How to Hold a Very Large Conversation & Actually Get Somewhere?

Is there an App for that?
First some preliminaries:
*
*
- I recognize that some will say there is no need & in a zen way everything is working as it should right now
- History does have the metaphor or Biblical notion regarding the Tower of Babel around as a warning. Lets not go there - purpose means a lot.
- The Internet is it - no need to go further: Facebook, Twitter & FastBlogIt and the like fill that need.
- The RWG will invade that territory & make it look worse than the 2012 electioneering going on right now.  
There are more but I choose to set them aside to get the main description out; perhaps being that any of these could be the subject of a national conversation -OR- perhaps think of something like the redefinition of marriage as maybe the first choice of a topic. 
I originally ran into this idea as a solution to PJ2 meetings & later on imagined a bit more watching so many TV shows when talking heads all talked at once.  I then thought that if each of the participants in a debate on a single topic were threaded through a moderator who would take the responses in order but cut-off those who interrupted that maybe we could hear more of the discussion.  Now, I want to replace the moderator with some kind of AI natural language information extractor & learn whether each contribution is substantially different from another one.  Modern queueing techniques must be designed to:
  1. Put interrupters back in the que but not too far.
  2. Put off topic conversations in different queues.
  3. Operate similarly in text & voice mode as the system develops
  4. Cull out SPAM & RWG material & move to exit.
  5. See if divergent views get heard balanced with convergent (agreements).
  6. Figure out how to reduce redundant material. That might be the main purpose. Recycling old dead ideas rarely solves a problem or inspires wonderfulness.
  7. TBD

Tags

  1. moderator
  2. item 16116
  3. item 16117
  4. reading for the truth
  5. rational inquiry
  6. konx om pax
  7. hashtag

Comments


Mark de LA says
Today's hex/oracle Tai Shu commentary:

P.1578 #10,3 63-1-3-21-16-25-MON (almost 50 years ago)
"This hex is peculiarly apt not only with respect to the tale it tells about itself but also as an essay on the meaning of meaning - mirror of mirrors, wheels within wheels &c.  But penetrating reflection pushed too far can cripple power of decision.  When a matter has been thoroughly pondered, it is best to form a decision & act.  Too much deliberation brings fresh doubts & scruples; power should not ask why for reason seldom is true motivation! With Beethoven's 9th & Ravel's Bolero in the background how more ket can you get!"

Mark de LA says
Some interesting platforms: http://ushahidi.com/products/swiftriver-platform/

Mark de LA says
One way to start is to choose a limited size question & make up the rules as we go.  Need more than two people in the conversation - say 5 or 10.  Perhaps on twitter. Tag each item as one of a dozen or so qualities: great idea, good idea, off topic, rwg, huh?, explain better, etc. Just go to any talking heads show & you can find a limited topic or reflect on the news.


Mark de LA says
In some sense "common purpose" is the same that motivates political discussion - to get your point of view heard & considered.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-08-05 12:43:30 16116
How do you find more than 2 people that share a common purpose and motivate them to spend quality attention on the conversation? 

Note the premis in my question is that any conversation where the participants do not share a common purpose is doomed to degenerate.  All too frequently people who join a conversation already have a agenda in mind ... if their agenda is to promote their point of view they will rarely have anything except RWG with people promoting the opposition.  What is needed is people joining the conversation who are more interested in getting to the solution than in promoting their own agenda ... but apparently those are hard to find.

How is this "initiative" substantially different from "Reading Groups To Read For A Better Truth" which went nowhere.  What is new here?  How was the purpose of that different from this?
Yours was more of a blog thingy as far as I can tell with your rules in place.  Mine is aimed at an app with some NLP (natural language processing) to data mine the essentials from redundancy, RWG & all the rest of the dung heap.  It will take a little hype in the beginning to get interest. Having it work as desired will take some good process control. Most of my s threefoldness suffered your same complaint. I don't care what agenda motivates participation. If you can't phillibuster & out-shout your opponents then your point of view shows up only once & gets teased out to the max.  There's probably only ~ 100 ways you can say gays ought to be able to get married without repeating yourself, lying or getting ugly about it.  I'm hoping to get some NLP to make it faster.  OTOH, in the beginning it might just require a phone room of good analysts (or fair witnesses) to filter the dung heap. We don't know yet.


Seth says
M 2012-08-05 13:16:31 16116
seth 2012-08-05 13:10:35 16116
M 2012-08-05 13:05:07 16116
In some sense "common purpose" is the same that motivates political discussion - to get your point of view heard & considered.
huh?
What comes to mind for you? It is clear to me. I need more feedback than you gave.


If the successful outcome of your agenda is opposite to mine, there is usually no common purpose.  For example if my primary agenda is to make Obama a one term president, and yours is to reelect him, then we do not share a common purpose.  But that kind of agenda does "motivate political discussion to get your point of view heard".  Where people's objectives are at cross purposes AND yet there is a common purpose progress on solving the problem must trump your point of view. 

Mark de LA says
M 2012-08-05 13:27:05 16116
Invisioned in this is a process tree or some multi-dimensional topic map which is the entry point for discussion subjects & nuances of same.  It is assumed that if you enter somewhere you are interested in that subject & have purposes pro/con that subject material. Pro & Con are taken together like the Tao as one subject.



Mark de LA says
seth 2012-08-05 13:08:42 16116
source: from item body
I want to replace the moderator with some kind of AI natural language information extractor & learn whether each contribution is substantially different from another one.
ok, i get it ... you want an app for that.  Huh?

I think the problem of duplication can actually be solved by AI ... so that to take a twitter topic (#hashtag) and weed out the duplicates is doable.  You even could include G+ and perhaps selcctive RSS feeds and you would get a particular topic all with no duplicates.  I didn't include Facebook because it is a walled garden. 

But, even given that as the easy piece of this, how much closer would that get us to a conversation that would actually "get somewhere" ?

Well I started to work on the how given that a discussion might lead to a good definion of the what in 16099. Tease out the principles & create projects which implement the principles, etc.  I am willing to discuss that process there.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-08-05 18:39:38 16116
M 2012-08-05 13:16:31 16116
seth 2012-08-05 13:10:35 16116
M 2012-08-05 13:05:07 16116
In some sense "common purpose" is the same that motivates political discussion - to get your point of view heard & considered.
huh?
What comes to mind for you? It is clear to me. I need more feedback than you gave.


If the successful outcome of your agenda is opposite to mine, there is usually no common purpose.  For example if my primary agenda is to make Obama a one term president, and yours is to reelect him, then we do not share a common purpose.  But that kind of agenda does "motivate political discussion to get your point of view heard".  Where people's objectives are at cross purposes AND yet there is a common purpose progress on solving the problem must trump your point of view. 
From the above: Pro & Con are taken together like the Tao as one subject. I am looking for all points of view on one topic. From there we can tease out some root principles. It doesn't matter much whether I have one pole of a polarized discussion in one pile or one pile with two poles.  The basic rules are non repetition, no RWG, & stay on topic. I asked for a conversation not a single purpose.


Mark de LA says
I still say it's hard to say more than 100 statements about a topic which are free of the RWG even in the midst of polarity.  One way to determine redundancy is to use a concordance & if you have a 90% similarity in the words used then you probably have redundancy.  Limit entries to 300 words might help.


Mark de LA says
It is no more of a problem to start out a discussion with everyone declaring a common purpose & finding out during the discussion that several don't have the same purpose as you do than it is to include all purposes & all points-of-view in the conversation & find out later that in the end there is no common solution, but many or none.


Mark de LA says
If you ever want to explore some wierd-assed conversations about truth in literary form of Aleister Crowley explore the book Konx om Pax. Some of it agrees with Seth some might turn his stomach. There is an online version in PDF form here.  There you can search for the word truth & amuse yourself.  A lot of it has to do with AC's sense of humor.  Exploring truth from various points of view on the Tree of Life yields quite a discussion.  My cursory take is that he is exploring mostly what IS & that maybe what IS is the great illusion; truth occasionally takes a back seat to the discussion but continues for many pages (or most of the book). Read the Wikipedia summary of the book first to understand the structure of the book.
 

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-08-24 08:54:44 16116
M 2012-08-23 13:27:19 16116
If you ever want to explore some wierd-assed conversations about truth in literary form of Aleister Crowley explore the book Konx om Pax. Some of it agrees with Seth some might turn his stomach. There is an online version in PDF form here.  There you can search for the word truth & amuse yourself.  A lot of it has to do with AC's sense of humor.  Exploring truth from various points of view on the Tree of Life yields quite a discussion.  My cursory take is that he is exploring mostly what IS & that maybe what IS is the great illusion; truth occasionally takes a back seat to the discussion but continues for many pages (or most of the book). Read the Wikipedia summary of the book first to understand the structure of the book.
 
what there that i might agree with might turn my stomach ? 
The lack of a verb in your question notwithstanding, I'll leave you to explore it yourself or move along. There are some statements in the book & another of AC's classics that suggest that he doesn't believe in an absolute truth, but from an entirely more interesting argument than your dualistic one although I think he covers that one too.


See Also

  1. Thought Glossary with 117 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  2. Thought Conversation on hash tags? with 111 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  3. Thought I banished evil! with 110 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  4. Thought Wow! Words have meanings to others too! with 106 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  5. Thought about: Kajabi - The Only Knowledge Commerce Platform Today with 78 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  6. Thought Conversation Rooms and Tag Clouds with 45 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  7. Thought Clarifying how hashtag’s are defined with 41 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  8. Thought #HRCAlinsky with 16 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  9. Thought A Comment and Hashtag Dreampt ? with 12 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  10. Thought Reading Groups To Read For A Better Truth with 7 viewings related by tag "reading for the truth".
  11. Thought Example of Stem Cell Research with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  12. Thought Marriage with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  13. Thought The Drone Affair with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  14. Thought Modern Reading Comprehension with 0 viewings related by tag "reading for the truth".