Blogging on list... (01)
I think the key point turns on 'preparedness to break'. I can see why
Tom is upset about that. I think it only makes sense if you are
breaking new ground in the sense of offering significant improvement
and being able to prove such.
In relation to social norms it seems to me that they shouldn't be
broken. They should be understood, and if they are hurting more than
improving, then they should be tuned within a dialogical process.
If you break norms unilaterally, then you risk shattering the fragile
stained-glass window of civilisation altogether.
(N.B. This simple model does not define what counts as civilisation.
There are historico-cultural differences on that score. But why they
have to generate friction I am not sure.) (02)
Where previous national revolutions have occurred I think some things
should be noted:
1) The vast bloodshed involved in all cases.
2) That those revolutions came about because dialogue had died and
frustrations were vented as violence. There came a point where those
who would have rescued the dialogue were dismissed and ignored as the
craving for bloodshed kicked in.
3) That imbalances in power relations tend to amplify the speed and
force of counter-oscillations when dialogue fails, and amplify
tensions before dialogue fails. (03)
It is interesting to ask whether certain things in history were
unavoidable or not, and it is very relevant to ask whether the future
should contain as much bloodshed as the 20th Century did. Preventing
more bloodshed stands upon the successful maintainence of dialogue.
(If I sound sage it is because I try to learn from my scars.) (04)
Dialogue in a material world is not just about words. And dialogue in
a world full of intransigent creeds is much harder to maintain.
So there needs to be real giving to back up the words, and an ability
to see past one's creed to accept the words of the other as they
really are.
Whatever the definition of civilisation might be I don't think the
world is civilised yet. There are still too many tribal apes wielding
clubs. (05)
Reach for subtlety, list citizens! :) (06)
--
Peter (07)
On 2 Dec 2003 at 13:09, Eric Armstrong wrote: (08)
> Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:
> > Eric, Thank you for your reply! I had to read it several times to
> > decide whether there was any sarcasm (I couldn't find any!) because,
> > yes, as fiction, it is all very real. Thank you for the reference
> > to Korsybski, and his phrase, and your encouragement.
> >
> No sarcasm was intended, and I liked the definitions you started
> with, but I have to say that I don't find much to agree with in
> your thesis. (I do, however, feel that the discussion is reasonably
> pertinent and consistent with the goal of identifying collaboration
> patterns.)
>
> I loved "The Tipping Point" (where I can I find that, anyway??)
> but I don't see any way in which the term "social hacker" has
> a reasonable definition.
>
> A "hacker", by definition, changes the way systems work. A person who
> breaks new ground may well bring new information to light, but that
> does not constitute a new system of interaction.
>
> Connectors are valuable and important. But they're not "hacking".
>
> My idea of a "social hacker" is more of the founding fathers of
> this country and the French democracy, and the members in the
> societies of knowledge who helped to inform them and guide their
> efforts. But in no way is that a "bottom up" approach in the
> "hacking" model. It's more of a top-down, "social designer"
> approach. (Every president we have elected embodies a new "social
> design" that they do their best to implement, with varying levels of
> success.)
>
> Politicians, policy makers, the church -- all of these are social
> designers. Even mystic societies are social designs, rather than
> social "hacks".
>
> Do have any concrete examples at all of a "social hacker" who has made
> a contribution of some sort?
>
> > I include two sections from my paper (it takes so long to write!)
> > Andrius Kulikauskas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@ms.lt
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Eric Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > > Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why is it a fiction?
> > >>
> > >> It is a fiction in that recognizing the reality of the group is
> > >> ultimately a matter of choice, and can be dismissed. We forget
> > >> this, and to that extent the group is "real", it is real as
> > >> fiction. For example, the Soviet Union, a neighborhood, a
> > >> church, a circle of friends, a family, are all "real" to the
> > >> extent that we choose them to be so.
> > >>
> > > I don't see how anyone could object to this. I think you've
> > > done a good job of defining your terms, in general. Here, you've
> > > denfined "fiction" as the term for a world-view that a group
> > > subscribes to.
> > >
> > > I really can't think of a better term for it, really. I suspect
> > > that Korsybski would love that fact that "the reality we all
> > > 'know' to be true" is labeled as a fiction, because that very
> > > terminology helps to keep us honest in our appraisal of our
> > > beliefs.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Social hackers vs. Social architects
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Social hacker, as the term is used in this paper, is a person who
> > encourages activity amongst online groups, and is willing to break
> > social norms in order to do so. This term draws on the use of the
> > word hacker to describe a programmer who relishes coming up with
> > idiosyncratic solutions, often through creative use of trial and
> > error.
> > The hacker approach is bottom-up, special-case, practical,
> > piecemeal,
> > nonstandard, unschooled, unexpected, solve-the-problem,
> > write-efficiently, value-the-coder's-time, build-on-what-exists (or
> > even what does not officially exist!), as opposed to the architect
> > approach, which is top-down, general-case, theoretical, grand
> > vision, master plan, unlimited resources, question-the-problem, and
> > start-from-scratch. Andrius: Do you think "social hacker" is a
> > suitable term, or do you have a better one?
> >
> > Bala: I think that is a great term
> >
> > Andrius: Why?
> >
> > Bala: hacker -- lights up someone who chops to me :: to many it will
> > light up someone who is like a computer hacker :: one who challenges
> > :: and we imagine them to be bright :: unconventional
> >
> > An engineer, at his or her best, works as both an architect and a
> > hacker. The hacker side is most evident upon breaking the
> > architect's norms, as in making use of undocumented functionality.
> > However, if laws and morals are thought of simply as norms, then
> > breaking norms can turn into breaking laws and breaking morals.
> > Just as hackers define themselves through the behavior that makes
> > them distinct, the media similarly latches onto the most sensational
> > behavior, so that hacker has come to have a second meaning, a
> > meddler who breaks into computer systems (hackers call the latter
> > crackers). In this way, the term social hacker has been used to
> > describe those who lie and otherwise manipulate people so as to gain
> > access to privileged information, such as passwords, which makes it
> > easier to gain access into systems. In this paper, we consider such
> > behavior to be wrong. More generally, we are troubled that an
> > unchecked willingness to break social norms can falsely justify and
> > encourage the manipulation of people. We seek an ethics that would
> > provide social hackers with self-checks and sound motivations.
> >
> > Social hackers are connectors. In "The Tipping Point", Malcolm
> > Gladwell describes how the interaction of mavens, connectors, and
> > salesmen allows small causes to yield large effects in society. [B]
> > A connector may participate in half a dozen groups and is active in
> > bringing different people together. Additionally, a social hacker
> > attempts not only to opportunistically connect individuals, but to
> > connect whole groups, and encourage their members to likewise act as
> > connectors, extending everybody's reach. In this sense, social
> > hackers are also salesmen, evangelists, missionaries. They work to
> > reshape and restructure the groups for the long term. Social
> > hackers are also willing to break social norms. However, they
> > always run the risk of being trolls, the people who participate
> > destructively in groups, usually because they want attention and
> > have nothing better to do. The best social hackers, much like the
> > best hackers, are often invisible, for they work with such love,
> > honesty, grace and tact, that they never actually break any norms.
> > Hacktivism is a related word used to describe the fusion of hacking
> > and activism. It is an electronic civil disobedience that is still
> > finding itself, with tactics that range from overwhelming or
> > defacing websites to posting banned material. [A] Much of this
> > makes sense as the tail end of the postmodern reaction to broadcast
> > media and mass-produced consumer products, the reaction which treats
> > any thing or truth as raw material for reconfiguration. Social
> > hackers may be harbingers of something new, a network society, one
> > that gushes forth from the creativity of individuals, so that they
> > create and link up their own local worlds, rather than flail against
> > mass culture.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Social hackers live as examples
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Social hackers are driven by the will to care. They share a
> > personal sense of mission to not only influence individuals, but to
> > transform all of society, at least that which is around them, as if
> > to turn it inside out. In order to spread and deepen their reach,
> > they look to share this impulse with others, and "awaken" them to
> > behave this way. They work openly so their examples might catalyze
> > a critical mass of people who care.
> >
> > In order to draw on all of their ability, and to make a way for
> > others to do so, they may seek to make a living from working openly.
> > In theory, this makes wonderful sense, but in practice, it adds a
> > personal urgency that pushes the social hacker to brush aside as
> > many social norms as possible.
> >
> > They take the attitude of entrepreneurs who are willing to do what
> > others are not. Morally, they must therefore look for the good they
> > might do that others will not. In making maximal use of minimal
> > resources, they build on people working for free, or on speculation,
> > instead of for pay. They think of wealth as relationships, and
> > offer team-building services that draw on their global networks.
> >
> > Social hackers struggle to find a place in the business world, which
> > favors closed rather than open systems. Many key Internet services
> > for the public, such as Google and YahooGroups, have Terms of
> > Service that prohibit commercial use. Of course, the large
> > corporations can buy what they need. It is the grass roots
> > entrepreneurs who are not served.
> >
> > Social hackers look at content as a way to engage others, nurture
> > community, and shuttle energy from one group to another. They need
> > content that places no restrictions on commercial use, nor taxes
> > them by requiring they ask for permissions or track rights. They
> > are glad to promote the author whose material they use, but they
> > wish to be efficient and rely on their own judgment. Optimal for
> > them is a free trade zone of ideas. This is why they either take
> > and use material without reservation, or they labor to find and
> > generate material in the public domain.
> >
> > Social hackers focus on discussion groups, as opposed to bulletin
> > boards, because they want to engage others, evoke responses that go
> > beyond any particular concern. For the same reasons they prefer
> > unmoderated groups over moderated ones. Also, discussion groups
> > rely on email instead of the web, and therefore include people with
> > marginal Internet access, which makes for a wider range of
> > participants.
> >
> > Andrius: Who do you think are great examples of social hackers?
> >
> > Bala: I hardly see them Andrius -- hardly hardly -- other than me
> > :-)
> >
> > Andrius: That's why I'm asking you!
> >
> > Bala: and I have been in many groups :: most don't have the stamina
> > to be :: they call it a day and go back to their cocoon :: many of
> > my ideas of better connecting and structure solutions come from
> > having to adapt to the failures I have faced as a social hacker ::
> > for example many in the Tamil community hate me.. :: many respect me
> > too
> >
> > Andrius: Like a magnet :: repulse or attract
> >
> > Bala: because I didn't put up lowest common denominator :: and 2
> > wrongs don't make a right :: I deliberately challenged :: my goal
> > was to get folks seriously thinking :: and I was willing to pay a
> > high price for it :: most are not.
> >
> > Joy Tang, Dennis Reinhardt, Neil McEvoy, Anthony Diaz, Josef
> > Davies-Coates act with a vigor that goes beyond the norms, and marks
> > them as social hackers. They all happen to be entrepreneurs who
> > seek to awaken people. Joy and Dennis are addressing the global
> > HIV/AIDS crisis, Neil is jumpstarting a loosely coupled federation
> > of businesses, Anthony is bridging the Hispanic digital divide,
> > Josef is saving the world through radical democracy. Other
> > connectors to study who are breaking new ground but in gentler ways
> > are Jerry Michalski, Flemming Funch, Tom Munnecke, Shannon Clark,
> > Denham Grey, Franz Nahrada, Lucas Gonzalez Santa Cruz, Scott Allen
> > and Leon Benjamin. There are the bloggers, such as Doc Searls, David
> > Weinberger, David Winer, who give of their prominence to act as
> > catalysts for intergroup activity. They do not need to reach out to
> > any group, as the readers come to their blogs.
> > They might be labeled positively ornery, and to the degree they
> > are,
> > they may express that tension between the will to care, and the
> > business pressure to stay interesting as public persona. Social
> > hacking from their lofty crags is more like sniping than wrestling.
> > Very effective. Ryze and Ecademy, for online business networking,
> > are good venues for finding and engaging social hackers.
> >
>
>
> --
> This message is archived at:
>
> http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FCCFF8F.40
> 30705@sun.com
>
> (09)
--
This message is archived at: (010)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FCD0DE3.25916.3A32B8@localhost (011)
|