Fw: now online discourse

["Peg Griffin" <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>]

OOPS, sent to one instead of all.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peg Griffin" <Peg.Griffin@worldnet.att.net>
To: <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: now online discourse


> Hi, Mike and Bill and all,
> As we deal with the golden arrow of time, how what develops (maybe an
> Xjacking, maybe epigentic byways, maybe ... ), here's some little data
point
> stuff:
>
> On November 10,  the subject line became Subject: Re: education,
technology
> & chat (The Mathematics of it).
> I did it.  I was trying to indicate that among the several ways that the
> discussion might develop, I was making a step toward "The Mathematics of
it"
> following the contribution just before it.
> On November 11, I modified the subject another way: "Re: education,
> technology & chat (goofballing and hawthornes)" and then yet another way:
> "Re: education, technology & chat (more than The Mathematics of it)"
> On November 12 someone else initiated a subject modification: "Re:
> education, technology & chat (Language)"
> And on November 13, yet someone else did yet another one: "Re: education,
> technology & chat (recording equipment)" and I did one on another thread:
> "Re: math for reproduction and domination (teacher learning)"
>
> Over the same time period, for things I thought too off base for the group
> discussion, I used some private communication with people also on the
list.
> I assume others did as well.
>
> The medium affordances regarding the future of topics includes monkeying
> with the subject line and author rather than just list replies.
>
> Maybe looking at how/if/ why/why not these things should could will won't
be
> used would be as helpful as thinking of added structures?
>
> Peg
> Perapatetic Sociolinguist
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: now online discourse
>
>
> > Thanks Bill-- Apropos of phil's analysis I did not read far enough
> > down the note.
> >
> > What changes in xmca culture might mitigate the obvious problems
> > without being likely to cause new problems. For example, I, too,
> > thought the issue of cultural historical analysis
> > important for my reasons, probably different that Phil's or Michael's,
> > but personally pressing, but could think of no way to overlap my
> > interests and other competing one's to do any follow up.
> >
> > Is there any change at all that creating something like a volunteer
> > committee to shepard along different discussions acknoweldged as
> > important might work? Anyone who really cares to see a particular
> > thread pursued could work on that thread which might or might not
> > propsper, but at least would not die a sudden death for no sponsor
> > willing to put in, say, a week or so, seeing if it gathered attention,
> > and different people could
> > simultaneously participate and lurk as their proclivities led them to.
> >
> > Having the reminder of Eva's work appear and reappear, even as we miss
> > her online presence, is one gift of the discourse.
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:15:34 -0500, Bill Barowy <xmcageek@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > > On Tue Nov 16 2004 Mike Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bill-- I went to the XMCA web page and looked for the note from Phil
on
> Nov
> > > >12 and could not find anything that contextualized this note for me.
> > >
> > > Here it is:
> > >
> > > On Friday 12 November 2004 9:08 am, Phil Chappell wrote:
> > > >bb
> > > >I'm about to make this a major project, especially as I'm about to
hit
> > > > Sydney for a month. I'll report back on the audio side of this issue
> when I
> > > > can. There's more to classroom discourse than IRF, and we need to
work
> out
> > > > ways of getting at it.
> > > [...]
> > > > Thanks again for opening up your work for this multidimensional
> discussion,
> > > > ensuing battles and all!
> > >
> > > Discourse in this medium is pretty slippery to catch hold of, and for
> one,
> > > subject headers offer very little by way of analysis.  I think Eva
> Ekeblad
> > > showed this well with her work, especially when we were trying to
> understand
> > > this sense of how conversations appear and dissipate.  What makes up a
> > > "conversation" on xmca -- beyond being a bounded-in-time
> topically-related
> > > set of exchanges --  is not straightforward to grasp.  What Eva
Ekeblad
> did
> > > persistently and painfully was to map some xmca exchanges to show
their
> > > shared and related significations.  When one does that, there is a
> visual
> > > representation with which one is able to (loosely) declare the
> boundaries of
> > > a "conversation".  The links in the map between messages are the
shared
> > > significations -- the topical relations between messages.
> > >
> > > XMCA has a close analogy -- the quasi-free market economy, and one of
> the
> > > things I worked on a long time ago was characterizing the bursts of
XMCA
> > > exchanges, which follow very similar patterns to those studied in
> economics
> > > and elsewhere.  It actually should not be surprising that they do.  On
> the
> > > one hand a low level of regulation here allows for rapid swings away
> from
> > > topics, yet on the other, it also allows for rapid follow-up.  So it's
> not a
> > > critcism of XMCA, but statement that comes from some analysis.  It's a
> > > double-edged sword.
> > >
> > > We've all seen how rich conversations just seem to dissipate.  Why?
One
> thing
> > > i did with a complex systems analysis/simulation was make the
plausible
> claim
> > > that finite and renewable resource -- time available -- was involved
as
> a
> > > contributing element.  A small amount of time available for XMCA
> > > participation is renewed repetitively -- for some daily -- 
contributing
> to
> > > the display of the power law behavior  one sees with self-organized
> > > criticality in other complex systems.  Self-organized criticality --
> > > according to Per Bak -- relies upon the "renewal" or regular influx of
a
> > > resource such as energy.  Here it is time (although when you push this
> > > physicist he'll argue the resource could be more fundamentally thought
> of as
> > > energy).   Eva found things like Zipf law patterns (one type of power
> law)
> > > in the rank ordering of how often people post, and i found dynamic
power
> law
> > > patterns in the amount of exchanges over time.  These are the
> quantitative
> > > signatures of self-organized criticality. My analysis was fun to do,
> brought
> > > up some mathematics and analytical tools i had not used since doing
> physics,
> > > but it lacked connection to qualitative analysis.  For one, I was
> counting
> > > messages when, in retrospect, I needed to be counting significations.
> Doing
> > > so is a huge task and that's why my study has gone belly up.
> > >
> > > That's where Durkheim comes in.  His work on suicide was seminal in
> making
> > > connections between quantitative studies such as suicide rates and
> societal
> > > conditions. Anomie ( a - nomos, without law) here on XMCA is not the
> same as
> > > the chaos attributed in other areas of study but instead provides a
> > > qualitative causal relation to the sudden appearance and dissipation
of
> > > conversations.  It's another essential element and why we see swings
in
> > > topics here, more so than on moderated lists.
> > >
> > > When I wrote "In this last exchange block, unable to
> > > adapt to the shifting field, the call for a critical cultural
historical
> > > analysis, [Thursday 11 November 2004, 10:22 am and 11:24 am,
> Wolff-Michael
> > > Roth] the conversation just went belly up.  And it could not have
> > > adjusted.  Cultural historical analysis is a data-laden inquiry. " I
was
> > > thinking, in part, of the time avaliable for participation on xmca.
Low
> > > regulation here on xmca allowed the introduction of a new
> significations,
> > > e.g. cultural historical analysis and inequality.  Low regulation is
> both a
> > > plus and a minus.  It's why we suddenly have great spontaneous
> conversations
> > > and why also they suddenly go away.
> > >
> > > In this case, at the personal unit of analysis,  since I am one of the
> > > material means through which the "cooking notes" conversation was
being
> > > enacted, I did not have time for cultural historical analysis (which I
> do
> > > think is important, but not in the same way as Michael Roth) and i
> really
> > > wanted to focus on cooking the notes.  The new significations
introduced
> by
> > > Michael (e.g. cultural historical analysis and inequality) were then
> taken up
> > > and  shared among other messages with other participants, however, and
> all i
> > > had time left for was reading.  Back to the "conversation" unit of
> analysis,
> > > the "cooking notes" set of exchanges went belly up because it's
> > > significations were no longer shared -- it was x-jacked.  If a link
map
> were
> > > done of that period I think we would see the burst of new cluster of
> > > links/significations representing new conversations, only connecting
to
> the
> > > "cooking notes" set of exchanges at the respective beginnings and
> endings.
> > >
> > > Link to one of Eva's paper follows:
> > >
> > > http://hyperion.math.upatras.gr/commorg/ekeblad/multdyn.html
> > >
> > > Gotta finish -- I'm now in time-debt.
> > >
> > > --------
> > > bb
> > >
> > >
> >
>