Next message: Rod Welch: "[unrev-II] Eugene's work Organizing the Record"
RE: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal
(Formalit
At 10:48 PM +0200 9/13/01, Gil Regev wrote:
One of the most troubling aspects that Shipman and
Marshall note is the following:
An example of this interference is
McCall's observation that design students have difficulty producing
IBIS-style argumentation even though videotapes of their design
sessions show that their naturally occurring discussions follow this
structure [Fischer et al. 91]. A physiological example of the
interference that making tacit knowledge conscious can cause is
breathing (also from McCall). When a person is asked to breath
normally, their normal breathing will be interrupted. Furthermore,
chances are that introspection about what normal breathing means will
cause the person's breathing to become abnormal -- exaggeratedly
shallow, overly deep, irregular.
...I also have rather anecdotal experiences of the
same kind. If this is gloabally true than we should avoid creating
tools that mimic the way we think. Did you find the same aspect in
your research?
Hmmm
1. <;-> It's not clear to me that we can ever create tools
that are fast and flexible enough to *really* mimic the way we think.
Hard+Software have got a little way to go yet! </;->
2. What we *can* create are tools that talk back to us very fast
(Schön's "reflection in- and on- action") so that we can
see more clearly the inchoate thoughts we're struggling to articulate,
or the world that we're modelling.
3. A key thing is whether we're talking single or multi-user
situation. If single user, there's only one cognitive stream to worry
about. In collaborative settings, there's a lot more going on
cognitively *and* socially, and it's here that early attempts
essentially failed in the use of IBIS and derivatives like McCall's
PHI (Procedural Hierarchy of Issues), from which that quote is taken.
The dynamics are more complex, and people had no training at all - a
key point.
4. There's a "representational literacy" issue here
that must be taken seriously: powerful new ways of representing ideas
(eg graphically; hypertextually) must be learnt. Fluency takes time to
develop.
5. It's here that facilitation a la Jeff Conklin seems to kick
in, coupled with the more disciplined templates and world modelling
associated with Compendium, where appropriate. Someone else starts
things off, lowering the adoption/literacy threshold. Others may then
decide to learn and practise, once they get the bug and experience it
themselves. This is how you combine tools that talk back fast with the
group setting and get a more coherent, indexed result (in contrast to
a whiteboard of scribbles that are deeply meaningful now and to this
group, but will fade in the future and be impenetrable to
others).
6. So, to go back to your question, my mission in life *is* still
to create cognitive tools, knowing that they'll always be too slow
really, but trying to find ways to mirror thought processes and idea
trajectories. Take McCall and Shipman's argument seriously, but not so
seriously that it discourages you from continuing! They built a lot of
cool, influential tools, but with less emphasis on the user
training/craft skill aspects that Dialog Mapping etc focuses on, and
so never saw sustained adoption.
7. Doug's H-LAM/T augmentation framework is as relevant as ever:
it's the synergy between all these elements that's needed, not just an
amazing A, and you don't learn LAM without some T! (H-LAM/T: Humans
using Language, Artifacts and Methodology, in which they are
Trained)
Simon
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
 |
 |
Community email addresses:
Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0
: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 11:47:22 PDT