this suggests to me, for Common Channels, is that there is a need
for three ways to send our letters: (024)
A) As an invitation: I may wish to connect an online group into a
broader endeavor by having them get the relevant channel. This is a
case where I may sign up for the group, but have no interest to invest
myself in it. I think that here I have the right to use my address to
send a sample letter with an explanatory header as to why I am doing so.
If the letter, the material it contains, includes reference to the
group, then I have contributed to the group, and I can approach them
likewise again, say, in one or two weeks. I can do this up to three
times, then I should stop. By that time it will be clear what the
value, if any, of the channel might be to the group, and if any
individual would like to respond back. (025)
B) As a mid-term slightly irregular feed: A participant invested in a
group, whether as a writer or lurker, may use their address as the
return address, to subscribe a feed to their group, for example, on a
weekly basis, if they provide an explanation as a header. The feed
should have a built-in shutdown, so that it will turn itself off in,
say, after nine letters, unless a participant contributes an item to the
feed, or changes the header. The letters could be distributed
logarthmically, say, the first three once a week, the next three once
every two weeks, and the last three once a month. Also, the participant
may reset the send out date by contributing material, for example, so
that the feed goes out the next day. This helps the material snap out
of its periodic rhythm and have one that fits with the group. Another
element to add is that there might be a minimum number of items to be an
a feed before it gets sent out. (026)
C) As a long-term regular feed. An organizer, typically, a moderator,
may subscribe their group to a feed, and not worry about providing any
response, or worrying about any phase out. It would be good, though, if
they kept up to date, every year or so, why they are receiving the feed,
in each case their should be public knowledge at the Common Channels
site, why the groups are receiving the feeds, how they think of that
channel, that endeavor in their own words. (027)
Also, there can be a local site for the group for entering items, etc.,
that builds its brand. (028)
It would be good to have a way for any member of the group to shut down
the feed if it is bothersome. (029)
I don't know what the right logic is, but I'm willing to experiment and
try it out. I think the answer is intertwining the content stream,
explanation, and asking for permission, not separating them. (030)
---------------------------------------------------------
Why am I not happy with the "group mind"?
http://www.no-hit.com/andrius/archives/000079.html
--------------------------------------------------------- (031)
I'm thinking now how to approach, subscribe, interconnect groups. I'm
wondering, what are the right norms. I don't think they are going to be
pretty, because I think in many ways a group is a fiction. So I start
by thinking about that. And I ask: What online groups would you like to
see us connect with? (032)
I've set up most of http://www.CommonChannels.com We have 880
"encouragements" from the last year, organized so far into 22
"channels", one per endeavor, all of them fostering "caring about
thinking". We have up and running the pages to add encouragements, view
our archives, and view what the letters could look like. I'm interested
to customize this for particular situations. (033)
My wish is to "get things done" to "remake our lives and our world". My
purpose with Commmon Channels to "encourage activity within and amongst
groups". I wish to embolden individuals to be bridges across all sorts
of groups, so that groups won't be able to control individuals, but
rather, individuals will control the groups. (034)
Why am I not happy with the "group mind"? I suppose that it's because a
group is easily less than the sum of its parts. When I interact with a
person one-on-one, I feel that I can lose myself, think along with them
as a "person in general", zone in on the essence, find a shared truth to
serve as a reference, free myself of myself. (035)
A group is effective in that many purposes can be satisfied
simultaneously for many people. Unfortunately, it becomes unwieldy to
find a shared truth, so people accomodate each other, and the ones who
do that first end up at the center. Generally, it's a center defined by
a concern or interest or happenstance that is taken as a value, a truth
in itself. People who care about truth find themselves in the
periphery, off to the side. (036)
The group is lively when there is a meeting of individuals, each with a
testimony, and a holy spirit fluttering about, as people step in to get
engaged and step out to reflect. But, as if by entropy, the individuals
accept the legitimacy of the group, and the group coalesces, until any
reference to truth that is bigger than the group is taken as an assault
on group values. Individuals are willing to think over their values one
at a time. But a group tends to treat them all as one, and a reproach
against any one value is an assault on them all. (037)
Groups are stupid. Engaging a group, getting permission from a group,
getting help, response, empathy or reaction from a group, looking for
leadership within a group, is less fruitful than approaching a child or
a fool, and maybe even an animal. We can at least imagine that an animal
can make decisions. With a group, decision-making may be completely
absent, or reference the empty values, or simply false values, that the
group coalesced around, which may often be undocumented, or an
irrelevant fiction may be documented, with nobody to interpret them,
or act on them, or feel they may act on them on behalf of the group. If
the group does have a leader, then that leader may not be interested to
decide for the group, or have the habit to do so, or may not have sway,
or may not want to decide alone. If they decide together, there may be
no precedent, no mechanism. But even if they do have a way to execute
authority, then there is generally a system whose first purpose is to
maintain its authority, and hence is reactively passive rather than
proactively responsive. (038)
Individuals are brilliant. They have inspiration, values, feelings,
virtues. They are the ones who get things done. Why deal with groups?
Because that is where we find individuals, where we can reach out to
each other. And also, because we are born into a society where we don't
have much choice, we're surrounded by agencies, busineses, cliques,
institutions. (039)
As individuals, we can encourage each other by exploring our values,
feelings, endeavors. In many ways, what we want is a network of
individuals to which we can offer ourselves, preferably an open network,
so that all we have to offer might reach all who might enjoy that. (040)
However, in order to provide for ourselves, we need to engage groups.
They are the ones to whom resources drift, not individuals. And they
are the place to find the individuals who might help. We individuals
are, in so many ways, lost souls who rely on our groups for our reference. (041)
I think the solution is to focus on encouraging individuals, help each
other believe that we are working side-by-side, and each of us find our
values, the same values that present themselves as we accept an active
role in life. (042)
I think that we should accept the world of groups, but consider groups
as naturally degenerative, boiling in their own juices, turning into
cliques that may simply be impotent but lock down resources by
attracting potential that might be used elsewhere. The solution is to
focus on groups of groups, by way of intersections of groups, and
therefore back to the individual. The strategy is to speak to the group
as a group of individuals, and individuals within a group, rather than
to a group itself. (043)
This approach is anti-social, in that it treats the group as a fiction,
and however sensitively, interrupts that. That is why I think of it as
"social hacking", it's crude, rude, not a pretty sight, but as there may
not be any effective alternative, it may simply be a jolt of destiny for
the group mind. (044)
Peace, (045)
Andrius (046)
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
+370 52645950
Vilnius, Lithuania (047)
--
This message is archived at: (048)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FB6C102.9090202@ms.lt (049)
|