Skip to content

Month: December 2016

Personality Dimensions / Dialogue Alignment

There has been quite a lot of blame put on the notion of ‘fake news’ during the recent Hillary-Trump election but it is quite clear that what divides us is not facts but how we feel about the facts.

We cannot hope to have a dialogue between a right-wing ‘Trump-Supporter’ and a more centrist/left-wing ‘Hillary-Supporter’ if we disregard their feelings and their moral points of view. 

A thought experiment to illustrate this: Show both parties statistics of poverty in America and the expected comment from the right might be that the people need to work harder and government needs to get out of the way to let business grow so they can create more jobs. The comment from the left side of the spectrum could be expected to suggest further government involvement to help the poor get the support ‘they need’ to get back on their feet. 

This simple thought experiment illustrates that it’s not the facts/statistics/data which divides, it is the moral compass of the parties as to how they feel it should be dealt with. 

My proposal is that we develop a personality gamut where people can indicate where they feel they belong and when they then are in dialogue with someone else they can more easily see where they differ and where there are overlaps. There is nothing new in assigning dimensions to personalities, but it may prove to he helpful for people to be actively involved in putting themselves on ‘the spectrum’ and to see where others fit, to more naturally understand how they relate.

It is clear that designing such a model for personality dimensions will need involvement from people who themselves differ in personality traits otherwise we will get into the classic issue of academics designing it but leaving business and military personalities either out of the spectrum or classifying them as inherently being on a ‘bad’ side and the academic being where these other personalities should aspire to move towards. And vice versa. 

Imagine if we could actually get to grips with a few essential personality traits and find a way to illustrate them visually, maybe with a spider graph. 

A full description of someone’s personality would neither be necessary, possible or useful however. The personality traits should probably be assigned along axis based on the question: “To solve a problem, indicate what you feel is important:”

More government involvement  <———>  Less government involvement

More about gut-feeling  <———>  More about intellect and rationalism

Self Reliance  <———>  Community Involvement

Please comment on this list (a VERY rough start!) and suggest models to use. :-)

Leave a Comment

Les Carr Advisory Meeting

Les Carr pointed out another way in which to view the literature review, essentially saying that imagine you are at a party talking about your project and someone asks you if you know of a specific school of thought/academic paper/person etc. which would be a relevance. You need to be able to say yes to this, to be able to have gone from (Les’s famous saying) “I rekcon to I know”, in terms of what the academic world is doing with this problem, rather than flailing about in the dark.

Leave a Comment

Knowledge Elements & Interactions (draft 13 December 2016

This is an overview of the elements of computer augmented thought. It is important to develop a language of what the different elements should be called and what attributes they should have, while keeping in mind that this is an evolutionary process, not a think-once, write-forever issue.

If we were building a new system with no legacy this would be a very different thing, but we need to develop within the current technical and cultural landscape, while trying to move to a more flexible and powerful open environment.

Knowledge Elements

The items listed below can exist alone in a document or as a part of a document with others:

•  Thoughts : Notes, Writings
Our thoughts are simply notes° created by us without primarily referencing something else in the world.

•  Something in the World : Citations
Something in the world which can be addressed and cited somehow. This can be a clipping/cutting or a URL or just the data itself which a system can search for and locate in an origin document/location. Includes text, Pictures, Video, Audio and Graphs.

•  Thoughts about Something in the World : Annotations
Something which exists in the world, such as an article and we add a note to it, we annotate° it with our thoughts. This can be through adding meta-information in a digital environment with explicit ‘tags’ but it can also mean simple highlights, strokes and shapes around text or other information.

•  Thoughts about Something in Our Work : Comments
We make ‘notes’ of our thoughts and information we come across. We add notes – we ‘annotate’ – documents others have created, for our own use while we comment° on documents others have created for their use and attach notes on our own for further information for the reader.

Knowledge Container/Frame : Document

Any self-contained portable framing of any of the components listed above, including composite and single items.

Knowledge View

A presentation of the components which may or may not be stored in the view generator itself.

Knowledge Mobility

A key criteria for a powerfully interactive knowledge environment that comes out of this is the ability for any element to move from any Document and any View to any other, while retaining context and meta-information.

Connections & Concept Maps

All of these represent meaning for the user and all of them can be organised and connected in a myriad of views.

Dimensions & Interactivity

For the notes to be actionable by the system and therefore richly interactive – not just through the users mind – the notes need to share as many dimensions as possible.

1 Comment