Re: [unrev-II] Intelligence from Categories with Hierarchial Structure??

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Mon Nov 05 2001 - 16:49:11 PST

  • Next message: John J. Deneen: "Re: [unrev-II] Visual stimuli & IBIS methodology"

    Rod, I would be delighted to carry on this conversation, on the off
    chance that it will produce a useful result. However, I'm going to
    need the salient parts of those links extracted so I can make sense
    of the flow of information.

    Lacking an "inclusion link", I do quoting. That makes it possible for
    someone else to see what I'm replying to, or what I'm referencing.

    I wish we had an inclusion-cabability, so you could use the links you
    have. I wish we had it so we could use purple numbers intelligently.
    (Although even then I note that while they work great for individual
    paragraphs, when we reference a section heading will need to
    distinguish between transcluding the entire section, or only the
    The default, I think, should be the entire section.)

    Anyway, following this thread of yours requires bouncing around
    among 4 or 5 windows to figure out what the thread is. And any
    response I make will require the reader to do the same bouncing to
    figure out what I'm referring to.

    I won't inflict that on my readers, and I don't much like it myself.

    Rod Welch wrote:

    > Eric,
    > Are you saying in your letter this afternoon at 1408 that if Traction
    > had
    > hierarchical structure this would have enabled analysis for effective
    > "intelligence," per examples in my letter earlier today at 1338,
    > referencing
    > Traction work product at....
    > ....and further in connection with your letter on 011031 at....
    > Can you flesh out a scenario, as you have done so often, to show how
    > hierarchical structure helps convert important information in your
    > letter into
    > useful knowledge, and then use that showing to resolve worry in your
    > letter on
    > 00503 that this is too difficult to tackle? Sounds like we are making
    > progress
    > on our question from 000120.
    > Recall research a few months later on 000307 by the OHS/DKR team
    > explaining that
    > people are wired to think in through "stories".....
    > An example is the IBIS question from a popular movie from, 20 years
    > ago or so,
    > "What's the story, Richie?"
    > Richie tells his story, and the old man asks...,
    > "Then what happened?"
    > Those are the three most popular words in all humanity. Let's repeat,
    > "Then
    > what happened?" Why do people what to know "Then what happened?"
    > A big part of the answer has to do with your powerful point about
    > "context."
    > A lot of people feel if they can get the story, plus the story before,
    > and what
    > happened later, then they can use that context to decide what to do in
    > order to
    > make the story turn out the way they want by inferring causation, and
    > using that
    > knowledge to control the future by working to effect similar context.
    > People
    > use "stories" to augment human reasoning, as explained on 900319....
    > ...because people think through stories, as in "She went over the
    > story in her
    > mind once again." People rarely go over the data in their mind,
    > rather they
    > remember data and information through stories.
    > How would hierarchical structure in categories proposed in your letter
    > today at
    > 1408 help people produce better analysis that augments intelligence,
    > where this
    > is taken to mean a clear, concise, complete story that aligns new data
    > and
    > information with history, objectives, requirements and commitments?
    > Rod
    > ***************************
    > Eric Armstrong wrote:
    > >
    > > Rod Welch wrote:
    > >
    > > > ...the IBIS question of the day is why doesn't powerful category
    > > > capability in Traction enable better intelligence?
    > >
    > > Ah. From the standpoint of IBIS, what Traction is missing is good
    > > hierarchical
    > > structuring. For lists, it's great. You can search on categories and
    > > make lists.
    > > But for a structured discussion, you are missing the kinds of
    > > hierarchical
    > > relationships that say, "this is a repy to that".
    > >
    > > Note, too, that IBIS-style plus/minus categories are a function of
    > the
    > > *relationship* (or context), not the node. So if I say,
    > > "bubble sort can be implemented quickly, but doesn't
    > > perform well for large sets of mostly-unordered data"
    > >
    > > that statement is neither a positive or a negative, on its own. It
    > is
    > > a "knowledge nugget" that can be reused in a variety of contexts.
    > >
    > > But when I establish a context like one of the following:
    > > a) We need a sort for 10 or 15 items that the typical user will
    > > enter on our web site, and we need it yesterday.
    > > or
    > > b) We need a sort for the 150,000 items in our database, that
    > > will operate nightly.
    > >
    > > Then the bubble-sort information above can be considered as a
    > > positive in one case, or a negative in the other.
    > >
    > > Traction had little in the way of hierarchical structuring, so you
    > > could create lists of options under design questions, and no
    > > ability to categorize the resulting relationships.
    > >
    > > However, they set the interface standard for how categories
    > > should operate.
    > >
    > > Community email addresses:
    > > Post message:
    > > Subscribe:
    > > Unsubscribe:
    > > List owner:
    > >
    > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > >
    > >
    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    > Community email addresses:
    > Post message:
    > Subscribe:
    > Unsubscribe:
    > List owner:
    > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Epil Stop & Spray Painless Hair Removal. Spray on and wipe off!
    Just $24.95 at

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 16:36:53 PST