 | Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Which network is most successful in history? (especially in the last two decades) May I start with SARS? http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/sars/default.htm
Or you may like to share your case. 1. What are the critical success factors in such a case/network? 2. What lessons can we learn from the case? 3. Can we transfer such learning to education? Or you organisation? 4. How could connectivism be applied in this case? 5. Add any questions that you would like to address....
If you prefer to discuss elsewhere, please consider your blog, or mine or wiki for further discussion. Here is my blog address:
|
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi John Mark, You haven't answered your own questions with respect to SARS  Anyway I nominate evolution as the most successful network on earth. 1. This network rapidly self assembled almost immediately conditions on earth stabilised. This network is so stable that it has existed continually for over 3.8 billion years. What is even more amazing is that this is a dynamic system that needs very precise conditions to exist. Unlike a network of carbon atoms in say diamonds which can withstand a huge range of conditions and never change in billions of years. 2. Deep time is so much huger than we can ever imagine. You can count to a thousand in about 15 minutes, to count to a million will take you about 11 days and to count to a billion would take you about 31 years. 3. Natural selection due to limited access to resources acting on the variation in inherited characteristics should be avoided in any kind of social context. The consequences are morally unacceptable. 4. Living entities (nodes) are totally different to all other entities because they are part of the evolutionary network that has accumulated 4 billion years of knowledge. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Tim, Thanks for sharing your interesting case and fabulous response. Evolution is amazing. I agree. Reasons why I posted the SARS case and why I didn't answer my questions : 1. When faced with problems, people will start to check if the problem is urgent, important or relevant to them first. Under that premises, I am trying to initiate a case so our fellow participants could be drawn into. SARS was a health disaster and was one of the biggest threats to global health in the last decade. It requires both local and global control and solutions. And it requires collective wisdom to solve the problem. You may have an interesting case to share. So I don't think we need to limit it to SARS. And you have nominated an excellent case - the evolution. 2. I am not a health expert. And my answers will surely not be a complete one. 3. I am trying to see how one could draw the "expertise" of experts and non-experts to see and analyse it at different angles, levels. I hope this will shed some new lights on how we could solve actual complex problems or issues using a network learning approach. And I think others will like to see it as well - Connectivism in action I will post my answers later.... And surely will do so on my blog . |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Tim I understand from your post that you are referring to “species” evolution as the most successful network on earth. I completely agree. I add species because otherwise evolution or adaptation can be a propriety intrinsic to networks. So the measurement of the success is recognizing the very characteristics of a network. And what about economic concepts ? Or any kind of concepts ? Helena Ramos |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Sui The case that Tim has put forward – species evolution- is unbeatable taking into account numbers of entities, scope and longevity. Just for the sake of argument I put into the discussion floor the FLASH Mobs . See for instance http://www.boingboing.net/2004/03/13/flashmobs-with-a-pur.html . On the other side of the measurements scale there are instantaneous, objectives are very palpable, they are a learning network because new participants are called to experiment the phenomena. Ever wonder what will happen if in a TV program at night when are taking dinner (family is gathered,) transmitting a political statement we were asked to switch off the lights on disagreements or approval of a proposed decision ? We just go to the windows and check the results . No depencies A Wink network ! This is happened before but I am having trouble finding a link to this event . Helena Ramos |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Wow, that's an interesting case too! Helena and Tim, Perhaps it may be more interesting to explore the basics and applications of networks from a historical perspective and see what's happening around the world.... Agree? How about a reflection on what makes a successful network? May I suggest to list them out? From your and other nominated networks...And we can debate about them at a later stage??.. Elements/ Criteria for (most) successful networks: Please include your nominated network and name as follows for easy reference. Tim and Helina please add/amend the elements/criteria where necessary. Evolution (Tim) - longevity - entities - scope - dynamic system - FLASH MOB (Helena) - adaptive - palpable objective - instantaneous - invitation to new participants to join SARS (John) - significant impact on human life, health, and ecology - collective wisdom - new and advanced technology - complex - fuzzy - unknown/unpredictable results - collaboration - transformation - deep learning Everyone is welcome to join here!!! - - - |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
I expect the most complex and everlasting network would have to be the Universe of which our Solar System is a part. Criteria for this network would include (to name a few): Distance Light Atmosphere Size Orbit Position Balance Rotation Unique Awesome |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Wow, That's pretty exciting. A macro view. Awesome! How about our brian? Dynamic Thinking Sensing Reasoning Emotions Or the internet? complicated networks speed information ... |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Flashmobs as a fad is really overstated. Flashmobs are cited by Clay Shirky in the oppressive country of Belarus to show how they defy dictators and help young people organize against tyranny. The problem is the flashmobbers are arrested. Sometimes demonstratively for long periods. The tends to deter the next round of them. They are not endlessly available, just because there's an Internet, and just because Clay Shirky thinks it's neat. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Sui, Criteria for the SETI is finding a signal from all that electromagnectic noise . They strugle, as we students are nowadays, to find a learning selector/switch/filter . Helena Ramos |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Helena, Interesting. So the not so successful network..relates to poor Response time Connections Pattern recognition Selector/switch/filter |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
How would you explain the success, then, of some of the most content/action-rich networks in human experience then which can be slow, closed, and require very, very complex pattern recognition and huge amounts of selectivity? I mean in the common parlance, like "old boys' network". You could say that by all your criteria, and Stephen's socialist criteria, such old boys' networks affecting power and access in institutions, in entire societies, aren't effective, or even "breaking down". But...they aren't. They still control a great deal, and by being "inefficient" according to your theory. Stephen might solve this philosophical dilemma by calling old boys' networks in fact "groups" that are "closed" and where the people have a shared purpose. Except, people introduced around through relations and society connections may not have anything in common but...the connection. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
As promised, here is my suggested answers on SARS: 1. Critical success factors - global media coverage (TV news, newspapers, radio) - government intervention, control and support - local and global education - networks - social, medical (medical research teams and networks), news, community, schools, industry & business - information and communication technology (mobile, internet technology, Web tools etc.) - disease control & effective infection control procedures - World Health Organisation's (WHO) involvement - Charity support - People's involvement 2. Lessons learnt - Innovations/advancement and development of the following required: - quick response - advance planning (vision, mission) - Network learning - Collective wisdom - local and global - Prevention & control, risk management - Education (on health and disease control), and promotion - Collaboration (local and global governments, networks) - Policies, systems, procedures - News and media, - Medical research, government and business investment - Communication technologies (internet access, support) 3. Transfer of learning of SARS to education - a change in attitude towards education, training and learning (accomodate informal learning more extensively, promote the concept of knowledge people and nation) - a blend of formal and informal learning - long term advance planning (vision, mission) - education (addresses equity issues, informal learning, lifelong, lifebased) (local and international) - networks and network learning - collective wisdom - research and development - government, business and community support - investment - collaboration (local, international) - Policies, system and procedures - Benchmarking, best practice - Adaptive, responsive education system - Recognition and qualification (informal learning incorporation) - Promotion of education and learning (such as this course) - Communication technologies (internet access, Web tools, support) - Respect on humanity - human learning, harmony, - Understand our ecology - Focus on the learners - Learning is everyone's business ........ 4. Connectivism could be applied in SARS case: - Individuals form networks - Different networks (medical, social, academic, personal) - Network learning locally and globally - Collective wisdom and Voice of the Crowds - Education at all levels, locally and globally - Prevention based - Adaptive, flexible and responsive system - (networks, policies, procedures) - Learning for everyone (lifebased, lifelong) - Respect on humanity and our ecology - And your answers here...... ...... You are welcome to share your ideas on this. |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
I like the SARS analogy. Does that mean in connectivism, nodes of knowledge are discovered virally? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Jon, Interesting idea. Thanks for your good question. My answer is "not sure". I didn't intend to use knowledge to equate to virus. But it may be of interest to compare the distribution of knowledge in networks with the spread of virus in human. In SARS case, I believe that certain knowledge is distributed in the network. May I borrow George's concept on knowledge under connectivism? The development of specific skills and mindsets of medical practitioners, researchers, educators, and patients, government officials (and evern everyone) becomes as critical as, or even more so, than the possession of existing knowledge. The ability to continue to learn and develop new knowledge replaces the importance of existing knowledge, or, what is known today is less important than the capacity to continue to know more....adapted from George, 2008. (see http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm) And so the emphasis is on the distribution of knowledge rather than the traditional acquisition of knowledge of individuals. I hope we could see SARS as a learning lesson for us, rather than just a disaster or epidemic. George's paper cited above stimulated me to ask:
You are welcome to visit my blog for further details and discussion: http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
| I personally like the concept of knowledge within a network acting like a virus. The best example at this time is the hoax of Steven Jobs and his heart attack, it quickly spread throughout many networks and a lot of damage control was needed for CNN and Apple. Very similar to how the human body and viruses interact with each other. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Thanks Tom, I like your idea on this. I found it fascinating... I am thinking about the attitudes (likes/dislikes), and affective domains (emotions such as feelings of love, hatred, joy, fear etc.) that are distributed or communicated (through tones, words, images and emo-icons) in networks. Another aspects of virus is that it may change its form and severity when transmitted or contracted, which seems to exhibit some similarities to the changes in knowledge, emotions and feelings amongst people in a social network.... Would a comparison study on the spread of virus and distribution of knowledge and emotions help us in understanding more about network learning? Has there been any study on this? Would you like to discuss this further in the general forum? Any suggestions? My blog: http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
| The idea of ideas spreading through a population is covered rather well by the theory of memes, introduced by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Pat, Many thanks on this. Please find following links for details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/replication/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/
Cheers. |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
http://declanbutler.info/blog/wp-content/google.jpg map of SARS spread around the world and links to KML files that will let you watch this 'viral network' grow. I like the reference to FlashMobs because it has been replicated in a number of formats in different places, and in different places simultaneously! It is tapping into something profound I think, about human connectivity and shared intent. As for the most successful, if you mean the least number having the most impact and most effective network.. Mary Kaye Cosmetics has to rank in there somewhere  maybe followed by Scientology, then Evangelical Christians.Mormons keep good records but I don't know how well networked they are. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
The SARS example is a great choice. A lot was learned and we all know we are overdue for a flu pandemic on the scale of the Spanish Flu virus. It was certainly quickly learned that Canada was not nearly connected enough. Communication networks hadn't been a high priority in public health spending. I doubt at the time that most medical computers were even connected to the web out of fear that it would distract employees from efficiently performing their jobs and also to protect client confidentiality from hackers. Officially Toronto had SARS and the northern U.S. did not but I talked to a nurse working in an American border city who said she was caring for SARS patients. There's a lot of pressure to put the economy above public health issues which puts a lot of pressure on key players to remain silent and not network. In Canada's case, each public health unit operated independently and did not have a pre-established computer network. It was also realized that a more efficient method of contacting those exposed to the viruses and checking that they were following quarantine was required. Also Canada relied on the American Center of Disease Control and only after SARS realized that it should built its own Center of Disease Control. I'm going to do some web surfing to see if anyone compiled a list but there was a lot learned and a lot of steps taken to plug holes in the network. There was a massive mailing to organizations (we received 6 copies - one for each church) asking about the number of people on staff and whether in an emergency any of those people could be freed up and what steps we were planning to take in the event of a pandemic. All that information was forwarded to local public health units but I have no idea whether or not it was used for anything. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Thanks Ruth on your views. It would be great to learn the views and experience of others in the event of an epidemic or pandemic. Like to hear more from those of other countries - Europe, US, Africa, Russia, Australia etc. You are invited.... |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
John, I hesitate to get into this one, much though I really like the questions you are asking. And I am a geat fan of the SARS example, partly because I know a few people who work in WHO, and the success of the SARS network was a huge surprise for them, and should have been a huge lesson, although I dont know if the day to day working of WHO has changed at all.  The reason I hesitate is that I think the most spectacular example of a network is the one behind 9/11. It got under everyone's radar screens, even though it was quite visible in bits and pieces - no one saw it as a network. That might have been just because it was so unexpected, diabolical, etc... Or it might have been because we were looking in the wrong paradigm box, i.e. what Knorr-Cetina analyses as a Weberian paradigm, instead of a complex-adaptive one, or a network of a special kind one, which she calls "global micro-structures". She applies the same analysis to financial markets, with equal insight. So, back to your excellent questions: I would add another: How do we go about looking for the best/ most spectacular/ most useful etc networks - where do we stand, on the shoulders of which paradigm/s (to mash a metaphor)? Or: how would we recognise a really Good /Bad network at 100 paces in the dark? And a derivative: Once we do 'see' a powerful network, what do we do about it? Say, "Wow, that's amazing" and go back to our old routines, or do we engage the beasts of bureaucracy (with their Weberian legacies), and does anyone have any stories that illustrate success in doing so? More simply: (how) do we learn from excellent networks? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Roy, Thanks for your great ideas. Any one in our "huge network"...who would like to share? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Funny you should mention radar and 9/11 in the same sentence. I used to operate and train radar activities and feel strongly that there is a great deal to be learned from the people who control the radars vis a vis 9/11. Meaning it is important to know which network we are talking about. Like the biology/cosmology conversation. There is a micro network and a macro at work here. One begat the other. I think the American Dollar has produced some pretty significant networks that are wildly successful at whatever they intend to do. |
 | Can a network be a node? |
|
My reaction to the original post was that while SARS was a pretty successful network, I thought of it more as subset of the network of biology & evolution (and I agree with everything Steve said). My next thought was "no wait the Universe" and I agree with everything that Ruth said. And while I don't want to minimize SARS as a grand and sophisticated network, it seems rather small and insignificant in comparison to the network we know as biology. Yet, biology seems somewhat trivial when we are considering the creation of the Universe. Are the terms "network" and "node" relative? For example from the biologist's perspective, SARS is a node in the biological network. However from the view point of a microbiologist's or virologist's perspective SARS is very complex network unto its own. Furthermore, the complexity of the network we know as biology pales in comparison that of cosmology. Ray Kurzweil had written that In the beginning there was physics. And physics begat chemistry. And chemistry begat biology. And biology begat evolution. The fun starts when you think about whether something begat physics. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
Thanks Scott for another fantastic insights. That's exciting! This leads me to ask: Have we got a mega-network of evolution or universe? With each of these networks part of the mega-network? A super-network that maps all fields - (domains on - Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography, History, Education etc. and our environment - Ecology, climate, space, planets, stars..etc.) and how all these link...May be an interesting project for us to look at the super-complexity of the networks and how these networks interact with each other. Likewise, such super-network may be applied to the evolution of education......are there any "education network maps" produced so far? And then we could have the nodes of different learning theories etc. interacting with each other.... Are you aware of any research done on these? |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
Hi Sui Fai, This is a fascinating subject that had already got me doing some preliminary investigations at Behaviourism Redux in the General forum. The domains you mention have well established set of descriptions, theories and laws that explain the phenomena in each of the specific domains. In practice it is often to difficult and complicated to try and use the facts from one domain to explain the phenomena of a different domain. This has lead to the establishment of separate and independent areas of knowledge about each of the domains. These two key documents More is Different (1MB pdf) and More is Realy Different suggest that even on a theoretical level we can't fully explain how a complex system works just by studying its components. One conclusion from this is that the domains we are talking about are actually disconnected and we can only understand them by treating them as unique and separate areas of study. Another conclusion is that while the properties of the nodes in a network can't account for all the properties of the network, the converse is also true that the properties of the network can't account for all the properties of it's nodes. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
Scott, great post. I agree that the fun starts when you ask (with M. Higgs) what begat physics then, although I like the response in terms of who 'holds up' the universe - the response is: "its just turtles all the way down" More fascinating for me is to go to the other end of the line, and ask: "If biology begat evolution, and evolution begat language, how do we situate our theory of learning "connectivism" for the purpose of the current exercise, within evolution and language? And just as I was beginning to think I had a good grasp of Stephen's 'centre of gravity' as Catherine so aptly put it, Stephen says "connectivism is a theory of computation". That doesnt help me at all. I am interested in how we learn how to (compute, sail yachts, read, use the Internet, have fun - take it as narrowly or broadly as you wish) and much as I am interested in knowing how computation works, that just doesnt do it for me as the basis for a theory of learning. What I learned for Seymour Papert was all about learning, and very little about computation, no? Isnt a 'theory of computation' something quite different from a theory of learning (or am I the only non-engineer in the room)? |
 | Re: Can a network be a node? |
Hi Roy, I too am floundering on that one. Being of similar non -engineer status and doubting even my knowledge of learning theories. And having been distracted by real life, i fear I may have missed stuff and am about to show incredible ignorance in public  However, learning is also about being able to make mistakes...But I could accept connectivism as a theory of computatation if it were trying to get away from being tied up in words and symbols....as computational suggests to me that its about what collectively adds up. That is what knowledge is held within networks as true...got there because of an additive and holding effect. However, my own theoretical background (actor-network theory) doesnt take the next logical step in a computational way of thinking. Because what 'adds up' would always be the same from any direction in such a network. But my lived experience is that it is not. There is more flux than a computational approach allows for. And I think this is more than a perception difference. Its not just the relative view that is different, there is no God like view from nowhere (quoting Donna Haraway) that would provide the overarching accuracy on knowledge held. Or at least, I don't hold that there is. I have a more learned, localised performance on the acquisition and holding of knowledge that plays out in my own reality. Ontological politics of knowledge, for me, suggests everyone else will also. Reality, or at least local enactments of such realities would then be occurring. Annemarie Mol's The body Multiple brought me to this way of thinking. She discussed the disease entity arteriosclerosis arguing (very well) that the body is experienced in multiple realities. That we can work and play alongside others in some semblance of shared beliefs is only because we are willing to, and that the clashes dont come too often, or are distributed in different locations amongst different networks ways of being. |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
|
AIisa, I too use ANT in my work, particularly my current research into learning, which focuses on description, in line with Latour's claim that if you get the description right, rich and detailed, the rest will follow. As someone trained in analysis, I found this strange, but the more I apply it, the more it makes sense. I really like Latour's work, although I am a bit critical of some of his later stuff (Politics of Nature) as in this paper. More the the point - I first started using Latour's work after reading his piece on Einstein's theory of relativity. What struck me was that a sociological approach to discourse (as in critical discourse theory a la Foucault) is very much in line with what Latour was saying. To wit: I defined discourse as "a systems of signs that orders texts and bodies, both material and animate, within a particular community of practitioners" - which takes into account the full range of Barthes' semiotics, from language to fashion to highways. More specifically, one's position and leverage within a discourse, and discourse community, is dependent on how well you can 'see' through Latour's frames, or social spaces, each of which is linked by referencing and 'citing'. This, in the spirit of Latour's style, led me the conclusion that your ability to exercise power within a discourse community depends on how well "sighted, sited, an cited" you are. Or more prosaically, one might say it depends on how transparent the system of frames is. That has implications because there is, as you say, no such thing as a network in which "what 'adds up' would always be the same from any direction in such a network", because there is no place 'outside' of discourse from which you could exercise such a priviledge 'sighting/siting', and each node in a network gives you a different, unequal, and unequivalent 'site' from which you can see, access, and interact with the rest of the network. To paraphrase what I think you are saying, there is no metaphysical 'site' which would unentangle us from the ontology and ethics of the particular site/sight we occupy (albeit that the site is a node in many networks simultaneously), or from the politics of the discourses that exclude, include or patronise us. To argue the contrary is politically, ethically and epistemologically unsound. Do have a link to Mol's work? Sounds interesting. |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
|
Unfortunately annemarie mol doesnt seem to use the net or publish much, its in books or in chapters of books. In the Body Multiple, she has particularly emphasised that reality is multiple, and refers to the performative turn. A taster of her writing is available in this journal article from a keynote presentation: Mol, A. (2006). Proving or improving: On health care research as a form of self-reflection. Qual Health Research, 16, 405-414. |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
| Ailsa, ta. I'll take a look. |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
|
Ailsa, thanks for the link. Annemarie Mol's article is simple and thought provoking - an enviable quality! Her distinction between 'treatment' and 'care' in clinical (trial) research, and the distinction between the effectiveness of 'medical interventions' and 'improving the lived experience of health' is really insightful. Wow. To wit:
So, how does this link back (connect?) to connectivism? (Let me count the ways ...) As a designer of learning spaces, or learning ecologies, but definitely not a 'learning designer' (we have to kill that one), this fascinates me. I will try to approach this from a 'connectivist' perspective, rather than a 'discourse theory' perspective (which is my default mode), so here goes ... 1. It strikes me that Annemarie's distinction applies more widely, i.e. she is differentiating her position from a narrow (materialist, 'independent variable' approach), one which defines the problem in a restricted version of 'empiricism' - 'positivist science' if you like. 2. Quite literally, she is emphasising that the broader context matters, and should matter enough to define the nature of health care, as apposed to pathology management (or symptom management if you are more cynical). 3. More than that, she is proposing a shift in the framework (aside: its really a social and professional mode of 'discourse' !!) within which we 'do' health care, and within which we carry out research - or at the least, she is saying that we need to 'add' this mode of research. 4. 'Self-reflection' is interesting too: she elaborates that this is about being more aware of, and paying more attention to, not only what is 'going well' but what 'could be made to go better'. So ? a. The way we do research could remain empirical, but nevertheless 'connect' the social and the material, including the lived experience of the subject. b. The way we observe, name, categorise, analyse and define prognoses and interventions could also 'connect' more broadly - we could shift our epistemology (not to mention discourse) beyond the materialist isolated variables (in the uncomplimentary sense of 'isolated' that is). c. This would loop us back very usefully to what I think is common ground between Stephen, George and Bruno (Latour), i.e. that networks consist of animate and inanimate nodes/ elements, and the choices we make when we adopt an inclusive or disjunctive approach to the provision of:
these all matter, both epistemologially and ethically. d. For my own research, this links back to using 'nested narratives' to create the space for people learning to become professionals to explore and articulate their own experience, learning and identity, in a way that supports this kind of self-reflection, at an implicitly meta-analysis level. e. This process of exploring some thoughts, and connecting with all these people, texts, and dare I say it, thoughts in 'this' space is of course an interesting case study of 'connectivism' in itself, no? Rich food for thought. And its not true that "a network is a network is a network". |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
|
Glad you liked it, I really enjoy the way she writes. Have you come across this keynote by Latour on networks of design? I only found it yesterday via a google alert I have set up on Bruno Latour http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:MEpybbcRaj8J:www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL.pdf (sorry my browser doesnt seem to like making hyperlinks here.) But have also attached as a pdf. Its a little hard going for people not read in actor-network theory or the writings of Latour but whats useful is his approach to networks: "What I am pressing for is a means for drawing things together —gods, non humans and mortals included. " and with regard to design, that nothing is new, there's always a past, redesign, tinkering, bricolage... But I think you will enjoy it Roy. |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
|
Ailsa, thanks, it looks good. I will read, digest and respond. An equally challenging piece on design and cities is Czarniawsha's response to Tarde (who I still find a bit obtuse), which I responded to here might be of interest. |
| Re: How well are you sited? |
|
Hi Roy, Back to your case in the general forum on "Is Connectivism a new learning theory?". I think you could apply the same concepts, principles and process of connectivism with what you have illustrated above to help Jane in solving the issue. And that might have explained how connectivism could be applied in that case. Jane could connect with others based on options available: network- set up blogs, get into the internet and explore other blogs, use a mobile phone and talk to her trusted friends in network(s), see if she could do an online course, meet a coach, etc. i.e "connect" her brain with other "brains" if she hasn't got enough knowledge and skills to solve the problem, as knowledge is distributed in the network. More than that Jane may need to reframe the whole problem using a connectivism approach...and lateral thinking, to see what the problem is in the first place. And perhaps, you and others could answer this case as well, connectivism in action... |
 | Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
> Stephen says "connectivism is a theory of computation". Connectionism is a theory of computation. Different word. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
Ooooops! Apologies. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
Double Oooops. "Connectivism is a theory of computation, not of mind. It is focused on presenting what amount to mathematical models of associationist systems", Stephen Downes!. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
"Connectivism is a theory of computation..." *sigh* It should be 'connectionism'. If I've typed the other word in error, I'm sorry. I admit to getting very frustrated by this discussion board. Doesn't make me a bad person, though. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
thanks for clarifying, makes you a good person At least in my subjective reality |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
I'm glad you fixed that, because I just spent the last half hour pondering how if "connectivism was only a theory of computation" that it was now being touted as a theory for learning. An annoyance of the Moodle is that you can't go back and edit and repost, it only gives you 30 minutes, which is odd. |
| Re: Can a network be a node? |
|
Stephen has pointed out that it is connectionism which is a theory of computation, but I would just like to highlight that computers (as we now think of them) got their name from their human counterparts - if one ignores the whole binary/hardware elements, the theories of computation which relate to higher order concepts have a level of validity for certain types of human thought processes. The idea of an algorithm, for instance, was to break a problem down into a set of easily computed steps - more or less the same as breaking course material down into bite sized chunks that learners can easily digest. Indeed, an algorithm has a start, a set of steps to follow, an end point and outputs. Learning (human or otherwise) would seem to me to have the same elements. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
There's an article called "Learning from Sars" on the Public Health Agency of Canada website http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/sars-sras/naylor/index-eng.php Go to the A-Z Index for the Site to find additional articles on SARS Here's the explanation for the section about what went wrong in IT. 2D.1 Information Technology and Data SharingOn April 1, 2003, Dr. Ian Johnson, a professor and epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, was seconded to the OMHLTC to establish a SARS surveillance system. He had formerly served as associate medical officer of health for North York. Upon his arrival, Dr. Johnson immediately noted insufficient physical and human resources. Dr. Johnson later told the Committee that reporting structures were unclear, and the head office of the Public Health Branch was simply unable to provide optimal support for outbreak investigation and management. There were also frequent requests for data for the provincial government's daily press conferences. Dr. Johnson characterized the province's infectious disease tracking and outbreak management software as "an archaic DOS platform used in the late eighties that could not be adapted for SARS." Several other key informants echoed this sentiment. In 2000, the Ontario Public Health Branch had led a process that developed a five-year plan to upgrade information technology, but it was not approved for funding. This outdated software platform was assessed, and rapidly rejected by Toronto Public Health as unsuitable for the SARS outbreak. Toronto Public Health developed new software tools to deal with tracking cases and contacts; other local health units eventually followed suit as the outbreak spread. However, individual files for cases and contacts were maintained on paper charts that included colour-coded Post-It notes. Dr. Sheela Basrur, the city's chief medical officer of health, later commented that Toronto was using nineteenth century tools to fight a twenty-first century disease. Several interviewees reported that data handling protocols were variously unclear or non-existent. Developing them during the SARS outbreak proved to be time-consuming and frustrating. One interviewee described the situation as "a turf war" on multiple levels. Offers of assistance from academic clinicians were rejected; infectious disease specialists and hospital epidemiologists set up a separate data system for clinical management and institutional infection control. Health Canada officials were concerned that the Public Health Branch of the OMHLTC was, in the words of one informant, "completely overwhelmed". The Committee later learned that the personnel and infrastructure supporting Chief Medical Officers of Health are thin in several provinces. |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
I would choose Henry the Navigator Network. (The 15th century portuguese discoveries) “ In 1434, Gil Eanes rounded Cape Bojador, south of Morocco. The trip marked the beginning of the Portuguese exploration of Africa. Before this voyage very little information was known in Europe about what lay beyond it. Fourteen years later, on a small island known as Arguim off the coast of Mauritania a castle was built, working as a feitoria (a trading post) for commerce with inland Africa thus, circumventing the Arab caravans that crossed the Sahara. Some time later, the caravels explored the Gulf of Guinea, leading to the discovery of several uninhabited islands and reaching the Congo River. A remarkable achievement was the rounding of the Cape of Good Hope by Bartholomew Dias in 1487. By then the spices of India were nearby, hence the name of the cape. In the last decade of the 15th century, Pêro de Barcelos and João Fernandes Lavrador explored North America , Pêro da Covilhã reached Ethiopia, searching for the mythical kingdom of Prester John, and Vasco da Gama sailed to India. In 1500, Pedro Álvares Cabral landed on the Brazilian coast. Ten years later, Alfonso d'Albuquerque conquered Goa, in India.” What can I make out of this? 1. Major parts of the globe were finally connected. 2. Networks building can sometimes be forced 3. Experts nodes tend to be imposed on the net 4. One of the principles of Connectivism that can be applied in this case would be: The skill to see the connections between fields, ideas and concepts is vital. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
CERN Computer Grid Links 7,000 scientists: http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre492592-us-cern/ "When it starts up again next year, physicists involved in the experiment will have access to real-time data on their desktops, thanks to CERN's computing grid that links more than 100,000 processors at 140 institutes around the world." I don't understand the significance of studying all those colliding protons. Should we be excited about this and why? Which is more significant - the experiment itself or having the ability to link all these processors and have data instantaneously fed to such a large number of scientists around the world? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Well, I doubt my comments will be welcome here, but it has to be said: 1. Shouldn't you, for the purposes of this theory or for any learning theory, posit that networks are entities with purpose, with human agency and human intelligence in them, at least in part? (Yes, we understand about AI). 2. Otherwise, you wind up saying silly stuff like "All air is a network". Or "The entire universe is a network" or "All matter is a network and we are mere networklets in the vasty Networkness" etc. 3. If you get that goofy, you start thinking, but wait, *SARS itself is a network*. A disease spreading -- hey, can you get more networked than that? SARS the disease has got a heck of a lot more connectivity than these scientists. 4. And...why are we stopping at scientists? Because "networks" are a sciency idea, networks can only be science stuff? 5. Far larger networks out there might include, oh, the Catholic Church or Communism or AIM users or speakers of English. 6. Asking "what network is the most successful in history" is like asking "has air been successful throughout history?" I'll bet the people reading the Moodle don't like the idea of the Catholic Church, say, or Christianity being a "network" because it's just not *their* network but...why can't it be? 7. Ultimately, this thinking makes you ask -- well, why networks? Why fuss about them? Everything is networked. So, nu? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Many thanks Catherine, I like your questions. You are welcome. It makes us think again what we can learn from successful networks in history. What are their advantages and limitations? What would you suggest as an alternative question? Are you already here in this "network"? Are we all learning here as a "network"? Are we a successful "network"? I have just created a new post on: "Is connectivism a new learning theory?" in the general forum that may be of interest to eveyone... Hope that you'll enjoy. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
It's ok, you don't need to "welcome" me : ) I don't worry about what the most successful networks in history are. Because networks are merely a description of human interaction, and the individual is still vital. You might rephrase the question, "Who are the most successful humans in history?" except then you'd be in defiance of the collectivism of the concept of Connectivism. I don't worry about networks either, because endlessly describing or parsing them or deciding whether knowledge resides in or above or in spite of them isn't so important for life purposes. What's important about a child struggling to learn is that he *make the connection* in the most ordinary sense of the word. To find a teacher he likes, that inspires him, or to find a subject that "grabs" him, or to feel the sense of accomplishment that can occur even with a rote learning task. That connection, that quality of experience is *his*. It is not the networks -- it is only humbly -- sometimes -- made possible by that network. By seeming to "own" all connections that people make, by popping them into classified networks, the role of the individual and his own experience, and the interaction between two whole individuals, is eroded, down-played, and that's why this system is so oppressive -- it's constantly busy discounting the individual. You could put out a perfectly shining brand-new network, literally or figuratively, with all the most glowing Personal Learning Environments with the best pedigrees, and it can be "lost" on a child who "cannot connect" because he is not engaged. To answer your other questions: o No, we are not all learning here in a network. I'm not in a network. I don't belong. I don't wish to belong to any network or to have any connection I chose to make snatched up and declared "a network" for someone else to manipulate. It's bad enough that for ever after, these two characters will be able to dine out on the fact that they had a mega-class size of 2200, made up of dopes like me. o No, I'm not joining a network. What I am doing is making a connection, selectively, on an as-need basis, as an individual, looking for other *individuals* who I may have this practical, working, *collaborative* relationship with. I may never find out their cat's name, Facebook friend them, or ever comment about them again in my life, so sorry, I don't get to declare them "my network". o I don't think you can bless the 2200 with the label "successful network" because likely 99.999 percent of the people here will not fully understand Stephen Downes. Those tiny percentage of them who do understand will not agree with him, leading him to near-despair. Ah, such is the fate of new theories. o Is there a byproduct of "success" that can take place even if nobody understands or agrees with the subject matter? Well, sure, my friend Vitya was sent by the state to pick carrots on the collective farm, instead of having an extra two weeks of college, and there he met Masha, whom he married. So even enterprises like that of somebody else's network can lead to your own personal happiness. o Can people "learn something" if they show up and "network on a network" like this? Well, I dunno, maybe. I have "learned" a few terms, a few ideas, a few readings. I would rather describe it as "having been exposed to" the subject matter rather than "learning it". In order to properly learn, you have to pay tuition and do all the class work. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Hi Catherine, Thanks for your considered response. I see your points. When I read your response on why you would like to have the connections, but not the network, I feel so sorry for you. I joined this course because I wish to learn from George, Stephen, all other participants and be part of the learning networks and teams, in connectivism and connective knowledge. I respect George and Stephen, our course organisers, and all other participants including you. I am committed as a learner and observe my rights and obligations. So far, I thought we have a fruitful discussion and healthy debate on topics of connectivism. And I enjoy the course. But if the creation of this post and the subsequent threads has upset both George and Stephen and other participants due to some unwarranted criticisms, I would be feeling really sorry. We are here to learn. Don't you agree? Catherine, I respect you as a valued fellow participant, though you may have different views from me and others. But, I am not able to offer any further help than to share my thoughts with you. I would appreciate if you could help me though by sharing your views in a private space, probably at another time instead. What do you think? Cheers. John |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Well said, George, well said. We got used to pay special attention to the posts that receive fierce criticism from several participants to these forums, because those push backs usually revel that the participant is saying something important. And I am talking about several participants, not only one. Keep posting people, remember that no one kicks a dead dog. |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Catherine, I like to read your counterpoints because it forces me to read you and Stephen and Georges and other writer more closely. I end up leanring a lot more by trying to refute (in my own mind) what I think you are saying than I do from the course assignments. But you do grate on my nerves when you say things like "these two characters will be able to dine out" because it seems as if you are trying to goad them or perhaps me into getting a response. You got the response. I just wish your hyperbole wasn't so hyperbole. |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
| I like to think of it as 'engaging the learner'. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Bradley, partly, I sympathise But ... surely bait is just for fishes? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Roy, Not sure what your "surely bait is just for fishes?" metaphor meant? Does it mean Catherine was trying to invoke a response? Am I a fish? |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
| Fish can eat the bait or get caught in nets, I suppose...ecologically in the food chain, bigger fish feed on smaller fish. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
| Bradley - you get to decide if you want to be a fish. If so, you can take the bait, and the consequences. If not, you go back to seaweed, if you're a vegetarian, or to eating smaller fishes if you're a carnivore (de capo). |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Roy, I am really starting to hate metaphors as it causes confusion for me. I know you are trying to by humorous, but I can't connect to what you are saying becasue of the metaphor. I like straight talk. (I also hate the business words "leverage", "synergy", and "out of the box" and "lateral" thinking. They have become too much of a buzzword.) |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Bradley, OK. I wanted to lighten things up a bit. In all seriousness though, its difficult to find words that are not 'metaphorical' in some way, even if its just that they have connections to particular communities of practice. I can do without most of the words you list, but not 'lateral thinking' - its too central to what I do. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Roy, I agree it is hard to write without using metaphors as we learned in week 1 or 2. Since I have been trained to write for international English to aid translation, I learned long ago to not write in methaphors. Now casual verbal conversation is another thing but sometimes my wife doesn't get me As for "lateral thinking", why do we need to put a adjective in front of thinking. Why can't we just call it thinking? Who cares if it is lateral, rational, positivist, etc (See here for more types). If someone needs to ask what kind of thinking I am doing, am I in trouble? Is my thinking incomplete? I thought I was just thinking. Now if I do somehting incredible stupid, go out out of scope, etc, I think someone has the right to ask "what was I thinking?" menaing I hadn't thought things through. Can you put a label on that? Incomplete thinking or rash thinking? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Catherine, neat. Reading the history of networking introductory doc., it struck me that language is the most spectacular networking medium, and maybe (contrary to your light-touch ironical critique) language could be called the prime network (as in prime number?). But no, the network, for/of learning, must be a network of people and objects, but not just objects (with deference and apologies to Latour on Actor Network Theory). In other words, a network of people as opposed to: a network of organisms (of your choice) which is a network for/of (complex) adaptive behaviour. So ... adaptive behaviour is a subset and phylogenetic precursor of learning. Or: learning is a later ecological development, subsequent to adaptive (networked) behaviour, which it then subsumes. Sorry for the layers, its just my 'big picture' tendencies. If we are going to ccnnect the neurons to the learning theory, I need to keep phylogenesis firmly in view. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
But no, the network, for/of learning, must be a network of people and objects, but not just objects Ouch, I will tell my machine learning colleagues to pack up and go home then |
 | Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Can't they just be a special case Pat? - a network that could include people and objects but this one without people. (Disclosure: my masters project was in machine learning - classifier systems - but I am better now ) BTW, it has occurred to me that network may be more useful as one of many possible metaphors for understanding learning. I think that the computational examples are particularly limited and limiting. Gareth Morgan wrote about the use of metaphors in understanding organisational change and had particularly damning criticisms of the 'machine metaphor' . Better to read his book, but this online ref gives a flavour |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
| Frances, I agree that the computational examples are, generally, a little restrictive, but the interesting thing for me is to play around at the borders, and try to define just when does 'machine learning' shift into 'biological adaptation' and just where exactly does 'biological adaptation' shift into learning -a-la- H. Sapiens? See my reply to Pat below. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Morgan (and others) used multiple metaphors to understand organisational change, using the concept of breakdown. We use a metaphor to see how a situation is 'like' the subject of our metaphor then see where it breaks down to 'not like', then try another metaphor, all the while gaining understanding of the situation. I do think that some knowledge resides in networks but also in people who may be nodes and that the network theory/metaphor has its limitations. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Pat, well, there is the little matter of the history of AI, which I am sure you are more versed in than me - I put my toes into the AI derivative, LOGO, with much enthusiasm and little or no programming expertise some time ago, but that's as far as I got. So, we have to break this one down some more, and its going to have to be a collaborative (connectivative?) exercise:
And ... I would assume you could break this down into more subcategories/ nested categories, no? On the one hand I am interested in moving rapidly and decidedly beyond a number of dualisms, but on the other hand I want to keep the distinctions between, for instance CAST as it applies, apparently, to non-biological systems (?), then to biological non-human systems, and then to human (cultural) systems. The difference is in the degree to which the elements of the system are self-organising and self-reproducing, with 'life' as one of the thresholds in the analysis, although we already have synthetic ("artificial") life, no? This global-JAM (or mega-course) is turning out to be a useful place to get some of this stuff sorted, but its not a trivial exercise! Any thoughts? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Catherine You do have a unique way of looking at things that makes others confront and defend their beliefs. This is a good thing. However, you also show a lack of tolerance for other peoples beliefs. Marginalising people and deriding their beliefs rather than stating your case to the opposite. This is not a good thing. Please be tolerate of those who are trying to make sense of new ideas. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
No, Ruth, I won't be "tolerant" in your notion of the word because that means I can't disagree, and can't repudiate ideas that I can see are demonstrably false -- which is what I get to do, as a subjective individual with an opinion. One has to marginalize and deride bad thinking. That is indeed a good thing -- and your friend Stephen Downes does it all the time, and with a far more peremptory and denunciatory tone than I do. Yet you aren't perturbed by him doing that. Why must bad thinking, crazy ideas, nutty crap have to be marginalized? Because otherwise, it takes over. In today's Daily, Stephen is fanning the idea that "checks and balances" are needed, which was put for as an idea in this thread, on a network, to keep it from being overtaken. And that means being firm, being opionated, being dismissive. It doesn't mean everybody being in a "tolerating" mush, holding hands, signing Kumbayah, and pretending they are revelling in "differences". Your problem is that you really have lost sight of the fact of what toleration *means*. Toleration means accepting that other people have opinions; not calling for them to be changed or muted; for simply taking them as they are. But it does not mean agreeing with them, going soft on them, never repudiating them, never confronting on them. In fact, you're the intolerant one here, as you are trying to "rein me in," trying to change what I say, change the manner of what I am saying, trying to influence me to be "different" to fit some "politeness mode" you have in your head, where you can't bear the thought that somebody's idea is marginalized and ridiculed (seemingly) even though that is exactly what is required. All you can think to do is to say "stop doing that" yourself. Stating my case about the opposite is in fact necessary to do in very stark terms. If someone can only come up with "the most influential network in history" as...a modern SARS scientist network, then they are biased. They aren't thinking about anything except "scared science". They need a sharp wake-up call to think out of the box. If someone is saying "the whole universe is a network," they need also a wake-up call to prevent the conversation from being made pointless and stupid. If networks don't have human agency in them, what good are they? Except as descriptions of mechanisms. It's the tendency to remove humans and their agency constantly from networks, which is what Stephen Downes is doing when he postulates the knowledge is "emergent" and "in networks" (i.e., meta-individual, meta-human), that in fact makes them threats to human freedom and creativity. Try to drop the church lady stuff. It's deadly. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Catherine, I never suggested you stop voicing your opinion, in fact, I asked you to state your opposition rather than deride & marginalise people. As for trying to "rein you in" - isn't that what you do to others when you find their comments unsatisfactory? You even go so far as to say "where you can't bear the thought that somebody's idea is marginalized and ridiculed (seemingly) even though that is exactly what is required". When you state your case you do it magnificently and it really is a delight to read, I just ask that you do it without deriding others. Let us make up our own minds rather than you telling us that their comments are "pointless" or "stupid". Thanks. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Ruth, Stop being controlling. You are indeed trying to control the manneri n which I express myself, and nullify my statements, saying that I'm not "stating my opposition" but "deriding and marginalizing people". Stop that. Such grooming behaviour is understandable -- you are trying to minimize the impact of sharp criticism on yourself or others -- but it's not necessary, and I reject it. For one, what *you* call "deriding and marginalizing" isn't. Let's go over what I actually said? That's always helpful: " Well, I doubt my comments will be welcome here, but it has to be said: 1. Shouldn't you, for the purposes of this theory or for any learning theory, posit that networks are entities with purpose, with human agency and human intelligence in them, at least in part? (Yes, we understand about AI). 2. Otherwise, you wind up saying silly stuff like "All air is a network". Or "The entire universe is a network" or "All matter is a network and we are mere networklets in the vasty Networkness" etc. 3. If you get that goofy, you start thinking, but wait, *SARS itself is a network*. A disease spreading -- hey, can you get more networked than that? SARS the disease has got a heck of a lot more connectivity than these scientists. 4. And...why are we stopping at scientists? Because "networks" are a sciency idea, networks can only be science stuff? 5. Far larger networks out there might include, oh, the Catholic Church or Communism or AIM users or speakers of English. 6. Asking "what network is the most successful in history" is like asking "has air been successful throughout history?" I'll bet the people reading the Moodle don't like the idea of the Catholic Church, say, or Christianity being a "network" because it's just not *their* network but...why can't it be? 7. Ultimately, this thinking makes you ask -- well, why networks? Why fuss about them? Everything is networked. So, nu?" For two, it's ok to deride and marginalize -- . It's just a debate about a theory. It's not a comment, on, oh, somebody's sex performance or their worthiness as a parent or a racist comment. *It's about the learning theory, and hey, it's ok to criticize the hell out of that, because it will be used on our children, and used on us, too!* I don't "rein in" anybody because they range free and are in fact applauded, and in the majority. "Marginalizing" and "Deriding" is what you have to do in a debate when you have this much goofyness per square inch, and we are witnessing a birth of a new theory that is likely to spread like kudzu and be just as pernicious, like Chomsky. But...derision? Hello? Really? Come off it. No one is singled out by name; no one is in fact ridiculed; no idea is "marginalized," but is lampooned somewhat by making it larger than life so that you can see how fatuous the basic question is. Is that a direct hit against the person who asked this question? Well, sure but it's not some personal attack, it references the idea, not him, and that's fine, he's asked a question that is just way too giddy about networks, as if they explain everything, as if we can even identify the successful ones, or agree on it, as if success of a network would be a good thing (an infection?!). Networks are ubiquitous. It's like saying, truly, "what is the best electrical line in history?" or "What is the best air in history?" "What is the best connective tissue in history?" Way too much is being made of these mundane connections, privileging connection for connection's sake instead of looking at content and experience. It's fetishizing networks. I will not be changing a thing about what I do, Ruth. I will not be changing, adapting, or conditioning my remarks. You're free to make up your own mind, and I am free to express myself as you wish. Again, knock off the church lady stuff, it's annoying. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Oh Catherine, you are way too easy a target and love to bite! Thank you for laughs! |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Catherine, You say you do not attack people personally, only their ideas. So what about this quote by you earlier in the thread "these two characters will be able to dine out"? Sounds a bit personal to me and you name them (Stpehen and George) Your style appears to be to use hyperbole and metaphors "a lot". This is my observation and you have made it clear you will continue to "do what you do." I would point out that you lose your audience by writing in such a way, but I belive you have stated in the past you do not care if anyone is listening. It would be interesting to talk to you in person to see if you verbalize the same way. I will continue to listen in but it gets hard to seperate your "reason" form the other things you say. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
I really like what you have to say about human agency and would be interested to hear your views on the UNESCO Principles of Tolerance "1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States. 1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments. " |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Nowadays, Wikipedia, which is (in Jimmy Wales' words), the Red Cross of information. A more ancient network would be the Inca Trail, a network of roads. The quipu or khipu , the knotted string communication system that stored and provided communication within it. What are the critical success factors in such a case/network? |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
What a beautiful road Barbara. It's a great feeling of connection with the past to stand on an ancient road. Here is a picture of the Roman Road on Wheeldale Moor in North Yorkshire, England http://www.flickr.com/photos/rs1979/2115796423/. Even when you can't see the actual stones, you can see the impressive mark the original road made on the land with a key road like the Fosse Way see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosse_Way |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
HI Frances and Barbara, Your examples of ancient roadways put me in mind of Michel Foucaults The Archaeology of Knowledge. It's fascinating how the Inca trail and the Roman road in the photo have direct physical, social, psychological and economic effects on people today. These pathways have a direct impact on any buildings or monuments in their vicinity. This can be seen most directly where these roads pass through towns and cities. The original road and ancient monuments built beside them have long since vanished but the patterns of today's streets and buildings still reflects their ancient layout. How many modern shopping high-street map these ancient paths? My understanding of Foucault is that he opens knowledge up to these archaeological techniques by making it tangible by studying knowledge in the form of written statements. My reading of this work is that he investigates how these statements are formed, how they are transformed, how they are related to each other and what the consequences are of taking this physical view of knowledge. As I understand it one consequence is that like modern towns our current system of thoughts have been mapped by ancient paths of knowledge. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Tangible knowledge in landscapes and texts - I like that. With treading and building, we can reinforce or try to obliterate ancient networks (that may be revealed later by archaeologists). When driving along a straight road like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fosse_way_from_brinklow_castle_6y07.JPG I always look at the map to see if there is a clue to its origin. It's probably not so noticeable in countries where the roads tend to be straight anyway. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Tim, there is a good term for all this: incriptions. Its Foucauldian, but also I got it from Bruno Latour (who in his characteristic was then goes on to add subscription, description, etc etc). So ... the Inca's inscribed their knowledge and preferences on the landscape in their roads: which you can now see, 'inscribed' from space. 'Inscriptions' takes 'writing' and expands it into just about any artefact of your choice - see below. More vividly, the judicial system inscribes its judgements on the necks of murderers, and the psychiatric system inscribes its diagnoses on the minds of its patients, using drugs, ECT etc. Its a 'clearer' term than 'articulation', although I use both, for slightly different purposes. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
Your comments and pointers made me navigate a bit on the topic and I have just come across a long but very interesting paper from the Journal of Social Archaeology called Networks of History and Memory by Neill J. Wallis. It can be downloaded from Sage. I wonder how our present spaces (blogs, wikis, collaborative portals) will incorporate histories/memories, which landscapes and records of social interaction will be preserved (and why) and what kind of system of reference we are building through these networks and connections we are trying to define. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
I don't see why we need to privilege "voluntary". The U.S. national highway system, supported by government public works, and leading to commercialization with more roadside restaurants and other businesses, was hugely important to the post-war U.S. economy. Commerce is ok. Commerce is what makes networks thrive. Stephen Downs, in his discussion of groups and networks, as a true socialist, derides the groups that have commercial, proprietary code, or the profit motive for their connection. He privileges and fans the networks that he feels are non-commercial, open, non-proprietary, etc. etc. -- ringing all the socialist new media chimes. But that's not how communications systems and networks throughout history have been formed and thrived. The Internet itself is a good example -- without sites like amazon.com and ebay.com, very forthrightly founded on the concept of commerce, the Internet would not thrive. Somebody has to pay -- Internet service providers must be paid for broadband and technologists' works. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
And presumably public works are OK - as long as they are not (techno-)communist? Your second para highlights the interdependence of public (govt supported) and commercial. This also applies to Open Source software (all those successful consultancies that surround it). The business models are interesting and not always obvious. It is not commerce that separates proprietary and open source software but different types of licenses. Moodle (OSS) is an alternative to Blackboard. Neither is completely satisfactory in their functionality but Moodle is more open to change and users have more choices about how and who they pay. |
| Re: Which is the most successful network in history? |
|
I don't see why we need to privilege "voluntary". Commerce is ok. Commerce is what makes networks thrive...Somebody has to pay I never said it should be otherwise. A volunteer may or may not get paid or receive compensation for services rendered. The main difference I see between a volunteer and a salesman is the goal to be achieved and maybe the degree of involvement/engagement with the community they serve. Voluntary for me is exactly what it means originally "as in doing something out of ones own free will", proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent, unconstrained by interference , done by design or intention - which is, I believe what you also posit when you say: I don't wish to belong to any network or to have any connection I chose to make snatched up and declared "a network" for someone else to manipulate. As I write this, I realize how voluntary, which is so vital, is yet another concept that has been defiled and depreciated. To whose profit and benefit? |