Protension on GPlus

_It's about "information" contra "data".re: #monitoring / #notification   When I think of cloud monitoring (Stacky and Ganglia are what I've spidered in the past day.) it seems to me that there's an aspect of this task/chore/need that's very similar to something core to my project. 1    What I imagine is, given some sort of failure, that the system write to the log is not enough. That data and metrics present that data as information is likewise not enough. What would exhaust the need is some sort of alert or flare, a message of some sort. Notification.    Whatever techniques are used for distributing those messages (What gets sent to whom, by what means and in what form?) … that's very, very close to the core of my work. So: I figure there might be something here that is mutually beneficial.But maybe I've misread the situation entirely!1) "my project" = GNodal; Protension; Exhibitum … a "discourse-based decision support system". When I imagined a system for propagating system outages I came up with the name "NoDuff", an infantry radio term/procedure word we used to signify "This is not a test"..NB: In EMail I can use superscript, as well as bold and italics. I can also create links. There's nothing good about the GUI Google has given us here. It's a test … to see how we feel about eating shit from a spoon.

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

Finished. That was very useful.

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

(ISV) What if someone asked me to federate the tsunami of discussion?That's what I've "solved", under the guise of "discourse", using a technique that federates un-structured information.No, human conversation is not data. Yes, discourse can be reduced to data, in order to manipulate purchasing decisions. And yes, that is what drives software development. But no, that has no good effect on human affairs such as public policy.Worst of all? folk feel left out of the loop … and that translates into alienation and frustration and resentment.cc: @SergioMSCosta @RTWworld

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

I've been following  #taxonomy for a lot of years; I know of none that works for issues and news topics / subjects. Is there such a thing?
Imagine trying to order and array a large set of Tweets. That's what I'm thinking about.

Google+: Reshared 2 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

FaceBook's "Like" doesn't indicate logical validity. It signals valence.
Valence-oriented discourse raises the most compelling points, c/w subjective narrative.
Is the point to generate policy that's "correct"? or is it to get things done? (President Obama admitted that, in his first term, he had put too much emphasis on the former and not nearly enough on the latter.)

#ParticipatoryDeliberation #GNodal 

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

Got 5 minutes? What SecState Clinton replies to this Senator's question could be my mandate almost word for word.
#ParticipatoryGovernment #Discourse #PublicScholar

Embedded Link

http://www.protension.com/video/SecStateClinton-CommitteeDiscussion.mp4

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

One of the ways I work against "gaming" discussion in my system is what I'd call "controlling for rhetoric". So 3 commentaries that say "this is stupid" and "this is dumb" and "this is ignorant" would be collapsed into 3 people saying "I don't like this". "Very vocal" would simply evaporate as a factor. One point made 42 different ways is not 42 points … it's 1.

There is a finite number of statements that can be made concerning any issue. However large that number, it's finite. My notion is that controlling for rhetoric allows even statements of the type "There's something about this I really don't like" to be accepted as valid. "I don't trust this speaker" should count … but not as evidence.

When the process of commenting is less "fun", the end product becomes more valuable and more meaningful. Or, at least, such is m theory.

Embedded Link

What is and isn’t a scientific debate
The media need to understand the difference between a genuine scientific debate, and the fact that a very vocal minority can disagree with an overwhelming consensus of evidence

Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

Information / content that "bubbles out the top" is captured. But content that does not isn't rejected … rather, it's re-directed through the process, so that its sub-critical quality doesn't cause it to be discarded. Out-liers are not rejected.

The point is that discriminating "noise" is error-prone, and costly.

If I may: cc: +Joachim Stroh +JP Rangaswami +Harold Jarche 

Embedded Link

Joachim Stroh – Google+ – Let’s increase the temperature and see how ideas can bubble…
Let’s increase the temperature and see how ideas can bubble to the surface faster and with more ease, passing through thresholds and filters. The outcome…

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

see <fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/05/rethinking_intelligence_analys.html>

Rethinking Intelligence Analysis
May 8th, 2006 by Steven Aftergood

A paper by Jeffrey R. Cooper on “Curing Analytical Pathologies” (pdf) [1] that was withheld from the CIA web site but posted on the Federation of American Scientists web site last week[2] has now been downloaded tens of thousands of times, suggesting that there is widespread interest in a critical assessment of intelligence analysis.

One of the analytical techniques cited favorably by Cooper (at pp. 48-49) is called “Analysis of Competing Hypotheses” (ACH).

More information about this structured, methodologically rigorous approach to intelligence analysis was presented in a January 2000 paper (pdf) by Air Force MSgt Robert D. Folker, Jr.[3] that was published by the Joint Military Intelligence College. The author compared it with less formal approaches and found that it offered significant advantages.

“At the heart of this controversy is the question of whether intelligence analysis should be accepted as an art (depending largely on subjective, intuitive judgment) or a science (depending largely on structured, systematic analytic methods).”

“Resolving this question is necessary to provide direction and determine an efficient and effective approach to improve analysis,” wrote MSgt. Folker.

“If qualitative intelligence analysis is an art, then efforts to improve it should focus on measuring the accuracy of one’s intuition, selecting those analysts with the best track record, and educating them to become experts in a given field.”

“If, on the other hand, qualitative intelligence analysis is a science, then analysts should be trained to select the appropriate method for a given problem from a variety of scientific methodologies and exploit it to guide them through the analytical process,” he wrote.

Based on empirical tests, the author found reasons to conclude that there is indeed a “scientific” dimension to intelligence analysis that has been neglected, and that intelligence analysis would benefit from more structured approaches.

See “Intelligence Analysis in Theater Joint Intelligence Centers: An Experiment in Applying Structured Methods” by MSgt Robert D. Folker, Jr. (USAF), Joint Military Intelligence College, January 2000[4]

[1] <fas.org/irp/cia/product/curing.pdf>
[2] <fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/05/curing_analytic_pathologies.html>
[3] <fas.org/irp/eprint/folker.pdf>
[4] <fas.org/irp/eprint/folker.pdf>

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.

Which means reinforcing the dominant paradigm.
Deploying a system that leads to self-awareness by systematic critique … that runs against the grain. That means giving the pirates' navigators plenty of pretext for their cold-shoulder treatment.

Reshared post from +Bernard Tremblay

+JP Rangaswami asks ““Are we going to reach the stage where information has a percentage of fact associated with it?” (A few minutes ago +Dan Gillmor tweeted, "what people want is truth-checking, not fact checking, says Eric Deggans and Tampa Bay Times #poynterethics ". I see that as being at the heart of #DiscourseEthics .)

If we take JP's question and switch out "information" and replace it with"opinion", that where I found myself in August of 1976, after a series of public engagement workshops on social justice issues in general … specifically foreign aid and what was then called GATT. (Treaties dealing with international business and globalization.) I saw that even the clearest, most confident opinions were superficial … skin-deep.

Today the same dynamics apply: So long as bla-yada-blah has real social benefits (#AttentionEconomy) why bother with intellectual rigour?! Bla is cheap. And that makes for high #ROI (in terms of personal gain).

If I succeeded by applying conventional market- think that would contradict my entire life's work.
My work isn't about training consumers; it's about educating and empowering individual citizens … persons.

But software engineers are like the pirates' navigators: they delude themselves into thinking that they run the show. Cold shoulder from them means financial and social death … they're gate-keepers, and they're kinda nasty. (If "ideas are a dime a dozen" that means you'd take my work and owe me … what … $0.008 … so, you're hostile to me. #PassiveAggression )

Embedded Link

JP Rangaswami: Information is food | Video on TED.com
“Are we going to reach the stage where information has a percentage of fact associated with it?” — JP Rangaswami

Google+: View post on Google+

Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.