Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Document for Review
I knew there was something wrong with the name, but it took nearly half
an hour to realize that the Pope's name is John Paul. This is one of
those socially embarrassing lapses of mind for many of those lucky
enough not to die young. (01)
It was also the sort of thing that made writing exams a disagreeable
experience because they are designed for testing young people for
fairly quick accuracy. (02)
At any rate, I got by last Fall with an 83 for Java and a 90 for Unix,
which probably are accurate assessments as grading goes, but from the
point of view of efficiency they are low marks considering the time I
spent on these subjects. (03)
I had a couple of reasons for taking those courses. One was to
experience what it would be like for an older person to go through them.
I was planning to write about that, but it is just plain impossible to
be objective about one's own mental capacity. (04)
With life expectancies lengthening, the slowing of mental functioning
would be an interesting area for potential digital augmentation. Maybe
headway could be made by some sort of an autogoogling process applied to
a person's own collected digital notes. (05)
H. (06)
On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 06:42, Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> John.
>
> The stuff you collected about memetics is scary. I didn't realize that
> the advertising/marketing industry had already gone this far.
>
> On a more everyday level, I watched a segment about the life of the
> current Pope John, a man of truly great, world-scale accomplishments.
> And, yet, as I was watching, I kept on wondering how a person of such
> magnificence could hold beliefs that one couldn't get into my own mind
> with a sledgehammer. It strongly reinforced a sense that we share this
> Earth with peoples whose minds are structured so differently in their
> (nearly ?) hardwired aspects. And, yet, we are by and large able to live
> by much common sentiment (on foundations laid during early childhood)
> and much common logic (that, following Piaget, begins taking shape
> during our teens) and, hence, with much mutual understanding.
>
> In the meantime, the weak shall inherit memetics.
>
> Back to work.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 02:23, John J. Deneen wrote:
> > Re:
> >
> > >I am also
> > >> inclined to believe that commercial interests are (will be) against such
> > >> granularity in pages carrying advertising.
> > >>
> > >> But, then again, your immediate concern is not with web-wide level of
> > >> co-operative work. However, it might be well, to keep such a future
> > >> extension in mind.
> > >
> >
> > Go figure: Ever been a victum of "contagious" products and ideas?
> >
> > It works like this. First, they find out how the mind of their target
> > consumer works by getting at his or her ideas and subconscious thoughts.
> > .... (more info below)
> >
> > - John
> >
> > * Mind virus could give us shopping bug
> >
> > Tracy McVeigh
> > Observer
> >
> > Sunday March 26, 2000
> >
> > "It may prove to be the most successful new selling technique
> > the capitalist world has ever known. The 'mind virus' is the
> > latest form of consumer brainwashing.
> >
> > A mix of psychology and Internet technology, the aim is to
> > create social epidemics by feeding the right information, or
> > virus, into someone's mind. Once implanted, it can make the most
> > useless of gadgets seem essential, the most unnecessary
> > accessory irresistible. It is a money-spinning dream.
> >
> > That is the claim of psychologist Paul Marsden, who believes he
> > can help businesses to trigger shopping crazes for their products."
> > <http://www.brandgenetics.com/archive/Guardian%20Unlimited%20%20Archive%20Search.htm>
> >
> > *
> >
> > Mental epidemics
> >
> > "WANT to change the world? Find out how in Malcolm Gladwell's
> > The Tipping Point. He has "the rules" for engineering social
> > epidemics. You'll see how to turn an idea, product or practice
> > into a virulent mind virus that will sweep through society to
> > become the latest craze, fad or fashion."
> > <http://www.brandgenetics.com/archive/New%20Scientist%20Mental%20epidemics.htm>
> >
> > * Genetically Modified Food and Memetically Modified Ideas
> >
> > ... "In a memetic project somewhat similar to the Human Genome
> > Project, evolutionary psychologists have begun mapping the
> > cognitive hardwired structure of our minds, and the development
> > of associative networks have allowed researchers to map the
> > acquired or softwired structure of those minds.
> >
> > What is interesting about all this is that these advances now
> > allow for the possibility of engineering of ideas so completely
> > adapted to the structure of our minds that when exposed to them,
> > we automatically adopt them, sometimes in spite of ourselves.
> > Memeticists are now taking their first tentative steps in using
> > this knowledge to engineer and modify cultural information; to
> > design fashions, fads, ideas, advertising and brands that fit
> > our minds, like a jigsaw piece in a puzzle. The GM mind virus
> > may have been a product of blind chance that just happened to
> > fit our minds, but the possibility is now with us of consciously
> > and deliberately modifying the structure of information to
> > render it more palatable, and indeed infectious." ...
> >
> > ... "Of course, infecting others with our ideas so that they do
> > what we want is a time-honoured human preoccupation. Compliance
> > professionals, from door to door salespersons to politicians to
> > religious zealots have long used the techniques of social
> > influence to go about their business. But the difference, and it
> > is a big difference, is that memetic engineers are developing a
> > theoretically informed comprehensive understanding of how this
> > process works that turns manipulation into a science." ...
> > <http://www.viralculture.com/gmmm.htm>
> >
> >
> > * Brand Positioning: Meme’s the Word
> >
> > "Using a simple but powerful technique of memetic analysis, it
> > is shown how marketers can unpack how brands are actually
> > positioned in the minds of consumers in terms of their component
> > memes, that is, their ‘genes of meaning’. A demonstration of the
> > validity and reliability of memetic analysis is given through an
> > investigation of how the notion of ‘healthy-living’ is
> > positioned in the minds of consumers. The practical utility of
> > memetic analysis in brand positioning is discussed, and the
> > possibility is raised of using the analytical tool to increase
> > profitability by ‘memetically modifying’ brands with true,
> > unique and compelling consumer values."
> > <http://www.brandgenetics.com/archive/Brand%20Positioning%20-%20Memes%20the%20Word.htm>
> >
> > * Help advertising evolve: Clone consumer thought patterns
> >
> > Harnessing the power of evolution
> >
> > "Of all processes in the universe, evolution is perhaps the most
> > awe-inspiring. What’s more, it is beautifully simple: Descent
> > (continuity) with modification (change) powered by a simple
> > mechanism of natural selection. Evolution and its effects are
> > all around us today; emerging, designing, producing species
> > adapted to their environment, antibodies adapted to infections,
> > and knowledge adapted to the world. Indeed, the very idea of
> > evolution is itself a product of evolution, and has been
> > described by philosopher Daniel Dennett as simply the best idea
> > anyone has ever had. We have found a way of harnessing this
> > process to help design advertising campaigns and brands that are
> > highly adapted to their target markets."
> > <http://www.viralculture.com/admap99.html>
> >
> >
> > Gary Richmond wrote:
> >
> > > Eric and Henry,
> > >
> > > Eric you wrote in response to Henry's comments on your document for
> > > review:
> > >
> > >>Granularity is in there. But I *really* liked your comment about
> > >>advertisers' possible objections!
> > >>
> > > I would also like to reinforce the concluding comment of Henry's,
> > > pointing exactly to what
> > > I would like to comment on after I return to NYC on Monday. Henry wrote:
> > >
> > >>But, then again, your immediate concern is not with web-wide level of
> > >>co-operative work. However, it might be well, to keep such a future
> > >>extension in mind.
> > >>
> > > These kinds of co-operative/collaborative concerns are what Aldo de
> > > Moor and I have maintained
> > > would distinguish a Pragmatic Web from a (mere?) Semantic Web. He and
> > > I discussed this informally at ICCS
> > > 2001 in Palo Alto and, with Mary Keeler, wrote a paper, "Towards a
> > > Pragmatice Web," for ICCS 2002..
> > >
> > > http://infolab.kub.nl/people/ademoor/papers/iccs02.pdf
> > >
> > > For a brief treatment of the theme of a Pragmatic Web, see this
> > > article (to which Aldo recently directed
> > > me) by Munidar P. Singh, Editor in Chief of IEEE Internet Computing.
> > >
> > >http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers/columns/bi-6-3-02.pdf
> > >
> > > More when I return.
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > PS Eric, thank you for your kind words regarding my loss. Tomorrow
> > > begins a long, sad car trip
> > > to Greenville, SC.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Eric.
> > >>>
> > >>>Glad you took it well. I was a bit in a blue mood when I wrote my
> > >>>response. So much to be done, so little time left for doing it.
> > >>>
> > >>>At any rate, a major item in your original post (and in your posts way
> > >>>back during the days of the colloquium) is granularity. Granularity in
> > >>>all web pages extant is very much desired. I believe that
> > >>>paragraph-level granularity is a good, practical goal. I am also
> > >>>inclined to believe that commercial interests are (will be) against such
> > >>>granularity in pages carrying advertising.
> > >>>
> > >>>But, then again, your immediate concern is not with web-wide level of
> > >>>co-operative work. However, it might be well, to keep such a future
> > >>>extension in mind.
> > >>>
> > >>>Henry
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 16:19, Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hey, Henry.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Thanks for the post. I'm trying to get at basic infrastructure questions,
> > >>>>though, rather than large design concerns. I got caught up in the vision
> > >>>>myself, and list moved towards big-picture things.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>But mostly I'm trying to enumerate the low-level infrastructure issues
> > >>>>that emerge when the rubber hits the road, and someone tries to code
> > >>>>something.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Actually, one of the things I should have put on that list is time
> > >>>>synchronization. When updates are happening simultaneously at remote
> > >>>>locations, and the results are shared, "which happened first" becomes important.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>(Note to Self: Examine the bread crumbs in the design document for other
> > >>>>low level issues.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Henry K van Eyken wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Eric.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>You are talking here about stuff dear to my heart, but it is so complex
> > >>>>>I cannot just immediately respond in a satisfactory way - especially
> > >>>>>because I am overloaded and my mind is getting slower while my body is
> > >>>>>screaming to get me away from my desk.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>I would want to tick off the points you raise in a media/educational
> > >>>>>setting, which is something I would want Fleabyte to evolve into, but
> > >>>>>which I am not likely to ever see.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Media, typically are close to one-way instruments, from emitter to
> > >>>>>receiver. Oh yes, readers may write letters to editors, but it is the
> > >>>>>editors who select what and how much of each letter received is printed.
> > >>>>>In other words, the readers are under editorial control.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Schools to a little better. Students may ask questions, but even those
> > >>>>>questions may be ignored or rephrased.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Eventually I shall have to produce an article outlining how Fleabyte
> > >>>>>might move from being a webzine toward a collaborative tool. One
> > >>>>>question is: who are doing the collaborating? Another: what is the depth
> > >>>>>of that collaboration, the commitment involved. These questions ought be
> > >>>>>posed in a well-defined context of which I perceive various stages.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Stage one is getting, evaluating, pruning information. We now have
> > >>>>>search engines; we lack evaluation engines. And we haven't got
> > >>>>>well-defined means of making individuals with their limited mental
> > >>>>>capacity feel comfortable with an extensive body of machine-held
> > >>>>>information. To make matters more complex, that body is dynamic with
> > >>>>>information continually added, removed, altered in a way that any person
> > >>>>>who exhibits this kind of a continually changing mind is considered
> > >>>>>fickle, unreliable, undependable, and, hence, even unemployable!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Stage one would involve a moving feast of involved expertise, knowledge
> > >>>>>workers with a sense of the future and a sense of how directions in
> > >>>>>their field are potentially being deflected by projected developments
> > >>>>>elsewhere. (Think of Doug's "frontier outpost" people as discussed
> > >>>>>during the colloquium!)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>A next stage would involve "spreading the word" to a critical mass of
> > >>>>>decision-makers, which "at bottom" is the electorate, but which need
> > >>>>>depend on either experts trusted by their elected representatives or
> > >>>>>depend on digitally held expertise - a benign auto pilot.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Following that comes planning for action, the problem of alternatives,
> > >>>>>levels of certainty, etc., all of which would lead into appropriate
> > >>>>>action.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>I guess I have gone a little beyond the kind of cooperation people
> > >>>>>normally think of when contemplating tools for collaboration. Really, we
> > >>>>>are here in the domain of dynamic, coevolutionary collaboration. The
> > >>>>>kind of stuff Doug is talking about.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Too bad he has not been getting the needed support.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Too bad, Fleabyte is likely to whither on the vine.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>But, by all means, let's keep on dreaming and scheming.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Henry
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>The production of the
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:10, Eric Armstrong wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>I've just published a document at my web site, entitled
> > >>>>>>Technical Impediments to Persistent Collaboration Tools.
> > >>>>>>http://www.treelight.com/software/collaboration/Technical_Impediments.html
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>I would appreciate feedback from you guys.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>The document is an attempt to identify the set of necessary
> > >>>>>>infrastructure features that, by their absence, make it
> > >>>>>>difficult or impossible to develop usable collaboration tools.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Essentially, it's an "infrastructure wish list", and you folks are
> > >>>>>>admirably positioned to tell me what's missing from the list.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> (07)