> ...Watch nearly anyone trying to learn to construct, or for that
> read this type of representation. They will get thrown by the "double
> of not only trying to chop up discourse into nodes and give those
> but also trying to determine what types the links should be; where do
> semantics go? Too many choices need to be made. ...
> Eric wrote:
> >I have to agree that this a weakness of the system. In effect, it
> asks people to learn algebra in order to do what they normally do, but
> do it better...
> I agree with much of this, but not that the difficulty of
> learning/practicing IBIS in any of its variants implies a 'weakness of
> the system'.
Hmm. Several points in response.
The first is that we've lost a bit of the original context of my
remarks. As I recall,.
we were talking about something with more complexity than IBIS, which
raise the bar a bit more on the complexity side.
The second is that we continue to work on the problem of individual
at individual terminals, collaborating remotely. Even the IBIS technique
to be sufficiently complex that moderation is a requirement for success.
Third, I basically agree with your underlying point. In fact, I had
started out to say
something along those lines, but distracted as I followed other threads.
something of a "commitment to excellence" that is tantamount to a
I get into new things all the time, gather the best equipment, and work
learning and practicing the best techniques. I've played tournament
volleyball tournaments, coached at the State level, spent time as an
played fiddle, engaged in martial arts, and taken up old-time
Each of those endeavors has specialized techniques. Learning them makes
more proficient. Practicing them makes you effective. Mastering them
you an expert. I see no reason why applying logic to solve problems
Oner of the things we should begin seeing in the next 10 years, in fact,
different techniques for collaboratively solving problems. As Doug has
the human systems will co-evolve with the technology, and we will begin
those logical frameworks -- IBIS-based, question-based, or
as with logic.
As those methodologies are developed, they will begin competing for
winning converts they go. Those that are successful (and adequately
survive. Those which are unsuccessful and overhyped will die rapidly.
are successful but underhyped will linger a long time, and eventually
or emerge, depending on the environment.
At the moment, we don't have a system that we all understand and use. In
country, most kids played baseball growing up. So we can collaborate in
of baseball. In England, they played cricket. So we can't very well
a game between our countries, but we can within them.
When it comes to discussion and design, we are all from separate
countries, and have
only a small common understanding on which to base our efforts. I
IBIS is potentially part of the solution. But as you pointed out, people
have a hard time
with the "double work" of creating arguments and categorizing them at
the same time.
That is one reason I favor systems that let you add categories and tags
later in the process. That way, you can stream out your thoughts, and
then go back later to tag
them, or someone else can do so.
As you say, people typically find it hard to maintain a logical thread
while at the same time endeavoring to:
* chop up discourse into nodes
* give those nodes types
* determine what types the links should be
* determine where the semantics go
Each of those areas constitutes a "weakness of the system" to precicesly
that people find it hard to do. I think there are answers to many of
People find many things hard to do that they eventually learn to
do with ease.
Human adaptability being what it is, we can get used to most
anything. But we
need a standard playing field for that to happen.
2) Software Technology
In an outliner for example, "chopping into nodes" is automatic.
even think about it. So that hurdle can be minimized with the
3) Retractive Cateorizing
Applying types to nodes and to links in a later step makes it
a moderator to have a significant impact on the proceedings. Once
know the system, you can apply types proactively. But that choice
not be forced on you at the outset. (That is the kind of system
under discussion. The requirement to choose types at the outset
a true "weakness" of the system.)
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-IIemail@example.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Nov 06 2001 - 12:31:55 PST