Can you guess the source.
Locked
123
123
 
|
> So what does this reflexivity have to do with applied complexity science?
Interesting results are easier to come by if it is possible to chase the ball with the bar that measures the kick! |
|
|
> So what does this reflexivity have to do with applied complexity science?
reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of cybernetics too... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> To: <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. >> So what does this reflexivity have to do with applied complexity science? > > Interesting results are easier to come by if it is possible to chase the > ball with the bar that measures the kick! > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > |
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
Dr. Daniels,
I want to make sure I understand you. See below... On 4/13/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 > |
|
|
Hi Matt,
>> 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. By context I mean some particular domain of human behavior that is believed to operate independently enough from others to name and study it. Societal impacts of science and technology would be an example of what I mean by context of interest. > 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. Reflection on one's own experiences and comparing them with others (reflexivity) won't necessarily result in correct conclusions about why people do the things they do, or their larger social implications. Scientific work is incremental and academic departments usually operate more or less in parallel with others. So, by design there's a lot of correlated work (and I'd imagine thought too). Of course, focus can be good for punching through relevant problems in specific contexts.. To the point, it raises doubts in my mind just to what extent we can treat subjective reports of scientists and technologists as independent samples. > I'm, however, > unclear on the relationship of unbiased data to the framework you are > proposing. Suppose Bob's got an idea for an experiment and a paper to go with it. He runs the experiment and it fails to turn out the way he thought but reveals a better experiment which he also then runs and it results in an appealing outcome and insight. Now Bob writes the paper with a new plausible sounding hypothesis that nicely yields to the outcome and conclusion (as if the original hypothesis and experiment never had occurred). The paper is cited all over the place and Bob's a big hero. To understand problem solving in Bob's context, realizing their are potentially lots of Bobs, is it such a good idea to go on Bob's reflections and Bob's buddies? Wouldn't it be better to devise a way to monitor Bob's actual day to day work in some minimally intrusive way? One should worry about the accuracy of `reflections' and the reflexive cross comparison of them. It strikes me that research results in this area are vulnerable to self-aggrandizing delusions shared by the researcher and researched (both of the scientist type). >> 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. human behavior is impossible, just expensive and something only certain governments could sustain in general form. One might imagine that.. 1) participants have models which may change in accordance to new observables 2) the models are shared to some extent (either to communicate or manipulate) 3) the participants are autonomous 4) the participants all have something at stake -- most aren't faking it 5) ..but some aren't what they seem -- they are there only to perturb and measure You can imagine that in this kind of scenario, you'll find individuals acting in authentic, motivated ways. If a set of participants in this situation had large (but invisible) cash resources to draw on, and were willing to tolerate risk (e.g. spies), they could in some sense facilitate the kind of data collection that would be needed to truly inform the agents in an agent based model and in turn make checkable predictions, and suggest further perturbations for refinement of a model. Overall I'm just saying it is plenty hard to make predictions about relatively simple physical dynamical systems, even when its possible to poke them to see how they react. Now let the particles have minds and layers of organizational insulation (receptionists, lawyers, etc.) and things get rather complicated when it comes to predicting things. |
|
|
Good morning!
On 4/14/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote: > Hi Matt, > >> 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. > By context I mean some particular domain of human behavior that is > believed to operate independently enough from others to name and study > it. Societal impacts of science and technology would be an example of > what I mean by context of interest. > > 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. > Reflection on one's own experiences and comparing them with others > (reflexivity) won't necessarily result in correct conclusions about why > people do the things they do, or their larger social implications. > Scientific work is incremental and academic departments usually operate > more or less in parallel with others. So, by design there's a lot of > correlated work (and I'd imagine thought too). Of course, focus can be > good for punching through relevant problems in specific contexts.. > > To the point, it raises doubts in my mind just to what extent we can > treat subjective reports of scientists and technologists as independent > samples. I see now that there is some confusion here about reflexivity as a method and reflexivity as an object of study. Many researchers do use interviews and ethnographers in particular talk about ethnographic interviews as co-construction rather than extraction. Such methods do involve gathering narratives and stories (subjective, meaningful accounts of experience) from research participants. This is method of interviewing designed to probe subjective experience and ethnographers can't get around the fact that such subjective experience is heavily influenced by the interview context. But, as you pointed out, the interview context is a different unit of analysis than the context of knoweldge production. Sure enough, knowledge production has many significant levels of organization. Reflexivity as an object of inquiry entails looking at how whole communities of practice develop norms, rules, materials... that support and direct sharing of knowledge. Such systems are designed (self-organized) to be reflexive. Individuals, indeed, are also reflexive and the knowledge system they are part of affects how this reflection happens. There's lots of ways to design social science research and construct validity. And there are many many pitfalls in doing research that relies on gathering subjective accounts especially if there is no theory or, even worse, no problem driving data collection. Amazingly enough there are research strategies, methodologies out there that legitimate non-theory driven data collection (if you believe that such a thing is possible). With such a huge ecology of research strategies and methodologies out there is would be a shame for the study of reflexivity to be confined to the realm of ethnographic interview. A system for knowing, for reflecting on reality; that's science, isn't it? A social system for reflecting on reality also fits the description of religion too (assuming that you accept a belief in what one is refleciting on is reality). We all know that there is a difference. And there has been lots of work looking at the differences (both across the sciences and across science and non-science). And as I said before, a study of the differences shouldn't be for discrediting knowledge traditions but rather to figure out how to design new ones, breathe life into old ones, and to think strategically about which ones can make a difference. Perhaps social science is a misnomer for this kind of work anyhow. Empirical philosophy maybe? > > I'm, however, > > unclear on the relationship of unbiased data to the framework you are > > proposing. > Suppose Bob's got an idea for an experiment and a paper to go with it. > He runs the experiment and it fails to turn out the way he thought but > reveals a better experiment which he also then runs and it results in an > appealing outcome and insight. Now Bob writes the paper with a new > plausible sounding hypothesis that nicely yields to the outcome and > conclusion (as if the original hypothesis and experiment never had > occurred). The paper is cited all over the place and Bob's a big hero. > > To understand problem solving in Bob's context, realizing their are > potentially lots of Bobs, is it such a good idea to go on Bob's > reflections and Bob's buddies? Wouldn't it be better to devise a way > to monitor Bob's actual day to day work in some minimally intrusive > way? One should worry about the accuracy of `reflections' and the > reflexive cross comparison of them. It strikes me that research > results in this area are vulnerable to self-aggrandizing delusions > shared by the researcher and researched (both of the scientist type). > >> 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 don't think a cybernetic / control system approach to understanding > human behavior is impossible, just expensive and something only certain > governments could sustain in general form. One might imagine that.. > > 1) participants have models which may change in accordance to new > observables > 2) the models are shared to some extent (either to communicate or > manipulate) > 3) the participants are autonomous > 4) the participants all have something at stake -- most aren't faking it > 5) ..but some aren't what they seem -- they are there only to perturb > and measure > > You can imagine that in this kind of scenario, you'll find individuals > acting in authentic, motivated ways. > If a set of participants in this situation had large (but invisible) > cash resources to draw on, and were willing to tolerate risk (e.g. > spies), they could in some sense facilitate the kind of data collection > that would be needed to truly inform the agents in an agent based model > and in turn make checkable predictions, and suggest further > perturbations for refinement of a model. > > Overall I'm just saying it is plenty hard to make predictions about > relatively simple physical dynamical systems, even when its possible to > poke them to see how they react. Now let the particles have minds and > layers of organizational insulation (receptionists, lawyers, etc.) and > things get rather complicated when it comes to predicting things. > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- Matthew R. Francisco PhD Student, Science and Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
|
|
Matthew Francisco wrote:
> A system for knowing, for reflecting on reality; that's science, isn't > it? A social system for reflecting on reality also fits the > description of religion too (assuming that you accept a belief in what > one is refleciting on is reality). We all know that there is a > difference. I'd say religion tries to rationalize reality (apparently in a way that fits with certain human psychological needs) while science predicts aspects of reality. Rationalization is one way to build models, but the models need to be testable for it to be science. |
|
|
Re strong positionalities to observed (e.g. social) phenomena; "vision
quests" and implications of Complexity, Heisenberg etc. and collectively digesting them. Is anybody here familiar with say Alfred Korzybski's - late 30s "Science and Sanity" and the work built on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics) or David Hawkins (http://www.veritaspub.com/) work for example? Bests, Alex -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:24 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Matthew Francisco wrote: > A system for knowing, for reflecting on reality; that's science, isn't > it? A social system for reflecting on reality also fits the > description of religion too (assuming that you accept a belief in what > one is refleciting on is reality). We all know that there is a > difference. I'd say religion tries to rationalize reality (apparently in a way that fits with certain human psychological needs) while science predicts aspects of reality. Rationalization is one way to build models, but the models need to be testable for it to be science. ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Matthew Francisco
"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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 |
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: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 |
Can you guess the source.
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Agar
If you all have already seen this clip, sorry for the duplication, but if
not, this definitely seems to fit in with the conversation that is alive right now re: phase transitions relating to technology: http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/introducing-the-book-p1.php? :) Allison -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 |
|
|
Hi Allison,
You must be familiar with the European consensus conference concept? There has been some work in STS that looks at these sense-making spaces (see Frank Fischer's work (Fischer F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham and London: Duke UP.) and Stefan Sperling (http://www.sts.rpi.edu/colloquium/sperling.html)). WikiPolicy is, it seems to me, is an online version of such a social space. The affordance of the Wiki though is that it produces social network data and that network data seems to be one of the main resources that policy makers would draw on to position the perspectives. Your idea of WikiPolicy is also exciting from those of us who study knowledge production becuase of the medium's affordance for producing detailed and wide social interaction data (communication network data) on a topic that has only been able to be studies through ethnogrpahic participation or discourse analysis--as we all know very well it is extremely difficult to gather network data from a face-to-face interactions especially from spaces that are inhabited by powerful people who often don't like being monitored. You may want to take a look at how computatioanl social scientists are approaching the study of online knowledge communities. The main work that comes to mind, which I just recently learned about, here is Greg Madey's group's study of collaboration networks in the SourceForge community. They're using agent-based modeling techniques and network analysis to better understand the community. I'm sure others here in FRIAM can situate this work much better than me. And I bet that there are other similar case studies. This area seems to be very rich and your project is quite exciting! Matt On 4/15/07, Allison Pinto <allisonpinto at earthlink.net> wrote: > If you all have already seen this clip, sorry for the duplication, but if > not, this definitely seems to fit in with the conversation that is alive > right now re: phase transitions relating to technology: > > http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/introducing-the-book-p1.php? > > :) Allison > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] 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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Agar
Michael Agar wrote:
> "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. > Question is, what is the discrimination power of R? Does it ever say false? (Unlike, say, Freud's theories or religious dogma), and if so does it report `true' and `false' in any pattern that rarely would occur by chance? Are their precise metrics for the features that R draws upon, or does the meta-analyst just have that convenience? |
|
|
Short math lesson: A relation on a set A is a set of ordered pairs of
elements of A. That is it is a subset of A x A. It is reflexive iff xRx (i.e. (x, x) is in R) for all x in A. If xRx is false for any x in A, the relation is not reflexive. There are many non reflexive relations. For instance, "brother of" is non-reflexive in the set of Friam "members". No one is his own brother. I am not aware of any definition of "discrimination power" in this context. Additional properties of relations: If xRy and yRz implies xRz for all x, y, z in A then R is called transitive (in A). If xRy implies yRx for all x,y in A then R is called symmetric (in A). Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:32 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Michael Agar wrote: > "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. > Question is, what is the discrimination power of R? Does it ever say false? (Unlike, say, Freud's theories or religious dogma), and if so does it report `true' and `false' in any pattern that rarely would occur by chance? Are their precise metrics for the features that R draws upon, or does the meta-analyst just have that convenience? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I am not aware of any definition of "discrimination power" in this > context. > For example, `sameSex' is not reflexive on the set of all humans. It is reflexive on the set of women or the set of men. And the relation `sameSpecies' would be reflexive on the set of all humans. The relation `sameSex' has more discrimination power than `sameSpecies'.. (It's not clear to me why I would want to organize the world into reflexive sets in the first place, other than to simplify things that are the same on certain dimensions.) |
|
|
It seems to me that "sameSex" is reflexive on the set of all humans.
The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the same sex as him or her self. Relexivity is a feature of an equivalence relation. They are used in a lot of theorems and, for instance, the output of a causal search (in the context of statistical causal reasoning) is an equivalence class of causal models. On the other hand, some mathematicians might ask, "What has the world got to do with it?" Frank --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell) Santa Fe, NM 87505 wimberly3 at earthlink.net -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 10:33 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Frank Wimberly wrote: > I am not aware of any definition of "discrimination power" in this > context. > For example, `sameSex' is not reflexive on the set of all humans. It is reflexive on the set of women or the set of men. And the relation `sameSpecies' would be reflexive on the set of all humans. The relation `sameSex' has more discrimination power than `sameSpecies'.. (It's not clear to me why I would want to organize the world into reflexive sets in the first place, other than to simplify things that are the same on certain dimensions.) ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Frank wrote:
> It seems to me that "sameSex" is reflexive on the set of all humans. > The only thing that would falsify that would be a human who is not the > same sex as him or her self. > The set of all humans is not reflexive due to ambiguity. sameSex(x0,x1) := (hasMaleSexOrgan (x0) and hasMaleSexOrgan (x0)) xor (hasFemaleSexOrgan (x1) and hasFemaleSexOrgan (x1)) ...which is false even when x0 and x1 = x when x reports true for both kinds of sex organs. I wrote: > Are their precise metrics for the features that R draws upon, or does > the meta-analyst just have that convenience? Frank wrote: > On the other hand, some mathematicians might ask, "What has the world > got to do with it?" Other than you can get almost answer you want by fooling with the relation definition? |
|
|
In reply to this post by allisonpinto@earthlink.net
This sounds great, and I might suggest you contact an organization
attempting something of the kind that might use the help. The NYC AIA is launching it's Public Information Exchange, a comprehensive web site for information on New York City development proposals, public reviews and comment. I've made proposals to them that were well received. Your idea sounds like something that would interest them too. I think they're under funded and understaffed, but plan a site launch this spring. If you had any way to direct resources to a test ground for public policy systems thinking, they might be an very excellent candidate. Email: info at aiany.org or call 212-683-0023, Rick Bell the director Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Allison Pinto > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:00 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > 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 > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus' question of "discrimination power" is definitely a key here.
It's equally important, but raises additional issues when applied to identifying the more complex characters of real undefined individual physical systems. I think it might be a concept of upper and lower bounds that's is needed, topological rather than Y/N set theory. It will apparently take, for example, many more years for people to reach consensus on a reasonably useful and reliable indicator of emergence. We all agree it's a phenomenon, and have for years, but just don't apparently know where to start to critically identify it. You need a different kind of lasso, it seems, than what's commonly used to rope that one. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 11:32 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. > > > Michael Agar wrote: > > "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. > > > Question is, what is the discrimination power of R? Does it ever say > false? (Unlike, say, Freud's theories or religious dogma), > and if so > does it report `true' and `false' in any pattern that rarely > would occur > by chance? Are their precise metrics for the features that R draws > upon, or does the meta-analyst just have that convenience? > > ============================================================ > 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 > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Matthew Francisco
The biggest problem with such ideal systems here is an old one. First,
knowledge, even opinion, equal wisdom? Second, does a majority (plebiscite for example) automatically produce what is best or the right policy? Is what the majority wants best for preserving or enhancing what is the highest good for society? Third, he who defines the problem defines the solution. How is the invisible structure of software, be it GIS, networking systems, or electronic voting machines, to be made transparent and how do we know? Each of these questions points at an issue that needs to be examined when developing such systems. Also, the issue of flaming, death threats, copyshop editing of personal sexual attacks, and bloggs and as recently put forward can generate a death blow to any uncontrolled discourse. The form and content of the language of discourse is critical here. Compare Congress with the US Senate up until fairly recently. The Federalist papers attempted to deal with the first set of problems by postulating a controlled form of conflict and protection of minority opinions. The later problems have not been dealt with yet, at least in the virtual world. Gus Gus Koehler, Ph.D. President and Principal Time Structures, Inc. 1545 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 Cell: 916-716-1740 www.timestructures.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Matthew Francisco Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 7:09 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source. Hi Allison, You must be familiar with the European consensus conference concept? There has been some work in STS that looks at these sense-making spaces (see Frank Fischer's work (Fischer F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham and London: Duke UP.) and Stefan Sperling (http://www.sts.rpi.edu/colloquium/sperling.html)). WikiPolicy is, it seems to me, is an online version of such a social space. The affordance of the Wiki though is that it produces social network data and that network data seems to be one of the main resources that policy makers would draw on to position the perspectives. Your idea of WikiPolicy is also exciting from those of us who study knowledge production becuase of the medium's affordance for producing detailed and wide social interaction data (communication network data) on a topic that has only been able to be studies through ethnogrpahic participation or discourse analysis--as we all know very well it is extremely difficult to gather network data from a face-to-face interactions especially from spaces that are inhabited by powerful people who often don't like being monitored. You may want to take a look at how computatioanl social scientists are approaching the study of online knowledge communities. The main work that comes to mind, which I just recently learned about, here is Greg Madey's group's study of collaboration networks in the SourceForge community. They're using agent-based modeling techniques and network analysis to better understand the community. I'm sure others here in FRIAM can situate this work much better than me. And I bet that there are other similar case studies. This area seems to be very rich and your project is quite exciting! Matt On 4/15/07, Allison Pinto <allisonpinto at earthlink.net> wrote: > If you all have already seen this clip, sorry for the duplication, but > if not, this definitely seems to fit in with the conversation that is > alive right now re: phase transitions relating to technology: > > http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/introducing-the-book-p1.php? > > :) Allison > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] 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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 > > > > 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 > > > > > >> > >> 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 > > > > 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 > > > > 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |