[governance] Re: How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions)

Tue Jan 31 13:38:34 EST 2012

Thank you, Tim,

for a very thoughtful reply.
I'll have to see how, later tonight, send the ball over the net in a
meaningful way,
and keep the ping pong going.

To your latest point:

I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you arguing that Twitter-like
communication leads to a clustering of opinions? Or that twitter itself
does? Or something else?

SUROWIECKI's point is "diversity" of opinion. The more the bettr - it is
like a social "trial and error" game we play. We are more likely to find a
solution if 1000 imperfect brains think, that if an even superior brain
does, simply because he is not able to grasp all points of view.
People then have to think for themselves, not just reflexively agree with
others are saying.

By posing the question is "voting" terms, and shortcutting the discussion,
we pauperise the process and are more likely to end up with an inferior
solution. Twitter tends to paurperise the discussion (not the information).
This is dangerous.

I've just received in the mail Richard SENNETT (2012): *Together: the
rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation.*
**
on pg.8 he states the argment of the book: "Modern society is 'de-skilling'
people in practicing cooperation. (...)  People are losing the skills to
deal with intractable differences as material inequality isolates them,
short-term labour makes their social contacts more superficial and
activates anxiety about the Other."

In my latest blog I've provocatively labelled twitter as "virtual
pheromones" - they provide communication all right, as pheromones do, by
they do not trigger creativity as change, which is the essence of a culture
based society. I see twitter as just one of several "technologies" which,
if improperly used, lead to this de-skilling. And it scares me - for change
is the only chance we've got to save ourselves by the skin of our teeth.

Aldo
On 31 January 2012 11:38, Tim Davies <tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk>wrote:

> Aldo,
>
> This is an interesting debate. I was trying to compose a response in
> blog-post form - but will instead opt for the moment for some responses
> in-line below.
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Aldo Matteucci <aldo.matteucci at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> *Ginger Paque : Personally, I disagree, because when an online
>> communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that
>> short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth
>> limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage
>> to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion.
>> *
>>
>> *Ricardo: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course,
>> it should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone
>> on the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, *
>>
>> **
>>
>
> Ginger and Ricardo point to one of the properties of short communication
> that can be very valuable in online dialogues - it can scale to involve a
> larger number of participants who each get to offer some input. It's hard
> to hold a deep dialogue with a lot of people (note Plato's dialogues rarely
> have a large crowd of characters), whereas the shorter form communication
> enabled by small comment boxes can support more people to be part of a
> conversation in a short time.
>
> As Ginger and Ricardo alude to - this can lead to a chaotic conversations,
> or a cacophony of voices - or to some voices still dominating the
> discussion. There are two complementary responses I think to this: one is
> active (open) facilitation of a dialogue when there are a large number of
> people taking part; the second is in having good platforms that help
> everyone make short comments in semi-structured ways, weaving
> twitter-length contributions collaboratively into a larger whole.
>
>
>> I have raised an issue in my blog (The twitter is the message), on which
>> I invited you all to reflect. What I got back was two votes (see above):
>> yours, with a “vote explication” that was no more than an assertion.
>>
>> Of course short is better than long. My issue was whether the twitter
>> format was structurally so short as to stifle the very essence of a
>> dialogue – which is to deliberate.
>>
>
> It can be useful to distinguish between the twitter format with a
> time-limit, twitter-length communication over time, and communication on
> twitter.
>
> Putting an arbitrary limit of 140 characters on input into a short
> synchronous online dialogue does seem likely to shape the discussion
> towards short assertions, rather than expression of more deliberative and
> complex ideas - certainly unless the community develop shorthands to fit
> their communication within the limit.
>
> However, when communication is extended over time, as it is in many
> twitter conversations, which are asychronous, then a lot of deliberation
> and nuance can start to be incorporated. Scholars of Computer Mediated
> Communication have looked at how, with reduced cues from non-verbal
> interactions people over time compensate and find ways to pick up meaning
> not only from the content of a message, but also the timing, sequencing and
> other signals. Twitter itself creates some very nuanced social conventions,
> of reference to issues with hash-tags, people with @'s and so-on.
> Conversations can take place on a slow-burn over weeks and months on
> Twitter itself, enabling interesting forms of deliberation.
>
>
>> Paul got the message, but then drifted into a different – though very
>> noteworthy issue – that of reception. In his framework length of reply is
>> irrelevant. Money determines who gets the message. And indeed – in the
>> future governments will no longer shut people up; they’ll just render them
>> ineffectual. When was it last time a soapbox man in Hyde Park started a
>> revolution?
>>
>> Democracy ought to be deliberative. By rushing to vote (agree/disagree)
>> even before having taken the time to reflect, you have terminated the
>> discussion. The rest of the group stood in silence – and I presume they
>> agreed with you (qui tacet consentire videtur). It was in ways a plebiscite.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. We may have been aware that a detailed reply takes time.
> Quick vote-style replies can move a dialogue on, and then the reply to
> those can draw other people in...
>
>> Coming back now to my point: take any of Plato’s great dialogues and
>> replace all the entries in it (but those of Socrates) by a twitter message.
>> Then tell me whether you think it has improved the symposion text.
>>
>
> Not if you leave it in Tweet-form in the book. Take Plato's dialogues and
> tweet them over time, interacting with those who reply, and building a
> dialogue through interaction - now you have changed, and for some of the
> audience, improved the text.
>
> There will be those who get to engage with the ideas for the first time
> seeing them in short form. For some the short-form will crystalise things
> they had already read, for others, it will act as a teaser - encouraging
> them to look at the longer and more in-depth form.
>
> Twitter-like communication is one layer of dialogue. Different layers
> engage different people at different times - our challenge
> in facilitating dialogue is to link these layers if we can.
>
>
>> My blog very imperfectly pointed to the essence of being human (you know
>> that latest of the tailless apes) – their ability to have common goals, and
>> to create new ones by deliberation. The Western idea of the (intellectual)
>> hero who points to the way forward and is followed by group is historically
>> inaccurate. Because deliberation is oral and cannot be remembered, we
>> ascribe the outcome to a superior person.
>>
>
> This is a really interesting observation - and I think somewhere where we
> have to keep a watchful eye on how Twitter-like communications impact
> people. Any digital conversation can now make a choice over whether or not
> a permanent record of the dialogue will be held - or whether only the
> outcome will be recorded and enter into the public sphere.
>
> Negotiating whether or not the dialogue should be on or off-record again
> is a facilitation and community choice that should be consciously made.
> Some people value the ability to look back on the record to see how their
> views have changed (e.g. in working with young people, the ability to look
> back over their online traces and see how they have developed as an
> individual can be very valuable); for others, the record might create the
> risk of attributing the outcomes to an individual rather than the
> collective, or might limit the positions someone can take in the future
> because of their past expressions.
>
>
>> Twitter-style discourse tends to reduce the interaction to a vote –
>> democratic for sure. Better than a decision from on high by the elite. It
>> comes at a price, however: it negates the very essence of a
>> deliberation: the common reflection and input from various points of view.
>> The intellectual “trial and error” that allows the best idea to survive.
>>
>
> I'm not sure this is true. Each of the above 'vote' like statements also
> offered some reasons. In the 'limited bandwidth' of a short message,
> individuals do need to make explicit what might otherwise be left as
> implicit views (opinion on the debate are often encoded rather than stated
> in longer messages, but are no less present)
>
> Facilitation and the set-up of any discussion can reduce it to a vote or
> not - but unless the medium is a voting button (and even then...) it's
> usually flesible...
>
>  James SUROWIECKI in *The Wisdom of crowds – Why the many are smarter
>> than the few* makes precisely this point: when people deliberate (i.e.
>> reflect for themselves), the outcome is – taking the long view – better
>> than that of any expert or elite. When people influence each other, rather
>> than reflect independently, one gets hysterias and manias.
>> In the past elite did the thinking, and compliance by the majority was
>> secured by (moral) authority. I see no improvement in having the celebrity
>> of the day do the same as the elite, and her opinion being subject to
>> plebiscite by twitter. Except that there is a huge turnover in celebrities.
>>
>
> I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you arguing that Twitter-like
> communication leads to a clustering of opinions? Or that twitter itself
> does? Or something else?
>
>
>> Aldo
>>
>
> All the best
>
> Tim
>
>
>>
>> On 27 January 2012 14:30, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and
>>> modern communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at
>>> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He
>>> argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among
>>> others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and
>>> congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally,
>>> I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we
>>> have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are
>>> preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into
>>> consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC:
>>> it allows for full multi-party discussion.
>>>
>>>  Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to
>>> improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved
>>> e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the
>>> potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the
>>> recent online blackout activities:
>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload
>>>
>>> Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened
>>> ACTA.
>>>
>>> Best, Ginger
>>>
>>>
>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>> Diplo Foundation
>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>>
>>> *Join the Diplo community IG discussions:
>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Aldo Matteucci
>> 65, Pourtalèsstr.
>> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern
>> Switzerland
>> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> http://www.timdavies.org.uk
> 07834 856 303.
> @timdavies
>
> Co-director of Practical Participation:
> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk
> --------------------------
> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales -
> #5381958.
>

-- 
Aldo Matteucci
65, Pourtalèsstr.
CH 3074 MURI b. Bern
Switzerland
aldo.matteucci at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120131/6952a402/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t