 | passion versus reason |
|
The dividing line between a group and a network? Stephen states (in that group feeling) "In a group, passion drowns out reason, in a network, reason drowns out passion." It's like revisiting a world where reason is praised and emotions devalued. I think this needs a feminist critique, meantime, I am left feeling 'othered'.  |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
Feminist critique - now you're talking Ailsa  In a blog post (not you I think) , Belenky's Women's way of knowing was mentioned. This very well cited book is not in Google books but this thesis chapter is a good way in (then go the library). I just love her critique of Perry's staged model of intellectual development ( a study done on white, male middle class college students then generalised to all of us). IMHO, reason within these forums is a two-faced master that, on the one hand, encourages strong and well-argued debate and, on the other hand, tolerates abusive name-calling and petty generalisation in the name of free speech and 'truth'. So can connectivism encompass the multi-perspective thinking of Women's ways of knowing, Soft Sytems methodology and other epistemologies that live outside linear models of learning and development. A network model should be promising but not is it is hidebound by rationality - learning is bigger than that. Don't be 'othered' Ailsa, there must be many of us in 2.3k - speak up you 'others'. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ailsa, I too was concerned that networks would be too "reasoned" with the potnetial of going to logical extremes to the detrimit of the group/indivudal or just humans in general. Too often in software development you see programs and interfaces that seemed to derive from network based thinking instead of getting humans involved. In fact, it is the problem of the developers failing to "network" to the discover what the users really want. Instead, because of time pressures, they focus on what they think the objective is based on the project sponsor who themselves has not really talked to any "people". I am an advocate of getting the human or passion, back into the process. Dvelopers shoudl never be forced to do something without having accessed a network of real people that want real problems solved. I had hoped to intially say that I had faith in the humans in the network to reign in too much network reason, but my example then showed that it happens. Hope this is not too much of a "corner-case" or rare example as they say in software development. My field of information architecture is about user-centered design - getting out and networking with users to see what they want and having a constant feedback mechanism for improvements. This is to say, a directed network using Web 2.0 tools. From a project perspective, it is about building in time and people like myself to figure out really what people want and how they want to get it. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
| But yet if you listen to George's presentation, Groups are only a form of networks, based upon other factors such as autonomy, and normalization. He also points out that we should not forget the human factor in any of this. Personally I feel that we have polar opposites this week, and it is our job to determine what is right for us. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
| Yes, I preferred the approach taken in George's ppt for groups/networks. From a social psych and organisational psych background, the type of collective, the degree of specialisation needed and the degree of complexity involved provided consideration for the desirable group/network attributes taking into account purpose. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
I think you are right, that George's approach differs from my own. I see networks as being of a continuum of types of knowledge (and therefore, organization): quality --------- network --------- quantity The types of organization are also on a continuum: individual ------ network --------- group (atomism) (collectivism) By contrast (and George is a better person to state this than I) George would depict all forms of knowledge, and all forms of organization, as types of networks. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
I can see the difference of views between your's and Stephen's: Your's perspective is focusing on "What type of network it is?" as you would consider groups, networks and collectives are all under the umbrella of networks. While Stephen's perspective is focusing on properties of groups and networks, and based on his observation and analysis, he could see the differences. For some of our "group members" here at the forum, I think they have seen some of these differently: Here are my observations: 1. We are in a "group" in this forum, but we seem to be practicing in an atmosphere of networking situation. We don't have a formal group leader from amongst the participants except you and Stephen. We are encouraged to have peer moderation, an ideal of leaderless group, where everyone learns most freely. Sometimes this practice may not appear to be in congruence to the research findings: you could refer to the paper by Terry Anderson on Collectives, Groups and Networks, where forum is a tool typically used in group. May be we are practising a wholly new approach that are not typical in the conventional forum where a formal moderator is assigned to each group. 2. We have learnt about the merits and demerits of group and network, and it seems for me that networking provides far broader perspectives, as you could learn outside your group by networking with bloggers, using collectives, or be connected to the participants in the facebook, etc. So, participants in this forum would likely be in a group, (reading and listening/watching Elluminate/Ustream etc.) and networking and even using collectives at the "same time", because this is necessary to ensure we could get enough knowledge to come back and discuss. 3. Each of us has a view and perspective. Some of our perspectives may not match due partly to the angles we see things: that's why I am saying that George and Stephen are right, because those are their perspectives, with a different angle of seeing groups/networks, based on observations and analysis. My reflection 1. Learning to me means that I am connecting my brain to the information sources, or your brain, or the network (internet) and absorb such distributed knowledge - be it know "what" and "how". Unless I could apply my knowledge learnt through such a process, it could remain just a shallow learning (know what by "knowing say the facts and information"). What is emphasised so far is to go for deep learning (know how) through both the group discussion (this forum), by critical questioning and reasoning (Socratic approach), reflection etc. and networking with other bloggers, outside sources. 2. Learning in the networks means the network may have the "know what". The various sites in the internet could provide "facts, knowledge, and information", but that these are stored and distributed throughout the web sites, blogs, wikis, etc. A group of people (a special type of network) can tap into the network to collect the information (say in a wiki), but learning in this case would only occur if the brains of these people of the group are connected to the sources of information. And again the deep learning will happen if the group have both the know what and know how as mentioned above in individual learning. In summary that's what we meant by emergent knowledge (new and developing). And that George, Stephen and your perspectives are all important. And that's the main difference between connectivism and all other learning theories. See http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com for my perspective and explanation on groups/network/collectives My next question is: How would you convince your colleagues to try networking, if they are so used to group working? Cheers |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Are apples in a truck on a road nutrition? or do they become nutrition once eaten. When you eat that apple, do you have ANY idea what roads it followed to get to the pile in the store? Are all the other trucks carrying apples a 'group' ? Even if they don't collide, or even follow the same roads? Help! |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Are apples in a truck on a road nutrition? or do they become nutrition once eaten. When you eat that apple, do you have ANY idea what roads it followed to get to the pile in the store? Are all the other trucks carrying apples a 'group' ? Even if they don't collide, or even follow the same roads? Help! |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
What is ironic is that networks facilitate neo-nazis, UFO nuts, pyramid schemes, pseudo-science, criminals, and cults and just about every kind of human experience apart from reason. There is nothing particularly special about networks. Why aren't they just another media? Thank god I am not taking this class for a grade  |
| Re: passion versus reason |
| Geoff, nobody is requiring that you believe the things you are reading. And belief is not required in order to get a good grade (and I rather resent the implication that it is). If you were writing papers for grades, all I would ask is that you demonstrate that you have read and understood the material. You can believe whatever you want - I honestly don't care what you believe. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Now, as to the content... "networks facilitate neo-nazis, UFO nuts, pyramid schemes, pseudo-science, criminals, and cults..." -- if you examine the way I have distinguished between the properties of groups and the properties of networks, you will find that the elements in the list represent group behaviour much more than network behaviour. Take cults, for example. Diversity is discouraged; they want everyone to think, act and look the same. Autonomy is discouraged; the cult speaks with one voice. Openness is discouraged - there is a clear dividing line between people who are 'in' and people who are not. And connectivity is discouraged - the beliefs of a cult aren't the result of people communicating with each other, but of one person who 'speaks for' the rest of the members. That doesn't mean that networks facilitate neo-nazis, UFO nuts, pyramid schemes, pseudo-science, criminals, and cults don't use netwoks. Everyone uses networks. If you fly on an airline, you use a network. If you make a phone call, you use a network. But when describing the relations within cults, or Nazis, or whatever, you find much more evidence of group-like behaviour than bnetwork-like behaviour. Now - with reference to the previous post: I would not expect or require you to believe this. You can believe what you want. But I would expect you to understand the distinct that is being made here. Your posts suggests that you did not understand the difference. Certainly, you made no attempt to demonstrate that you understood - you simply took a cheap shot without thinking about it. That does not play well either in the domain of reason or passion. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Alisa, I would be interested to hear a feminist critique. But that said, it is not clear to me that reason is a male domain, and passion is a female domain. Certainly, women are as capable of reason as men, and men are as capable of emotion as women. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hi all, I quoted Belenky et al in my blog, and I do enjoy the journey her books make, with some very well-taken points (including the observations about Perry's research). However, my point in the blog wasn't intended so much as a feminist critique (although it contained elements thereof), as it was meant to convey that there seems to be a realm of "other" knowledge and knowing processes (traditional and traditionally emergent, or whatever it could be called) of which I am aware, and I'm trying to understand if and how it fits into connectivist understandings and processes. I don't mean to be wishy-washy about this, but I'm the first to admit that I still don't have a deep enough grasp of connectivism's philosophical underpinnings to say that this kind of "knowing" has or has not been accounted for somehow, somewhere, or maybe even in neon lights that I am missing; it was simply an obvious question for me stemming from my existing knowledge base and evolving/incomplete mental model of connectivism. (The issue of inclusion and definition based on use of or access to technology was a second question.) I get ailsa's concern, and I think Belenky shares similar concerns. However, based on a single reading/viewing of Stephen's group/network stuff (a highly academic term ), I personally didn't take the reason/passion, network/group distinction Stephen made to be necessarily value-laden in relation to gender. I would, however, argue passionately for more reason in an awful lot of circumstances (and that's not nearly as flippant as it might sound). (As a meta-note: The publish-then-filter process applies here for me, I guess. I sometimes find it a bit presumptuous to "join the conversation" when I recognize my own understandings as incomplete, and yet have to believe/hope that my public muddlings may help us mutually clarify things... )Carmen |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
I went searching for an old post of mine from 2006, that I remembered as being about the slippery meaning of terms. Then I found it was even more relevant to this discussion than I remembered so I retagged it as CCK08 to bring it back into the fold. Here's an extract "Stephen Downes does distinguish between groups and networks in a moving post that reveals some of the perils of groups, as well as their natural attraction to we social animals. He says, “In my books, that line is the line between reason and emotion. To put it most simply, groups are based on passion while networks are based on reason.” I find this separation between reason and emotion to be problematic - and wonder if that is a masculine model of communication. Whilst we do wish to engage in rational discourse, we are human beings with feelings. Even free speech comes with responsibilities. Stephen goes on to recommend that the network be the preferred model for education, since he says that education should not be about socialisation." |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
It's a great post, Frances, that 2006 offering of yours. I left a comment there, and I encourage others here to take a look at it, if only for the wonderful reminder of Carroll's absurd take on language and power. I'm repeating the link here, since Moodle seems to be doing unhelpful things such as a lack of nesting since the 'upgrade,' and it might be tough for others to find their way back to the top of this thread: http://francesbell.com/2006/11/14/69/#more-69 |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
I women...i really interesting about the really different the network and group because in the Illuminate today Stephen's say the groups are Collective and networks are Coperative... I have a many questions: 1. ¿The Groups influences the networks? or contrary to... 2.¿The networks affect the social groups? 3.In the envoment of class ¿what kind of tools seen today is the most indicated? I left my inquetudes Bye Juliana Pachón Hernández |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Back in the Enlightenment era, those who favored control of nature (and loved machinery) were said to champion reason, as opposed to the excesses of passion that led to horrible things like religious intolerance and arbitrary government. They believed that reason is what makes us human, and separates us from the animals. Those who championed emotion/intuition/nature we sometimes call romantics, and they liked passion, believing that feelings are what makes us human, and separates us from machinery. They were partly responding to industrialization, which seemed to devalue individuality and humanity. Both were right, of course, and I'm having real trouble seeing one as male and one as female. I don't want a feminist critique, just a critique (that's reason). I don't see a lot of use to my learning in how people "feel" about issues, except that I realize their feelings lead them to behave in particular ways that may affect me. I'm also having trouble connecting this to either groups or networks. We could bring up examples of groups based on reason, or based on passion. There are networks based on each, surely. As for one drowning out the other, in a group it depends on the leader whether passion or reason reigns, because it's a hierarchy. Whichever one the leader demonstrates will hold. In a network, I would think passion and reason are much more fluid, changing as the nodes in the network shift and evolve. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
I am finding it harder and harder to sustain a belief in there being a difference between groups and networks. I dont accept the dividing line of emotions vs reason. I dont accept that groups have hierachies and networks dont. I would have thought a group with or without a leader is still a group. Leadership can be fluid whether the aggragation of people is called a group or a network. I will go out on a limb here and say that the conversation about is it group or a network does not matter. (Its a discussion that had also consumed actor-network theory.) My opinion is group/network doesnt matter. On this I align myself more closely with George's analysis of group /network. Whats important is whose in the network and how they are relating. I have yet to see any value in a discussion of name calling, but would argue that the language of network emphasises work and connecting relationships. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Alisa... 'Emotions vs Reason' is not the 'dividing line', as you describe it. It is simply a characteristic I observed. The actual distinction between groups and networks, as described at length in my various writings, is based on four dimensions: 1. groups emphasize sameness, networks emphasize diversity 2. groups emphasize order and control, networks emphasize autonomy 3. groups emphasize borders and membership, networks emphasize openness 4. groups emphasize additive, cumulative knowledge, networks emphasize emergent knowledge Now - given this characterization of the distinction between groups and networks, can you see the distinction? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
This counterpoint of groups and networks is useful to see your view of them Stephen but like Ailsa, I am not sure how much it helps more generally in CCK08, especially since it appears to be an area of difference between you and George. In the discussion up till now, there does seem to have been agreement that (learning) networks have non-human as well as human nodes. In this discussion of groups , they sound more like social groups (with only human nodes) so I decided to go back to Sociology 101 (Giddens, A. (1993). Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.) Giddens says " The concept of social group should be distinguished from two other realted notions, aggregates and social categories. A social group is simply a number of people who interact with each other on a regular basis...." This would make a group an overarching concept that includes networks and many other sorts of groups. That works for me, and explains why I found the above comparison of groups and networks to be a tad value-laden for a fairly open concept like a group. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
> I am not sure how much it helps more generally in CCK08, especially since it appears to be an area of difference between you and George. It helps because it is part of the course content. This course is not only about where George and I agree, but also about where we disagree. Knowing the differences between our approaches is as important as knowing where we are in agreement. > In this discussion of groups , they sound more like social groups (with only human nodes) Except they're not. And in my video and discussions I do pose various non-human examples. For example: - a group is like a rod of lead - every atom the same, the organization not important, the sameness and the purity very important - groups are like melting pots, networks are like salads > A social group is simply a number of people who interact with each other on a regular basis...." My problem with definitions like this (and they are found throughout the literature, not just in this post) is that they're empty. They don't tell us anything about the type of interacting that is happening. A mind-control cult and a loose association of email friends are both "a number of people who interact with each other on a regular basis" - but surely there is a relevant difference between the two, isn't there? And how would you attempt to describe that difference? > I found the above comparison of groups and networks to be a tad value-laden for a fairly open concept like a group. Please explain where you found this to be value-laden. And why it would be incorrect in this instance to assign value to a particular feature. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Thanks for telling me that you intend groups to include non-human objects - I hadn't picked that up. >This course is not only about where George and I agree, but also about where we disagree. Knowing the differences between our approaches is as important as knowing where we are in agreement. This is something that I have thought about quite a lot over the last few weeks. I can see that connectivism is something that is interpreted differently by you and Stephen, and certainly will be by participants and others. I am still wondering about the scale and implications of that for the development and use of connectivism as a learning theory. >My problem with definitions like this (and they are found throughout the literature, not just in this post) is that they're empty. They don't tell us anything about the type of interacting that is happening. I would see such a definition (by Anthony Giddens, not me ) as being a starting point, rather than empty, from which different types can be identified. For example, that definition of a social group could be specialised into social network, work team, etc. by further information.(Warning - emotion alert) My response about 'value-laden' was based on not just your definition within that posts but also watching the discussion in 2006, reading you Half Hour blog post your audio/video with the whiteboard diagram, attending part of the Elluminate yesterday, etc. My very strong impression (which may be quite unjustified) is that you LIKE networks and you DON'T LIKE groups. P.S. I like some networks and some groups |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Emotion alert ... mmmmm. I also get the impression that Stephen likes networks, particularly in education (a lot) and dislikes groups (ditto). I sympathise with your normative position, Stephen, but for me it gets in the way of understanding what the distinction is. I think it is generally the case that if the conceptual and the normative are not distinguished, the normative tend to act rather reductionistically on the conceptual. This case looks no better, and the result seems to me to be that the distinction is too stark, it lack the grey areas. Its too comfortable. There is a third issue (apart from normative position and conceptual clarity), and that is for me the more interesting one: its both an epistemological and an ontological issue: 1. Does learning occur best in 'networks'? - to which I would say yes, but ... this might not apply to all learning. 2. If learning is done in 'networks' in some form, how is the learning accredited and certified - does it have to be transcribed into 'group' parameters and metrics, and if so, how? - to which I would say yes, too, and a modest attempt to do this is outlined here. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
> the normative tend to act rather reductionistically on the conceptual. I don't know what you're trying to say here. > I sympathise with your normative position, Stephen, but for me it gets in the way of understanding what the distinction is I don't see why it should interfere with your understanding. I have - several times now - characterized the four ways in which I believe groups and networks differ (autonomy, diversity, openness, interactivity). Is something about this characterization unclear? What part of it is rendered confusing by your belief that I favour networks over groups in educational settings? I'm sorry to be snippy - but I'm getting very tired of students in this course saying "I disagree" or "You're wrong" without giving me even the faintest clue about what it is that seems wrong much less concrete evidence that they've read the work they're disagreeing with). This isn't a confessional course. You do not need to profess your faith one way or another. I don't care whether or not you agreee or disagree with me or anyone else. What I do care about is that you have understood the theory sufficiently as to have some reason for disagreeing. The 'third' issue is more to the point: 1. Does learning occur best in 'networks'? - to which I would say yes, but ... this might not apply to all learning. Well,first of all, learning doesn't just 'occur' like rain or like sunset. Learning is an activity, it is something that someone does. I know this sounds picky, and I'm sorry, but a phrase like 'learning occurs' is vague and unclear. What George and I have stressed throughout the course is not 'learning occurs best in networks' but that networks learn and (arguably, on my view) networks learn better than groups. Why do we say that? Well, first of all, people learn, and people (or, at least, their brains and nervous systems) are networks. And secondly, other networks, such as connectionist systems, learn. Why would I say networks learn better than groups. Well, what I have said in my papers (part of the reading for the course) and in the audio segments, is that learning is associative, and that networks form links associatively. I outlined four types of associationist learning: hebbian, proximity-based, back-propagation, and Boltzmann. Now what I haven't outlined is how groups learn, because I don't think groups learn very well. But the only mechanism I can think of is impression and repetition. That is, the same learning is stamped or imprinted on each group member. I am open to better theories. Now - what I am interested in, when you consider the question, is not so much "to which I would say yes, but ... this might not apply to all learning" because (nothing personal) I don't care whether or not you agree - but rather - what reasons you could offer for thinking one way or another. I'll even accept emotional responses (but something a little more concrete than 'it feels right' or 'wrong', please). 2. If learning is done in 'networks' in some form, how is the learning accredited and certified - does it have to be transcribed into 'group' parameters and metrics, and if so, how? - to which I would say yes, too, and a modest attempt to do this is outlined here. OK, you don't consider the open source assessment I've mentioned several times throughout the course, so I'm not sure why you would say (confusingly) "it needs to be transcribed into 'group' parameters". But at least you link to work you (or someone) did last may, which is an effort to support and clarify your position. Looking through this resource, 'assessing complexity', the key (after letting the work sit for a couple of weeks) is "Involve members of this audience in benchmarking the story, against their own criteria, and/or the story teller's criteria." The good part of this is that you recognize that assessing network learning is going to be tantamount to assessing complexity. This is very important, and worth stating. I wish you had simply led with this. Where I would disagree is in the suggestion that assessing complexity can be (after a suitable time) equated to measuring against a series of metrics. I don't thing that something that is complex can be reduced to something that is complicated. Related to this: the cynefin framework. Finally - please don't feel singled out here. The remarks in this post are meant not just for you but for the other members of the course. Where I am indicating a dissatisfaction, I am indicating a general dissatisfaction, not just a dissatisfaction with you. It's not personal. I am trying in my response to point to the standards I think are appropriate in a course of this level. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
1. Cynefin: > I don't thing that something that is complex can be reduced to something that is complicated. Sure, that't the whole point of the cynefin framework, although Snowden allows for more movement between the two, which seems to be a strategic rather than an epistemological shift. 2. Assessment and Learning Assessing complexity is the bit I am interested in, without messing up the networked learning. 3. Question: if ... > networks learn ... > people are networks. then ... What if anything would count as learning other than in a network? Surely all learning is networked by definition? So what would be meant by > networks learn better than groups? Arent you defining groups as non-human, which is the exact opposite of what I understand you to be saying? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
These comments illustrate why precision is so important. Even if it is true that all people (or, at least, their brains) are networks, it doesn't follow that all networks are people. We (George and I) have identified numerous types of networks through the course. And among others, we have identified: - neural networks -- that is, our brains, collections of neurons - social networks -- that is, collections of people Now, when you ask, "Arent you defining groups as non-human", we need to be clearer. Because the question could be: - is a group a person? - if a group a collection of people? The second question is fairly obvious. A group is normally thought of as a collection of people. But not (necessarily) a network of people, because a group of people might not be connected appropriately. The first question is equally obvious. A collection of people, however connected, is not a person. Nor is a person composed of a collection of people. It does raise the question - what would a group of neurons look like? Because, after all, we can have groups of things that are not people. A group of neurons would be like a bowl of neurons, piled and organized by type of neuron. Would a group of neurons be a person? No. Because, in order to be a person, your neurons have to be connected appropriately. Simply putting a bunch of neurons into a bowl does not create a person, not even if we added everything else (heart, liver, legs, kidneys, etc) needed to make a person. That's the key difference between groups and networks: - network - like our brain - connected in appropriate ways - group - like a bowl of neurons - a mass of things, sorted by type |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
People are more than networks. The analogy of the human brain to a network is in error. Your dissatisfaction with other members is just that: your dissatisfaction - it does not make you right. Your theories should be eliminated. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ken, I hesitate to enter into this overheated conversation, but ... Whether it makes sense for you, personally, to make an absolute, and disjunctive distinction between 'networks' and 'brains', you must first of all do the research, and have a look at the contributions of numerous people (outside of this course) who have explored the nature of the human brain as a network, to very interesting and good effect. But ... We are not talking 'analogy' here, we're talking long, hard, patient years of research and publication. Do the 'maths' please. Your point about 'people are more than networks' (and/or brains) is accepted, its not at issue here, surely? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hello Roy, and thanks for your suggestions. I thought it might be ok in a post entitled "passion versus reason" to actually speak from the heart, if you will, without huge attention to reason. I don't think there is a requirement that these two be linked, in fact, the title of this post would suggest that they are in opposition to each other. Hence, my comments. But not to belabour that issue. Are you suggesting that the research in this area is complete, and the conclusions made, and 'end of story'? Am I required to assess all of the research in this area or would I be best to just accept any conclusions presented here as being the truth? Am I entitled to a viewpoint? What if I am not a strong believer in research? Have you assessed all the research in this area? What did you find? Maybe I should rely on your findings, as it would save me a lot of time. I have this tendency to view 'facts' and 'theory' as analogies, in their essence. Useful, no doubt, but ultimately analogies. Am I wrong in this view? Am I not allowed to assert my own theory, or contra-theory, as distasteful as it might be to some? Am I not permitted to question? Am I not permitted to make statements? Seems everyone else does. I take issue with your use of the word 'must'. I am not in fawning academia here. However, if you don't like my linkage of the concepts of network with analogy in regards to the human brain, and my statement that the analogy is flawed, what is it that you believe? That the human brain is only a network of neurons? This is scientific fact? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ken, Archbishop Tutu once mentioned some advice that he got from his father: dont raise the volume of your voice, raise the quality of your arguments. And that means bringing evidence to bear. It doesnt really make that much difference where you get it from, but you have to be able to attest to its quality - doing this by peer reviewed journals is one way to do that, but there are surely others too. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
"A good indignation brings out all one's powers" "Trust your instinct to the end, though you can render no reason" -Emerson.
Roy: I don't have the time nor the inclination just now to follow the route you demand. But I will offer my questions and statements regardless. If you don't find my writing sufficient, then don't bother responding. I won't be offended. That said, I don't see a lot of evidence backing the claims made by the professors. Some speculation, couched in value-laden positions, as suggested by several other students. Not much different than my approach. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hi Roy, Does it really mean bringing evidence to bear? Cannot a reasoned argument be followed without continually referring back to what others have said? Even when you can attest for the quality of the reference, this is really just based on an extended trust network, often based on proxies (i.e. 'you' believe that a particular journal or institution has the procedures in place to allow you to rely on the quality of papers published, as a short cut for being able to check the results completely yourself) which are, to be honest, of dubious integrity in many cases (as they are effectively based on business models). If, however, presenting reasoned argument based on stated axioms or agreed (negotiated) common ground is acceptable as bringing evidence to bear, then I would agree with you. Sometimes those axioms may be in the form of references, of course. I am all for standing on the shoulders of giants, but I read many papers which are a daisy chain of pinning the tail on the donkey (and yes, I still read them, because quite often there is something with some value in there - even if it is only 'how not to do research' by example) |
| Re: Diasy chains of incestuous donkeys' tails ? |
|
Pat, agreed. I follow a Latour-ish notion of evidence, which includes showing what data, &/or reasoning, &/or shoulders you are standing on. And more recently I have started writing and publishing about what I call ante-formal knowledge (also 'punk-knowledge' but that's a bit too provocative for some). "Ante-formal" as in 'not yet formalised' but highly amenable to being formalised, if the mood takes you. Ante-formal knowledge is, precisely what you have so neatly identified: "when you can attest for the quality of the reference, this is really just based on an extended trust network, often based on proxies". Its built on trust. Trust in turn is built on disclosure and closeness. You cant 'trust someone you cant touch' would be a bad approximation of what I am trying to say. That doesnt mean it gets all fuzzy and mushy, it means you can see the expression in their eyes - to use another metaphor. The problem is two fold: i) when there is nothing shown ... not even a shoulder in sight. ii) when its just a "daisy chain of incestuous donkeys' tails" - I just love that image! Some years ago I got into trouble because I accused a conference (including many friends) of indulging in 'string-bead discourse' , i.e. academic discourse in which each contribution, like beads on a string, touches nothing more than 5% of the beads next to it, and has no connection to anything else. iii) much though I love discussion forums (recorded conversations) there is a danger that they just become DCIDT's, to coin a bad acronym! One way out is to break the daisy chain link by changing the subject heading - see above. Question: are DCIDT's groups or networks? I would say they are groups pretending to be networks, or networks that have degenerated into groups. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Well... actually... I found Stephen's differentiation between groups & networks to be a 'tad' value-laden as well. Stephen said: 1. groups emphasize sameness, networks emphasize diversity 2. groups emphasize order and control, networks emphasize autonomy 3. groups emphasize borders and membership, networks emphasize openness 4. groups emphasize additive, cumulative knowledge, networks emphasize emergent knowledge The word 'sameness' when contrasted with the word 'diversity'; the words 'order & control' when contrasted with 'autonomy'; the word 'borders' when contrasted with 'autonomy'... well, it sounds to me too that groups are being painted with a somewhat negative brush. I believe in the 'Dunbar's number' concept; that primates *have* to feel they belong in some sort of group, that we are in effect a tribal species. So groups aren't bad, they're necessary. Maybe the 4 points about groups vs. networks could be reworded in a somewhat (possibly?) more neutral way, e.g. 1. groups emphasize cohesion, networks emphasize diversity 2. groups emphasize commitment to common goal(s), networks emphasize autonomy 3. groups emphasize identity, networks emphasize openness 4. groups emphasize additive, cumulative knowledge, networks emphasize emergent knowledge (not so sure about this one...) |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
That's an interesting reworking... 1. groups emphasize cohesion, networks emphasize diversity 2. groups emphasize commitment to common goal(s), networks emphasize autonomy 3. groups emphasize identity, networks emphasize openness 4. groups emphasize additive, cumulative knowledge, networks emphasize emergent knowledge (not so sure about this one...) Let me look at each of these. "groups emphasize cohesion, networks emphasize diversity" 'Cohesion' means something very different from what I was after with 'sameness'. Cohesion means 'sticking together'. But that is in no way the contrary of 'diversity'. The word 'identity' would probably be a better word here. The idea of this condition is that there is something inherent in each of the members that makes them the member of the group - that they are the same in some way, or share some property. "groups emphasize commitment to common goal(s), networks emphasize autonomy" The description here of groups expresses an element of sameness or commonality, which is the intent of the first condition. What is intended here is to contrast the way groups and networks manage themselves. The idea is that in a group there is some sort of order or structure, while in a network each member manages him or her self. It's interesting that you depict 'order and control' as having a negative connotation - whenever I propose that something could function without order and control, i encounter a great deal of resistance. People value structure, they value order, they value management. groups emphasize identity, networks emphasize openness I see what you're trying to go after here, with a notion of 'group identity'. As mentioned above, I think identity is a better way of expressing the sameness that characterizes members of groups. What this condition addresses is the way that individuals relate to groups or networks. With a group, there is a clear sense that you are entering or leaving the group as a whole. If you are a member of a team, for example, you are a member of the team as a whole and not simply associated with a couple people who happen to play hockey. With networks, however, it is never a matter of 'joining a network' as a whole, but rather, of connecting to individual people. You may be in a given network, you may be outside it - it's rather difficult to tell and subject to interpretation. groups emphasize additive, cumulative knowledge, networks emphasize emergent knowledge (not so sure about this one...) This is probably the most difficult concept, but this is where you get a sense of why the previous three elements are important. I'll try another new example... You've all seen crowds in a football stand or hockey arena, right? Sometimes, during the playoffs, the home team says "everyone wear red' and people wear their red clothes, and the effect is this great big sea of red in the stands. And that shows the home team that the crowd is cheering for them. What is important here is that the people wear red. It doesn't matter where they're sitting, right? They could all trade seats, and the effect would be the same. That's a mass phenomenon. An additive phenomenon. What matters here is how many of a certain type. Now imagine the same crowd in the same football stand, except this time the home team has given each member of the crowd a coloured placard. the idea is that when the fan raises the placard, the placards all together spell out 'Go team' (then they flip the placard over and it creates another message). What's important here is that people sit in the right seat. If they sit in the wrong seat, the whole effect will be ruined. The quantity doesn't matter nearly as much (you could make out the words even if fewert han half put up their placards). But if people are mixed up, you don't see the words at all. This is a case where the phenomenon - the viewing of 'Go Team' - depends on the organization or the pattern displayed by the people in question. It's a very simple sort of pattern, with something very simple in shape. In nature these patterns become much more complex. The main thing, though, is to see that this is different from the case where everybody wears red. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Thanks for that reply. It has certainly given me food for thought First I need to go back and re-read the sources you have supplied to clarify just how your views of knowledge differ. Then, I need to think about how exponents of one theory can sustain different epistemologies - there must be lots of juicy examples. I wonder if the analogy might not be more: Doctors G and S have a patient who is sick. G uses his fancy new discombobulator machine to diagnose symptoms A, B and decides "he has condition X". Doctor S runs some blood screens to diagnose symptom C,D and agrees "he has condition X". Having agreed the condition, the prescription is the same for Dcotors S and G. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
ok and thanks for coming back to me on this. I havent read all your writings, but simply been posting in response to the resources I had accessed so far ( i will keep reading ). However, one of these was your 2006 blog on group identity where the difference is named as a dividing line. I can accept the dimensions stated here (above) and numbered 1-3 But I wonder now what is different between additive and accumulative vs emergent... I think everything grows from what is and doesnt spring into being without a history. And, I still think the group and network distinction might not be that useful as groups and networks could move in and out of periods where there is more and less control, and times of more and less sameness; and that this sameness could be on some issues and not on others... But i can go with the flow for the moment in terms of it being an emphasis and not a necessary attribute. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ailsa, Stephen, I think the distinction between complicated and complex, (Snowden) or between predictable and emergent, or between positivist and complex adaptive, is more informative. This distinction is not that different from group/ network, but the term 'group' leaks so much into undefined common language use, and into competing academic interpretations, that it is difficult to work with. More to the point, the complex adaptive systems theory perspective (which will be dealt with later in this course, I know) has more heuristic, epistemological, ontological and strategic value - I'm not trying to throw the book at the group/network distinction, I just think CAST has more going for it (see the Ontologies document, here for some draft ideas on this). |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ailsa, Stephen, I think the distinction between complicated and complex, (Snowden) or between predictable and emergent, or between positivist and complex adaptive, is more informative. How? It's not like I ignore any of those distinctions, or am unaware of them, or even disagree with them. So I don't understand what sort of point you're trying to make here. It's as though you said, "I think the distinction between letters and numbers is more informative here." It may be - but there's certainly nothing about the distinction i disagree with, and I am left wondering what you see in it that I don't. This distinction is not that different from group/ network, but the term 'group' leaks so much into undefined common language use, and into competing academic interpretations, that it is difficult to work with. How so? Was there something unclear about how I am using the term, that you need to substitute some undefined common usage instead? Or is there some (as yet unstated) presupposition that academic discourse must be conducted in colloquial language? Or - more to the point - is there a specific point on which ordinary discourse disagrees with me (as opposed to being, as I would say, fuzzy and indistinct on the point)? More to the point, the complex adaptive systems theory perspective (which will be dealt with later in this course, I know) has more heuristic, epistemological, ontological and strategic value How so - what value? Good that you provide a link - but instead of waving an entire theory and saying 'this is better' I'd like to know in what way it's better.You're arguing with pillows. Please do me the courtesy of some clear, precise commentary. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Pillows - point taken, precision is necessary. I posed a "confusion of pillows" question, above: see ...
The only solution I can see is to use "groups of networks", but that doesnt deliver precision. On the contrary. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
> What if anything would count as learning other than in a network? Surely all learning is networked [or 'in a network'] by definition? So what would be meant by networks learn better than groups? A lot in this question rests on what you mean by 'learning'. The colloquial definition of 'learning' barely distinguishes between 'learning' as a verb, 'learning' as a noun, and 'learning' as an adjective. Is learning something a person does, or is learning something people do? There are many ways we could turn at this point, but I can progress my making some fairly simple distinctions: - learning as having - for example, learning by 'acquiring' knowledge, from having a store of facts, from 'receiving' instruction, etc. This is roughly equivalent to the idea of 'knowing that'. - learning as being - for example, to develop muscles (or 'muscle memory'), to be 'mentally agile', to 'be aware', to 'be organized'. This is roughly equivalent to the idea of 'knowing how'. - learning as doing - for example, to take a class, to study hard, to rehearse. Generally there is the presumption of success - that is, the 'doing' is taken to result in either 'having' or 'being'. Now, having made this distinction, let me turn to 'learning' as understood by connectivism. According to the theory (and I takje it both George and I agree with this formulation): "to know is to be organized in a certain way, and to learn is to become organized in that way." Now, to partially address the questions: First of all, it seems pretty clear that both George and I reject, at least to a certain degree, the idea of 'learning as having'. I reject it completely; I just don't think it's helpful. George, maybe, would allow that some 'having' statements are reducible to (or equivalent to) some 'being' statements. Either way, for both of us, learning and knowing are not simply the 'having' of entities. A society might have a library or a database - it might 'have' knowledge, therefore - but neither of use would say that the society 'knows' or 'has learned' unless the members of that society are relevantly connected to that database. Second, The 'doing', according to connectivism, is to conduct activities that would lead to being organized in a certain way. George would characterize this as 'network formation', while I (thinking more of personal learning than of social learning) would characterize it as 'practice and reflection'. Things that are not networks, insofar as they can do things, can do these actions. However, insofar as they do these actions, one of two results is possible: Either, the actions are successful, and they become organized in a certain way, in which case, they become networks. Or, the actions are not successful, in which case, they do not learn. Which consequence results depends a great deal on the nature of the things being considered. If the things can form connections with each other, they can form networks, and therefore, can learn. If they cannot form connections, then they cannot learn. Now, you ask, > What if anything would count as learning other than in a network? First of all, we would not normally say 'learning occurs in a network', we would say, 'networks learn'. That said: we can think of individual people, as networks (or neural cells), and therefore, as entities that can learn, and ask: - can people learn in a (social) network? yes - they can learn as individuals, by forming new neural connections, or they can be part of the way the social network learns, by forming connections with other people - can people learn even if they are not in a (social) network? yes - because people are neural networks and neural networks learn. People can learn in any circumstance - in groups, in networks, in jail, at sea, wherever. - can people be part of the way a society learns, if they are not in a social network? It seems very difficult to imagine. Such people have no way to make connections with others. They cannot help society become organized as a learning network. But the bottom line question, when properly clarified, becomes this: Given that all people, as neural networks, learn, do they learn better in a group or in a network? This becomes a judgment call, but I offer, for your consideration: - when a person is in a group, the person learns, but the social unit (the group) does not learn - when a person is in a network, the person learns, and the social unit (the network) learns. Now if the person is learning from the social unit, then it would seem to me to better that the person learn from a social unit that can learn as opposed to a social unit that cannot. Objection: now you may read this and say, but a 'group' can learn. Reply, First, we need to be clear that collections of people have some group properties and some network properties. No collection of people is ever a 'pure' group or network. So, insofar as a collection of people learns, it is by virtue of its network properties. Second, we should not confuse between 'a group learning' and 'learning in a group'. A person can join a group not knowing A and end up learning A by virtue of the fact that some other person in the group knows A. This is a person learning in a group. But the group has not learned - it knew A at the start, and it knows A at the end. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hi Stephen, I like your views and explanation. And I agree with your suggestions. I have further echoed them in my blog http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com So, at the end it's a choice for the learners. Connectivism does offer such a choice. John |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Well, thanks for sharing all this. But you are just plain wrong. People 'learn that'. And your semantic reliance is silly given your desire to stay clear of semantics. People are more that neural networks. People are more that the sum of their parts. This equation of yours is just plain false. A sleight of hand, as it were. If a person in a group learns, the group learns. Bottom-line. Networks do not learn. They are networks. There is no value-added in them. Groups have purpose. Networks have connections. There is a difference between purpose and connection. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Do Networks learn? This is a key question. Through their structure (topology) and the dynamic they define laws and characteristics that permeates all nodes and connections. These may be the key features that could make networks store information, learn, evolve and at the end where the knowledge would be residing. We do not have a clear answer about this till now. And this course is somehow going around this central question. What is it sure, is that wherever we find a learning process and knowledg the structure and dynamic of a network is behind it. ,Networks, a must condition for learning and knowledge? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Stephen, many thanks. Most informative. Second, The 'doing', according to connectivism, is to conduct activities that would lead to being organized in a certain way. George would characterize this as 'network formation', while I (thinking more of personal learning than of social learning) would characterize it as 'practice and reflection'. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Stephen, many thanks. Most informative. Either way, for both of us, learning and knowing are not simply the 'having' of entities. A society might have a library or a database - it might 'have' knowledge, therefore - but neither of use would say that the society 'knows' or 'has learned' unless the members of that society are relevantly connected to that database. This highlights and justifies the specific contribution of the word 'connected', great. Second, The 'doing', according to connectivism, is to conduct activities that would lead to being organized in a certain way. George would characterize this as 'network formation', while I (thinking more of personal learning than of social learning) would characterize it as 'practice and reflection'. Agreed. Practice and reflection are useful. I dont know in what sense 'network formation' would be adequate for describing, understanding or facilitating learning. It sounds like a variant of 'having entities' - i.e. 'having a formed network'. > What if anything would count as learning other than in a network? - can people be part of the way a society learns, if they are not in a social network? It seems very difficult to imagine. Such people have no way to make connections with others. They cannot help society become organized as a learning network. Agreed, and the same argument is valid within semiotics and discourse theory. But the bottom line question, when properly clarified, becomes this: Given that all people, as neural networks, learn, do they learn better in a group or in a network? Yes, agreed. Second, we should not confuse between 'a group learning' and 'learning in a group'. A person can join a group not knowing A and end up learning A by virtue of the fact that some other person in the group knows A. This is a person learning in a group. But the group has not learned - it knew A at the start, and it knows A at the end. The formal argument is clear, but it looks a bit tautologous. I am no fan of committees, but aren't management and strategy groups (Boards, for instance) groups, and if they dont learn, what are they doing? [I know they waste a lot of time, but that's a separate issue]. Or do they morph from groups to networks as soon as they learn, and then morph back again? And if so, what kind of thing do they do, as groups, in the time when they are not functioning as networks? There is a distinction between a set of people whose work and interaction is characterised by hierarchy and by communication largely restricted to communication with the 'leader' of the group on the one hand, and a set of people where lateral, and horizontal interaction is tolerated and encouraged, or even where 'horizontal' interaction is 'not applicable'. I can think of examples of both kinds of 'sets' where little or no learning takes place, and in which substantial learning takes place. Question: is group learning: more difficult more restricted rarer just different, or impossible? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
If a 'group' is governed by, say ISO 9001 Quality Assurance procedures, does the maintenance of these in light of the "group's experience" qualify as learning? I think it does. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
If we examine it as "know what", it does. Though the ISO9001 may prescribe the "know how". But it doesn't mean that people "know how" and "know why" - a deep understanding" in applying the procedures. And only if people (the brains) are connected to this procedures, understand and apply it then it becomes learning for the people (people is a part of the system), and system learning. See my previous post on "shallow and deep learning". What happens if the procedures are difficult to apply, then there is need to "learn" or have a better "know how" in say, improving the system or procedures to meet the requirements. How could networking helps in resolving the issues that arise from application of those procedures, especially if you are in a group? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
The procedures should certainly describe "know what", and should provide "know where" of the "know how", and also the "know who" necessary to do the job. People within the system will always be able to learn various parts of the procedures (I hope) but I am more interested at the moment in whether the 'group' has learned through the process of updating the procedures, and in whether this type of group may actually be able to learn faster than a more amorphous network due to some sense of 'group purpose'. |
| Re: (K)nowhere ? |
|
John, agreed. I am also working with what amounts to 'know where' - not in the limited sense of place, but in the metaphorical sense of 'know in what situation it would be appropriate'. This comes from a neo-Gibsonian notion of affordances (if you are familiar with Gibson's affordances). See: the know where attachment, which is an extract of a longer document, attached elsewhere in the forums in its full version. |
| Re: (K)nowhere ? |
|
Excellent question, Roy. But I don't think I could respond here with full explanation, due to limited space. Compliance to ISO 9001:2000 requires a system approach (i.e. group) rather than a network approach. However, if an organisation (group) is seeking best practice or benchmarking in order to improve or innovate, it would be far better to start with a group, followed by networking by its group members to see what can be learnt elsewhere, and then sharing the experience back with the group. Again, this requires detail analysis of each situation and is outside this course. If you like, we could start a new post to share our experience. Back to you. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
I think Stephen's answer is that group learning is less valuable: "But the bottom line question, when properly clarified, becomes this: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/post.php?reply=5852 |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Re: Downes 10/10/08 5.23 p.m. There are many assumptions and unsupported statements made in this lengthy post. The bottom-line statement of this post is that: "If a group learns, it is because there are overlaps between groups and networks and neither form is pure. Based on this, Stephen concludes that any learning is a result of the network properties of the group. The corollary is that groups never learn, which is an unsupported position in this post." |
| Re: passion versus reason |
| Ok, i get the jist in these examples. Am still unsure of need for differentiating one form the other, but have an understanding of the conceptual differences being used in how Stephen is applying distinctions. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
|
Though I have enjoyed reading (really) the discussion about the distinctions between groups and networks, I haven't sensed that there has been any information added to my original understanding of the differences between the two. I presently think that there are enough signs given to assure me of whether I have crossed the border between a group to a network or not. For example in the USA the state law in Oregon doesn't allow customers to pump their own gas - California does. I'll know when I fill up with gas which of the two adjoining states I'm in. Likewise, when I try to lead with an idea, change the discussion, challenge the agenda, etc., I'll know I'm in a group not a network. I don't want to appear simpleminded but are these fine grained distinctions between the group and the network necessary for the successful continuation of the course? My interest now is in how a network can be utilized within an institution that makes regular use of groups in the classroom, in LMS's, in institutional governance, etc. So far the integration of the network is generally characterized (not defined) as (slightly) negative For example, Lisa mentioned subverting the group's function. http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=955 I see the groups at my institution (Council, administrators' groups, committees) continually subverted by networking. Similarly, when networks form (and are effective) they tend to work best by subverting the directed purpose of the groups. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Given what you have said here then we are involved in a group not a network. 1. groups emphasize sameness, networks emphasize diversity 1. we are a group because we are discussing and learning the same thing...about connectivism. 2. we are a group because there is order to the readings and weekly topics, including topics of discussion. 3. we are a group because there are borders and memberships. You have to be a member to post here on the forums, you have to be a member to post a blog etc. 4. we are a group because the knowledge gained here is increasing by additions, or working to prove the same point. Is this correct? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hi Roberta, see http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com or my post for details. 1. The participants/learners who are discussing and/or learning the same thing could be in a group but also be in a network or even collectives. It depends on the choice of the learner, and his/her knowledge, experience and familarity of the subject. In a forum, the participants will likely first start to join as a network, then a group if the members wish to pursue further and focus on particular objectives and explore/discuss further. Or the participants will choose to be a collective to start with, but pop in a network or a group for a while. Or the participants who are in groups would like to check out the opinions of the people on the network. 2. The learners may be expected or are in groups if they follow readings and weekly topics, but again it's up to the learners. Even those who are not following the sequence could be groups, as they choose to do it in other ways. And these people may form their own groups, in wikis, facebooks or even blogs (with bloggers sharing views and tasks with each other). Some learners may just like to connect, to network or to join a group at various time. 3. The learners may or may not continue as a group. It depends on the purpose and needs of the learner, and these could all change upon time. So "we" may be in a group, but may also be just in a network. One doesn't have to be a group member to post. Anyone outside the group can post in the forum, so they may not be "members" 4. I have explained this in my blog in response to Q4. In summary, there could be a cycle of network - group/collectives going on from time to time. Cheers. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
I think both George and Stephen are right, though their views are different.
It really depends on where you are and how you see the groups, networks, and collectives. So, you could be in a group, a network and a collective all at the same or different times You are invited to see http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com for details. Cheers. John |
| Re: passion versus reason |
| How can they both be right, with divergent views? Are you just a peace-maker? Are you suggesting that group/network/collectives are all the same, and the distinctions are meaningless? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ken, I agree with you. The English language has provided us with innumerable expressions in the course of time referring to knowledge and thinking being in our mind, residing in our mind. Everytime we say I´ve got a mind to...; it springs to mind; I´ll bear that in mind; ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?; I´m in two minds; something on my mind; the thought never crossed my mind; or I get the picture; an eyeopener; I could go on forever. We know we are using metaphorical expressions connected to the human ability to understand and learn, store knowledge and react in different ways to external stimuli. The fact that technology has provided us with a network to store information and interact is not going to change all this completely. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hi Ken, thanks for your questions. Groups, networks and collectives are distinct. They have their own purpose. May I suggest us to re-visit the paper on Collectives, Networks and Groups in Social Software for E-Learning by Terry Anderson and John Dron (reading in week 5)? I have found the definitions and explanation there in groups, networks and collectives useful. Cheers |
| Re: passion versus reason |
| I think it's one of those facile slogans that theorists come up with that try to press and pack into a line something they think emotionally resonates. But...it's stupid. Networks are shallow. Groups are deep. Networks don't need passions; there are groups for that -- it's all how you look at it. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
So the end result is that: "Networks have more value due to their reliance on reason?" Is that the point of this whole debate? |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ken, nope. See Daisy chains ... posts. 1. A reason for a reason for a reason can degenerate into a DCIDT - see above. 2. The value of a network can be the network (if its not incestuous) see above, which means it has to include reference - or deference to other networks. 3. To badly paraphrase John Donne, "no man is an incestuous network" (you can insert a different gender or sexual preference for 'man' if you wish). |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Hello Roy. I really don't understand how this connects to my question. I am feeling that the debate is being steered (by Stephen) into a passion versus reason, groups vs. network dichotomy and it is my feeling, gut, intuition, what have you, that the debate is suggesting that networks have more value than groups. Your three point rebuttal does not help me with this question. Your donkey chain thing: http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/post.php?reply=5956 seems more about the referrence issue, and whether it is required for me to stand on the shoulders of lilliputians, or have my own views. My answer to your questions about donkey chains being groups or networks? I think they are networks. High reason, little passion. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
My thinking has shifted over the course of this week, the discussion of group and network and the semantics involved seem a distraction. II am more intereted in the following "in what ways and to what extent are we connected" and with regards to connectivism and a theory of learning "what types of connecting. of relating, are more (and less) effective for learning". |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
I am eager to get into those, too, Ailsa - particularly the theory of learning part. I appreciate your pragmatic turn. On the other hand, I don't think we should let the semantic issues drop entirely. I share Ken's suspicion that certain normative dichotomies are being pushed here - group bad/network good, passion bad/reason good - that limit our understanding of the possible forms and uses of connective knowledge. Feminist theoretical skepticism of binary thinking would serve us well, and we should not exclude it from how we interact with what and whom we encounter here. I commented briefly about this on Gina's blog. |
| Re: met any good networks lately? |
|
Ailsa, Ed, Gina, yes. I have now got to a place where I have a better idea of the group/ network issue, particularly in Stephen's response to the classification of DCIDTs, above. And there's even some fun in there: I just love the image, enough to make me smile out loud (SOL?). On the passion /reason one, I think we should find a good bin for it. Partly because of the 'feminist' critique (although I think its a bit presumptuous to appropriate that kind of critique to feminists - unless of course 'feminism' is not gender specific?), and partly because of some of the issues on Gina's blog. To wit ... I think there is a wondeful mashup of cognitive, caring, amusing, communal, scientific and social (etc) work to be done in virtual networks, like this one, or on many other social network sites. Its the mix and 'flavour' of this kind of mashup that allows 'learning' to be reclaimed as 'human', rather than 'cognitive' (or just left-cranium). In a sense I think 'cognitivism' is the frontier of the new struggle, although I think the frontier has already been breached in so many ways, its just a matter of recognising this, and celebrating it. So post-feminism (see queer theory, etc) includes the carnivalesque. |
| Re: met any good networks lately? |
|
I think its a bit presumptuous to appropriate that kind of critique to feminists - unless of course 'feminism' is not gender specific? One can apply insights developed in feminist theory without self-identifying as a feminist (although, for the record, I do), just as you don't have to be a Marxist to derive insights from Marx's critique of capitalism or Gramsci's account of ideological hegemony. In my understanding of critical theories, it was feminist theory that introduced the critique of binary thinking - but I am very open to new information on that from the network, if it is available. For the rest, I agree: I'm all about the carnivalesque. I sense that the full power of networks may reside in their move away from privileging a left-cranium kind of rationality as 'knowledge'; we learn better when we have fun, and fun is a creative enterprise, a whole-human activity, not a purely cerebral one. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
Ken, I agree with Stephen: Groups. And I dont know if you would get much leverage from standing on the shoulders of Lilliputians. It's difficult to be deferential to someone you can hardly see. (No aspersions cast on little people, this is a metaphor, right?). I think you could be more discriminating in your choice of shoulders. Newton chose giants. |
| Re: passion versus reason |
|
>Newton chose giants As you have chosen Stephen? I confess, I am not interested in deferring to anyone just yet. Nor does leverage much interest me in this debate. I am no Newton. Which I should perhaps be glad of, given my understanding that his theories may be eliminated in the complex, chaotic world of connectivist emergencies. Although he did have a pretty good run of it. |
| Re: Referral and deferral in networks. |
|
Re: Kens post of 16/10 at 07:02: Ken, nope. 1. I rate Stephen highly, but I interact with him as a peer in a peer network. 2. The 'great' parts of what he (or anyone else) writes I refer to and defer to as 'great'. 3. The parts I disagree with, I question and challenge. 4. In constructing my own position within this network (amongst many others) I build up my own positions as a range of nodes within particular networks, and I explore the words and concepts that I use, and that others use within these networks, to see what collaborative work I can do with other people, ideas and networks. 5. To wit, I participate in communities of practice and communities of inquiry: some more informal (and more network-ish) and some formal (and more group-ish - like academic journals). 6. Now that everything's digital, I reversion and mash up stuff from the one to the other, and back again. That's a particular affordance of digital networks, and I suppose that's partly why 'networked learning' resonates better with my own thinking and practice, than does 'connectivist learning', as 'network' is more specifically linked to 'digital' -on the concept map for this course (still in my head) there is more affinity and resonance between digital/ vitual and 'network' than there is to 'connections'. That's less structured and less hierarchical than Newton's scenario, but that's thanks to the more horizontal potential of social networks, and peer-2-peer memes and practices that are now possible (not inevitable). The collegiate relationship of scientific peer review, however, cuts across both scenarios. P.S. I dont footnote in discussion forums, and I am not advocating you do either, unless you do it in jest, no? But I do hyperlink where I can, and I do name people and ideas that I think may consolidate and elaborate further what I am writing about. |
| Re: Referral and deferral in networks. |
|
Roy, Your perspective is stimulating, leading us to think about the platform to stage and participate in a networking environment. Would our network (say in this forum) be (a) peer review (b) teacher vs learner vs co-learners (similar to the digital classroom/workshop where learners and teachers all interact, only that in this case we are all talking/responding at the "same time" or "same topic at different times") (c) question/response debates on different perspectives (d) reinforcement of advanced concepts, applications development (for academics and teachers) (e) cultivation of new ideas and development in teaching and learning under the umbrella of "connectivism" (not only for professionals and para-professionals, but also for any one who are involved in learning) (f) some of the above or one that I haven't mentioned here. As each participant (especially in this forum) is playing a different role at different times and interacting with each other as we progress through the network, some of us may prefer just to reflect (and be a lurker) to see what may be gained out of this, while others would prefer to reflect/share via blogs. This leads us to think again about learning as chaotic (mainly because we may be carrying different hats/roles as we interact and think the other parties are carrying such a hat/role as well). So even in the forum like this, due to differences in the perspectives and roles, you will find un-ending debates (that's healthy) as well as emotions (that's part of network learning) that could be accounted for the complexity of digital network learning and connectivism (connections of all kinds). I think there is always a blend of passion and reasons in groups and networks. And you wouldn't be easy to distinguish them easily, as role of the participants (learners and teacher inclusive) often change. Also, the stage of development of networks are important (a complex and chaotic situation). One thing is certain though, I think, we all wish to support and help each other in our forum or through blogs in our network development, irrespective of the roles, at least to move forward in our learning journey, even if participants (teachers and learners) have different perspectives and understanding of connectivism, and that the future outcomes/development of such networking or learning is unpredictable. And that networking (both digital and non-digital) is always part of the life journey of everyone, whether we like it or not. And you could even agree with disagreement in forum or blogs.... But I think we all value our discussion here at the moment. Otherwise, we would have spent time elsewhere. For others, are you looking for passion or reason or both? |
| Re: Referral and deferral in networks. |
|
Hi John. My position in regards to your last question: Reason is important, but matters little without passion as its guide. |
| Re: Referral and deferral in networks. |
|
John, I think all of your options apply, to different people at different times. A word of caution ... This is my second participation at a mega-forum, or 'global JAM' (Jam as in jazz session). In the previous one I was a facilitator - and there were I guess 12 facilitators, and 140 participants. My experience of mega-forums is that a groups of people establish their own, overlapping, micro-global networks, or conversations, within the mega-forum, which is fine. However, the speed, complexity, flexibility, development, range of connections and links of particular groups of people can dominate and 'occupy' the discussion space, and exclude others. This is a concern, although not a major issue, perhaps it should be? Ailsa's comments on a culture of 'care' within forums is worth considering, and relates directly to 'deferral'. Care includes making sure other people also have 'space', by not 'filling it up' with monologues and esoteric issues - which is difficult, as the issues at the borders and boundaries are often the most fascinating ones. Care also includes giving people the space and facility to organise their ideas and connections, which is puzzling. The question is: if web 2 includes not only 'readability' of media (mass communication) and 'writability' (social software and user generated content) and 'executability' (the ability to download and execute micro-applications for ordering, display, sorting, navigation), then why does this (connectivist) version of moodle not allow better individualised organisation of how each of us reads the forums - moodle is still a bit like mass communication, even if its highly 'writable'. |
| Re: Referral and deferral in networks. |
|
The question is: if web 2 includes not only 'readability' of media (mass communication) and 'writability' (social software and user generated content) and 'executability' (the ability to download and execute micro-applications for ordering, display, sorting, navigation), then why does this (connectivist) version of moodle not allow better individualised organisation of how each of us reads the forums - moodle is still a bit like mass communication, even if its highly 'writable'. Moodle is a Managed Learning Environment, not a Personal Learning Environment (although it can form part of an individual's PLE). As such, it provides tools (such as the forum module we are using) rather than providing a common interface with which user selected tools can interact. This Moodle instance is, I believe, primarily provided as part of a traditional educational institution, providing instructional and social constructivist learning (correct me if I am wrong!) - it isn't a connectivist version of moodle, rather a re-appropriation of an existing tool to facilitate discussions amongst connectivists and learners about connectivism in as connectivist a way as possible given the nature of existing tools. |
 | Re: passion versus reason |
| Oh my, just saw how many replies there are and me late to the party. I see the passion of groups is what gets groups in trouble so often, for without passion there is no power. Networks are necessarily devoid of passion and therefore devoid of power. But are they led by logic? I think it illogical to think so. Spock-speak? I need a mind meld! |