Protension on GPlus

Why concept mapping is something we left behind

3 Comments to “Why concept mapping is something we left behind”

1. 
   John Jackington
   November 9, 2011 at 9:35 pm

   I think the most common question is "yeah, but…how many people can read this concept map and translate it to a node network, and even then, why do we trust that the translation means anything at all?"

   If complexity is not "complicated" and in fact simple because experts in a field can interpret it, I don't know if that's the same thing as proving it simple. Certainly looking at a system can "seem" simple if you've got the tools and expertise to interpret the structure and overlay it with what you know. But I think fundamentally, this is the kind of elitist statement that works to further the sense of inadequacy among the less versed, and is the kind of shiny object that geeks will gravitate to as a proof that there is a theory of everything. Then again all of TED is becoming this way to me.

   Even Eric Barlow admits he knows very little about the subject here, and has made key assumptions in his network visualization, even in terms of assigning assumed factors to types of nodes… that he admits he knows nothing about.

   I commend the spirit of the thing he's talking about, and in general I think we can benefit from being less uncomfortable with "apparent" or visual complexity, but I think the diagram above remains both complex and complicated, is nothing akin to simple, and to assume it can be reenvisioned as a network is a problem. Because it assumes, as just one example, that all the lines are equivalent relationships. To know that the lines are in fact even real relationships at all would be impossible without knowing more about agenda, context, and subject matter.

   Sometimes people draw a line between one thing and another, because it seems to them like there should be a line there, not because there is a reason for a line, or worse. In fact many diagrams and maps work this way. Roads you know aren't finished yet lack a symbol in a legend for 'unfinished road' and to create one would be a whole process of revision so the line remains equivalent to all other lines representing finished roads. To know the subject or the locality would be to know or expect this kind of detail. Abstracting an informational structure is certainly useful but I wouldn't like to see it become a religion. With the amount of "complexity" articles and videos popping up lately, this is my main fear.

   Reply
2. 
   Protension
   November 9, 2011 at 10:06 pm

   "because it seems to them like there should be a line there, not because there is a reason for a line" That's actually key to my work. We tend to speed past the "it seems to them that there should be a line there" … hence "operant subjectivity". If we validate the person, we do so believing that there's something underpining even their whimsy. If we ignore their apparently aberrant then we may end up ignoring the set of factors that are moving them, in-forming their thinking. Of course this doesn't matter in an authoritarian system, but if we're looking for substantial citizen engagement then that's the raw material … grist for the mill.

   "to assume it can be reenvisioned as a network is a problem." I think it's more a suggestion than merely an assumption. As for it being a problem … yes, and a damned tasty one!

   Reply
3. 
   Bernard ben Tremblay
   November 9, 2011 at 10:11 pm

   My take was simpler … what I wrote as header in my Share of this:
   I relate this to #AttentionEconomy and to A-list punditry: there's a market for it, and there's a commercial niche, but seems to me the aim of the game could be, "Dazzle them with bullshit!"

   p.s. a weird Page glitch? I see "3 comments", but including mine only 2.

   Reply