a further tangent
Locked
 
|
I asked a (non-rhetorical) question:
>But you might think it is, so I ask you, do you? If not, how might >it be remediated (practically or impractically)? It occurred to me that maybe this is something that could be investigated using ... AGENT BASED MODELING! (Indeed, maybe it has been.) That is, what qualities of an asynchronous distributed network of agents, passing messages about a changing collection of diverse-but-usually-though-not-always-somewhat-aligned topics (or maybe more specifically goals) are conducive to "rigorous conversation" (however that may be modeled), which qualities are neutral to it, and which qualities are anti-conducive to it? Anyone up to the challenge of investigating a toy example? (Alternatively, anyone know where in the literature the whole thing has been done, or shown to be undoable?) ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
This is a great idea. But ONLY if we think of it as a "remedy", not as a
"remediation". I would always argue for the minimalification of latinate suffixes. But it really is a great idea. Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 3:29 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: [FRIAM] a further tangent I asked a (non-rhetorical) question: >But you might think it is, so I ask you, do you? If not, how might it >be remediated (practically or impractically)? It occurred to me that maybe this is something that could be investigated using ... AGENT BASED MODELING! (Indeed, maybe it has been.) That is, what qualities of an asynchronous distributed network of agents, passing messages about a changing collection of diverse-but-usually-though-not-always-somewhat-aligned topics (or maybe more specifically goals) are conducive to "rigorous conversation" (however that may be modeled), which qualities are neutral to it, and which qualities are anti-conducive to it? Anyone up to the challenge of investigating a toy example? (Alternatively, anyone know where in the literature the whole thing has been done, or shown to be undoable?) ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Nick, I didn't (and wouldn't) use the noun "remediation" (at least,
not to mean "remedy"). As verbs, "remediate" and "remedy" have different senses to me (and to the OED). In particular, the OED says (and I agree--though I don't claim this was in my mind) that "remediate" includes the sense of "counteract", and "remedy" doesn't. > This is a great idea. But ONLY if we think of it as a "remedy", not as a > "remediation". I would always argue for the minimalification of latinate > suffixes. > > But it really is a great idea. > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > [hidden email] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 3:29 PM To: [hidden email] > Subject: [FRIAM] a further tangent > > I asked a (non-rhetorical) question: > > >But you might think it is, so I ask you, do you? If not, how might it > >be remediated (practically or impractically)? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
With apologies to everyone but Lee:
The word "remediation" could be two entirely different words, one arising from "remedy" and the other arising from "mediate". "The first mediation failed, so we agreed to remedy the situation by conducting a remediation" is a perfectly intelligible sentence without any redundancy. Bugger the OED. It's full of latinate obfuscation. Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:08 AM To: Nicholas Thompson; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] a further tangent Nick, I didn't (and wouldn't) use the noun "remediation" (at least, not to mean "remedy"). As verbs, "remediate" and "remedy" have different senses to me (and to the OED). In particular, the OED says (and I agree--though I don't claim this was in my mind) that "remediate" includes the sense of "counteract", and "remedy" doesn't. > This is a great idea. But ONLY if we think of it as a "remedy", not > as a "remediation". I would always argue for the minimalification of > latinate suffixes. > > But it really is a great idea. > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 3:29 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [FRIAM] a further tangent > > I asked a (non-rhetorical) question: > > >But you might think it is, so I ask you, do you? If not, how might > >it be remediated (practically or impractically)? ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
> With apologies to everyone but Lee:
> > The word "remediation" could be two entirely different words, one arising > from "remedy" and the other arising from "mediate". "The first mediation > failed, so we agreed to remedy the situation by conducting a remediation" is > a perfectly intelligible sentence without any redundancy. Bugger the OED. > It's full of latinate obfuscation. > > Nick I don't read sports pages often, but once I was *very* pleased to learn from a baseball article in the Boston Globe that a certain manager was going to resign, rather than resign. ObModeling (not agent-based)/ObFuscation: the proper setting for mechanics is the tangent bundle of the tangent bundle... ============================================================ 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 lrudolph
glen e. p. ropella wrote at 03/27/2012 10:57 AM:
> I think > with that we might be able to reproduce Sturgeon's law ... and perhaps > even Godwin's law with 1 medium. Then we might be able to begin varying > the medium to discover which media were more susceptible to, at least, > those two patterns. Ooohh! I wonder if we could generate behavior that would ... [ahem] ... validate Poe's Law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law as well. That would be too cool. The law captures the valid-in-context concept quite nicely, I think. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ 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 |
ABM of rigorous conversation (was: a further tangent)
|
|
[hidden email] wrote at 03/26/2012 02:28 PM:
> That is, what qualities of an asynchronous distributed > network of agents, passing messages about a changing collection of > diverse-but-usually-though-not-always-somewhat-aligned topics (or > maybe more specifically goals) are conducive to "rigorous > conversation" (however that may be modeled), which qualities are > neutral to it, and which qualities are anti-conducive to it? I've been thinking quite a bit about how to generate Sturgeon's, Godwin's and Poe's laws with a network of agents. But I've had to reformulate the laws. So here they are for your criticism: Sturgeon's Law: Any artifact is more likely to look like crap when seen out of its original context. (Or "It seemed like a good idea at the time.") Godwin's Law: Any evolution of artifacts will eventually produce non sequiturs. Poe's Law: The frequency of valid but unsound sentences increases in direct proportion to the extent to which the language is closed (self referent). Feel free to argue with those reformulations. But I think they help clarify what the model might help test. Whatever "rigorous conversation" might mean, it should probably avoid a large proportion of what a large percentage of participants call "crap". It should avoid black swans where possible and, when one does appear, have methods for establishing their pedigree. And it should be closed enough to provide stability but open enough to allow regular sanity checks against various contexts. If we could build networks of agents that exhibit these laws under some conditions and do not under other conditions, then we'd be in a position to vary the conditions and construct hypotheses about which network structures help avoid crap, non sequiturs, and false positives. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ 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 |