Evri + Twine Evri & Twine join forces! Read more.

Shal's twine Shal's twine / Items

The Gold mine, exploring hyperconnected trust

Get Feed

 

The Gold mine, exploring hyperconnected trust

For the last week or so a lively discussion (polylogue?) has taken place concerning the evolution and application of the term friendship in the hyperconnected world, with specific correlation to twine as an instrument of interest networking and many important comments pertaining to the difference between Physical space (a.k.a meatspace) referred to as M(_) and Cyberspace (a.k.a the hyperconnected universe referred to as C(_).

Two main issues appear to have taken the front line, one is the issue of trust, the other the issue of attention.

Quoting an esteemed member of this discourse:” " I personally believe attention and trust are the silver and gold of the next century, both are fundamentally scarce" (Kurt)

So we start with gold and thus this note is devoted to the issue of trust.

So given that all agree that trust is gold and attention is silver the first and the fundamental question is:

1. Is there a total equality between trust in M(_) and trust in C(_)?

 As I see it there are overlapping (see Phil’s clouds model) aspects of trust between both dimensions but to my mind they are neither equal (not in principle and not at present) nor should we aspire for them to be equal.

 2. This is a proposal to make Trust in C(_) a conceptual meta-nexus from which the following terms will extend and overlap (see Phil’s cloud model)

Trust in hyperconnectivity extends and overlaps into :

 

  • Credibility?
  • Authority?
  • Sincerity?
  • Reliability?
  • Dependability?
  • Fidelity?
  • Constancy?
  • Consistency?
  • Integrity?
  • Presence?
  • Collaboration?
  • Alignment ?
  • Behavior? (see the note below)
  • Investment?
  • Return?
  • Passion?

Wiki defines trust as :” Trust is a prediction of reliance on an action, based on what a party knows about the other party. Trust is a statement about what is otherwise unknown -- for example, because it is far away, cannot be verified, or is in the future.” See here

 

Can we give a better description of what trust in hyperconnectivity is or stands for?

notes:

In previous thread François wrote:"Maybe a good reason why C-friendship is less likely to be as strong as M-friendship is "Loin des yeux, loin du coeur" ("far from the eyes, far from the heart")" should that apply to C(_) trust?

In previous thread Phil wrote:" Additional item for consideration

M(__) groups have certain expectations of members.  These may be formally defined.  Code of conduct.  Dress codes.  The may be informally.  Everyone shares in cleanup duties after the party.  C(__) groups have expectations too, both formal (Terms of Use) and informal.  Something thatshould be kept in mind for all connexion ties, is that C(__) includes an extremely wide range of cultural backgrounds [the widest there is].

9.  What is the cultural norm that should be expected in C(__)?  Can we formalize a common base?  Some terms to start the thought process: etiquette, culture, roles

Are these terms relating or extending from trust?

in the previous thread rpfiii wrote: "The elements that make up a Gang, such as race/gender/religious focus/age group/appearance, have a lower intrinsic value for hyperconnected friendships, simply because these elements are less accessible or even unavailable due to the medium of interaction. Thoughts, ideas, and the written word become the exchange system that draws people into "Gang"-like relationships. And this ties into the concept of "Trust" between individuals and groups. In a communication exchange between individuals, if there is sufficient commonality or concurrency, a sense of "Trust" is developed and this becomes the key component in drawing individuals together, absent any other traditional external influences." (emphasis mine)

can we define this: sufficient commonality or concurrency?

This note and comments continues the conversation that started here: http://www.twine.com/item/11h47cd1z-2h5/some-initial-notes-thoughts-questions

A map of friendship in hyperconnectivity FH(_)

Comments

  • Public Comments

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      17 months ago


      Trust: I like Blue. I make that statement openly. You reply, in agreement that you also like Blue. We have established commonality. I begin to share images with Blue as the predominant color. You also share images with Blue as the predominant color. We have now established concurrency.

      Commonality is a shared trait (interest in the case of Twine) Concurrency is the simultaneous expression of that shared trait in a mutually acceptable and understandable format.

      Conversely, Kurt disagrees and states he likes Red, and then shares images with Red as the predominant color. Although we are not in agreement (no commonality) we have still established a trust relationship because Kurt has now used the same method of Concurrency to express his trait within the same confines as you and I.

      On this comparative basis, we now have developed a level of Trust.

      If a disruptive element is now added--Phil (sorry Phil) enters the conversation, and says he likes the Chicago Bears, and begins posting images and stats of the players on that football team, he has neither Commonality, nor Concurrency, and since he has not operated within the established framework of communication, he now lacks trust within that group. So I would have to add that CONTEXT is the medium of Connexion in developing trust.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        Me? Disruptive? Never happens =P Just (don't) ask my high school teachers :-) Now, me, going off on a tangent ...

        In general agree. Be careful using 'Concurrency' though (at least the connotation of immediacy), given the amount of 'time shifting' that happens from time zone, and encountering the threads at different times. I do expect that distance in time *will* reduce the context / trust (last years news is less likely to apply to current 'needs', even if it was highly 'trustworthy' at the time).
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      17 months ago


      re: "Polylogue" This is what keeps sticking in my head every time I read that word...

      polywog

      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • François Dongier
      17 months ago


      Looks like trust is a bit less mysterious and easier to describe than the notion of friendship. Here is how I see it fit with the rest:

      Information overload = our main problem
      => filtering is needed, unavoidable
      => collaborative filtering is essential (next to automated filtering, which I see as the main raison d'être of the semantic web)
      => importance of trusted sources (otherwise collaborative filtering can't work)

      As wikipedia puts it: "Trust may be considered a moral choice, or at least a heuristic, allowing the human to deal with complexities that outgo rationalistic reasoning".

      Friendship = shared interests + mutual trust + attachment. Attachment is the mysterious part of friendship, and I think it's hard to reproduce in C(_) space. I don't think attachment plays a role in Trust (confidence in source reliability).

      What ingredients are needed for trust, in a conversation (dialogue or multi-participant polylogue)?
      • commonality: we need to talk about the same thing, share an interest in it, or several interests, since we can look at the thing along many of its dimensions
      • concurrency??? I'm still unclear about this one... Must think about it, re-read your example slowly...
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        17 months ago


        Perhaps this will help--this does a better job of explaining my interpretation of what concurrency is...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)

        "processes which make up a concurrent system can interact with each other."

        "concurrent systems...are intended to participate in an ongoing interaction with users, and with other systems."

        Twine interactions are concurrent in the sense that they effect each other--can interact via participation at any entry point or level.

        "it can involve arbitrary and dynamic patterns of communication and interaction, whereas parallel systems generally have a predefined and well-structured communications pattern".

        Take a look at the predecessor of this thread--it certainly does not flow well as a parallel system, there are multiple pathways, that weave in and out of each other, both up and down the thread. Highly concurrent.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          "it can involve arbitrary and dynamic patterns of communication and interaction, whereas parallel systems generally have a predefined and well-structured communications pattern".
          that would be my definition for hyperconnected conversation, a polylogue
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • wildcat wildcat
            17 months ago


            Concerning the term polylogue: Any living language is constantly changing [1] with words developing as the need arises. The word polylogue comes from the words poly and dialogue. One concept is that for a number of threads of conversation, such as occurs on a blog or wiki site, the word polylogue more correctly expresses the communication that occurs. A number of dialogues occur simultaneously, hence the composite term, polylogue.
            see here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Polylogue
            I think we can expand on that defintion
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • François Dongier
              17 months ago


              Yes, you're right. Contrary to what I wrote above, It's not the number of participants that makes it a polylogue: you can have a polylogue in a conversation between just 2 people. As I understand it now, a polylogue is essentially a multi-threaded conversation, not a multi-participant one. Multiple threads make it possible to pursue multiple sub-topics, or different aspects of the topic under discussion. Obviously, cyber-conversations are much better positioned to generate polylogues than M-conversations. And the hyperconnexion we are talking about is not a property of people in C-space, but rather a property of concepts and ideas in thread space.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        I need to throw in something that may be *obvious*, but does not seem to be have been mentioned in the thread so far.

        I can *trust* someone who is not a friend, that I do not like. They can provide useful / accurate information [from my perspective] for some specific set of contexts. In other contexts, I seriously disagree with their knowledge / opinions / attitude / pick some more. I also have friends that I [only] trust within fairly narrow contexts. I *like* them, but do not trust them much. Or maybe better said, I 'trust' them to do the *wrong* (from my perspective) thing in a lot of contexts. So I'm *weird*.

        As François indicates, friendship is bidirectional, trust does not need to be. If it (trust, attachment) is only one direction, the other is a fan / groupie not a friend.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          "I can *trust* someone who is not a friend, that I do not like", if so trust does not correlate 1:1 to friendship?

          "I *like* them, but do not trust them much" , if so we cannot imply from friendship on *trust*?

          "So I'm *weird*." that would imply that we all are, since there is no doubt we all to this or that extent *feel* similar feelings, so humans are weird..

          "friendship is bidirectional", yes of course, but in C(_) it is also multidimensional and carries a huge amount of implications.

          Maybe at this point we need introduce a different objective, defining friendship in the context of trust in C(_) .example I am dealing with: we almost do not know each other, and yet I trust you, what are the meanings implied by that statement? is it because we share similar interests? to what extent do they overlap? again I need mention cyberintuition, somehow a new kind of instinct is developing, that allows me to use a very few bits and pieces of information to project a (quite) reliable assessment of who can be trusted in C(_). to my eyes that is the seed of a possible friendship in C(_) with or without future implications in M(_).
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            "if so trust does not correlate 1:1 to friendship?" yes, correlation not required
            "if so we cannot imply from friendship on *trust*?" yes, although see comment about approximation below

            "multidimensional and carries a huge amount of implications" so does M(_) friendship. Just not necessarily the same ones.

            "different objective" to be [programmatically / functionally] useful, a connexion does not *require* a friendship attribute. Trust levels and the associated contexts / dimensions would be *sufficient* for many things. Starting from there, it might be possible [as a first cut approximation] to calculate a 'friendship' rating based on the multiplicity of trust ratings. To be used to calculate friendship, the trust needs to be bidirectional. To move from 'fan' or 'groupie' to friendship requires that both parties [approximately] agree. Math to be worked out later :-) The curves probably need to be tuned by each user anyway, depending on what is most important to them. Unless that can be derived from the profile information, which would just mean the tuning is tied to the user provided profile information anyway. For bidirectional link ratings used to 'add up' to friendship, the ratings themselves do not need to be in sync. I trust you on A, you trust me on B, we trust each other on C (at different levels). Since what is important to friendship varies by person, we can end up friends as long as I qualify as a friend by your criteria, and you qualify by my criteria. Trust is likely a large part of those criteria, but which dimensions of trust are used (prioritized / weighted) in calculation the could be widely different.

            cyberintuition could be just the subconscious 'adding up' all of the trust and confidence level dimensions, factoring in the knows, unknows, and personal weightings to come up with a 'total'.
            "who can be trusted in C(_)" that is an important qualification. C(_) trust does not necessarily imply or lead to M(_) trust. That makes the work for "cyberintuition" easier. It is working with a narrow context that matches those bits and pieces. It also means that [usually] the risk is less, which makes trust easier (I think).

            "seed of a possible friendship in C(_) with or without future implications in M(_)."
            agreed. That should mix well with my previous post about trust and confidence level. Once enough mutual trust dimensions have positive levels, increasing the confidence in those levels (the error range?) can lead to C(_) friendship. Remembering that mutual does not mean same.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      17 months ago


      Definitely, both concurrent/communal and Rhizomatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome_(philosophy) so we can advance here to the next level, here's a proposal:
      trust in hyperconnectivity can be described as a meta nexus of the friendship phase space. in said multidimensional phase space, trust acts as the guiding/filtering principle indicating a rhizomatic pattern of concurrence and commonality.
      humm..

      en passant, François, what do you mean by attachment? (in Hyperconnectivity I mean, I think I know the buddhist meaning)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        can you expand on / supply reference for "meta nexus"? I get nexus as link / joining, and meta as over / higher / about. I got lost in that one. If have a feel for the terms in the next sentence, but it refuses to jell into a total meaning.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          well, as I see it, its a 3D visual map. the overall map (of a phase space) in this instance is called friendship in hyperconnectivity and has one meta nexus , which in this case as its name implies is the higher junction from which all other terms emerge, and correlate to other terms that are related to or implied by the center nexus ,trust. there are other nexuses in this phase space but only one 'meta' nexus. the overall visual is non-hierarchical but rhizomatic and since it is multidimensional, and so we can have a compass of sorts, I proposed to locate 'trust' as the central axis/nexus and proceed from there. I believe that if it will be possible to elaborate and eventually construct such a map, we may have in our hands a visual aid in understanding and using trust 'as a guiding /filtering principle'. moreover I believe that such a map will give an overview with just a glance of the main aspects of friendship in hyperconnectivity, namely commonality and concurrence. its a thought in progress so I am not really clear about it myself, hope this clarifies a bit the idea.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • François Dongier
            17 months ago


            Any relation with Imindi by any chance? I see Imindi as a tool to express concept clouds, share them (and then eventually merge them). Are the visual maps you are talking about somehow related to this kind of objective?
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • wildcat wildcat
              17 months ago


              I have no relation to Imindi (discovered it not long ago) but judging from their presentation , yes I think they are on to something very similar to what I envisage here, I surely hope that a tool able to express concept clouds and eventually merge them will come soon (i must say I had expectations that twine will be able to do that).I think that having at your disposal a representation of all of your interests connections and friendships into a cloud like space will allow us to better navigate the intricacies of hyperconnectivity.
              I think that as we progress into a truly hyperconnected global mind, our needs of understanding clearly the whole concept of friendship and trust (as its meta-nexus) will be critical, and actually they might already be.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • François Dongier
                17 months ago


                Actually, just like you I expected (and still expect) from Twine some mindmapping support, both for visualising the content of a twine and for visualising a user profile. What we need is a rich user-profile editor. I'm really looking forward to try Imindi... Their idea of merging concept clouds (coming from different user profiles) is ambitious, but just a good concept-cloud editor would already be great.
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • François Dongier
        17 months ago


        A synonym for the attachment I'm talking about is bonding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_bonding)
        I believe it's through such attachment that two persons (either in M(_) or in C(_) space) can in some cases become "friends" and not just "contacts" or "connexions". This is what happens when the fox, after being tamed, becomes a special fox for the Litlle Prince. Or when a mother gets attached to her child, and her child attached to her. No buddhist sense here, just the straight-forward notion of attachment/bonding.
        When two persons are close to each other (either because they just live close to each other and see each other a lot in meatspace, or because they hyperconnect through social media to share interests and have online conversations about these), there is a chance that mutual trust (i.e. mutual expectation of reliability) will develop, and that may in turn create a bond or friendship between the two.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
          17 months ago


          "mutual expectation of reliability"

          +1

          Anticipation of future action based on past performance.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • wildcat wildcat
            17 months ago


            "mutual expectation of reliability", I love it, and then "Anticipation of future action based on past performance. " if these two fundamentals are to be taken as the basis of trust in C(_) we can now maybe give a better description of what trust in hyperconnectivity H(_) stands for: Trust in hyperconnectivity can if so be said to be the aspect of connexion reflecting a mutual expectation of reliability from which stems an anticipation of future action based on past performance... (need be refined but I think it gives the gist of it)
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
              17 months ago


              sheesh--take a breath in that sentence SOMEWHERE! \o/
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Phil Duby Phil Duby
              17 months ago


              trust ==> expectation of reliability
              friendship ==> mutual expectation of reliability
              - on multiple, not necessarily congruent? trust dimensions

              A connexion will get 'stronger' as more trust dimensions are added, as the confidence levels increase. Note that there can be negative trust levels / dimensions as well, which can 'solidify' the connection but not make it 'stronger' (if I picked reasonable terms).
              A connexion implies a bi-directional linkage, but the strength of the linkage does not need to be same in both directions.
              A friendship connexion implies that linkage is about the same strength in both directions. When it is unbalanced, it gets back to fan and groupie connotations again.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      17 months ago


      concerning the attention economy see this : attention becomes the valued commodity http://k21st.omnilligence.net/
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        I do not think I found the referenced article on the site. Scrolled off of the recent list? Seem to need either a direct link, or some [category?] tags to get to it.

        I *did* find "The World Knowledge Dialogue" by Pierre Levy that you posted there. That looks like it has a lot to do with semantic [twine] tags / profiles that I have been trying to describe to RN. Have you seen some of those conversations? An early iteration of that is in a comment on: http://www.twine.com/item/1150x5n1n-3cf/twine-mindmap-hack Search for "specifically", or http://www.twine.com/item/1150x5n1n-3cf/twine-mindmap-hack?discussion=flat#c_28 should get you to it directly. Another related item: http://www.twine.com/item/116hvyj3d-54j/what-are-twines-items-should-inherit-tags-from-twines-they-re-in Much of the later stuff is in a private twine. Kurt [at least] should recognize it from CARE.

        Direct link to "The World Knowledge Dialogue" http://vodpod.com/watch/1010575-the-world-knowledge-dialogue-the-world-knowledge-dialogue?pod=wildcat2030
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          the correct url is this :http://k21st.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/technology-doesn’t-dumb-us-down-it-frees-our-minds/ (from an article on the NYT) sorry for the confusion.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            Ah! I saw that article, but did not 'link' it to your comment about attention economy.

            The direct url in your previous post is not clickable. Had to cut / paste. It appears that the automatic link creation done by the system does not like / handle the apostrophe character very well (where the url got truncated). Sent a report to the TBFAS twine about it. http://www.twine.com/item/11hjs5x33-38l/automatic-creation-of-hypertext-link-in-comments
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      17 months ago


      Another aspect of "trust" that occurred to me this morning, and this ties into the concept of "mutual expectation of reliability", is the term "respect", which also goes back to Phil's comment about not necessarily having a Friendship but still having Trust. I think that's where the other elements all grow from.

      I write a post, others comment. Those who's comments I respect--not necessarily agree with, but afford sufficient credibility to the commenter for a valid argument, well supported concepts, and compelling perspective--those are the people who I am drawn to in C(__). That Respect fosters Trust and Mutual Expectation, which--if reciprocal--may lead to Friendship, IF the contacts in C(__) are nurtured and maintained.

      Where there is a lack of Respect, both for an individual's actions and/or their comments, then the metric for Trust swings the opposite direction, and although one may have an expectation of future action, most likely that expectation is negative, and Friendship cannot initiate.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        well said.

        That also ties to the item 9 I added to the list. One of the C(_) cultural norm expectations would be respect, or more accurately respectfulness. The 'interesting' point is that being 'respectful' varies by culture and a base / commonly understood (and learnable) C(_) 'culture' would make the development of C(_) respect, trust, friendship easier.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          Firstly, rpfiii, thank you , you have just re-introduced into hyperconnectivity a concept which I think is both lacking (especially understanding) and is to my eyes one of the dimensions extending from trust. you wrote: "That Respect fosters Trust and Mutual Expectation" and following the description you gave I understand you to mean that respect or as Phil puts it ,respectfulness, implies :"valid argument, well supported concepts, and compelling perspective", these in turn allow "sufficient credibility" from which we can derive trust. I agree but again think it insufficient for the needs of the developing hyperconnectivity, I think that respect (fullness) is a very broad concept (though unlike Phil I do not think that culture implies into C(_)) , as I see it, respect in C(_) over and above the meanings of credibility reflects a mind that is wide enough to accommodate differences and apparent conflicts or paradoxes. in fact I would go as far as saying that in C(_) respect has become a commodity. so maybe, as was mentioned before concerning the attention economy, there exists also a "respect" economy? so in a respect economy we will have certain members of a community that gain respect from their peers by the sole fact of being the ones that hold same community together? they in turn become the nexus of trust and friendships derives from them? exploring...
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            Try this way. The *concept* of respect is cross cultural, but the actions that indicate / are perceived as [dis]respectful vary by culture. In M(_) (even with differences) a lot is typically conveyed by body language, tone of voice, even pauses and timing. Those 'cues' are all missing (or distorted) in C(_) [at least when not using real time video conferencing]. What does transfer / translate from M(_) is how sentences / communications are framed. It is all in the words, with a little bit left for the way emphasis is used.

            What in one culture could be perceived as a request for more information, could be seen in another as a direct attack.
            Humor could become sarcasm.

            In M(_) in a few city blocks you could have several different cultures. In C(_) it is even easier to have multiple different cultures as 'neighbors'. I do not *want* to limit / be limited by M(_) cultural differences / preconceptions in C(_) connexion / trust / respect / friendship relations. I am already being limited more than enough by the languages I [don't] understand, given the current state of translation software.

            "eflects a mind that is wide enough" THAT may be the basis for the C(_) cultural context. Given my comments above, having the base C(_) culture include that acceptance / expectation of difference as part of the 'norm' goes a long way in the direction I would like to travel. Then C(_) connexions that do not 'fit' can be (somewhat) treated like people that have not fully learned the language of their adopted country. It becomes a case of education / training / learning [point to the FAQ documents]. If I get my choice, I would incorporate the concepts from http://www.twine.com/item/11h4cchhw-2gs/dialogic-leadership with the different / changeable / balanced rolls.

            "respect economy"
            I like it.

            trust and respect seem to need and feed each other. It seems difficult to get very far with one, without some of the other, even if it is 'grudging' respect for someone you disagree with. Then the 2 together feed friendship.

            Is it dinner time yet? [a multi dimensionally comment that just fit too many ways to ignore]
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      17 months ago


      A short round -up, so now we have arrived at a point in which we need to organize a few concepts into a coherent view.

      Can we safely assume that friendship in hyperconnectivity is a Friendship Cloud (a phase space?), composed primarily of:

      Respect =>Trust => Friendship
      Friendship=> trust=> respect
      --
      respect => trust ==> expectation of reliability
      friendship ==> mutual expectation of reliability (both from Phil)
      the above relies on a correlated cloud of interests and behaviors?
      metrics for confidence? metrics for reliability?
      (still don't know where to put François attachment/bond insert)
      hmm.. again "sufficient commonality or concurrency?
      A coherent framework anyone?
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        17 months ago


        The attachment/bond element has a better term--'attraction'. And I DON"T mean that in some sort of perverted nonsense. Attraction is the format, the emotional connection, that creates friendship, and is demonstrated in your equations above as the => sign.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          OK attraction it is. henceforward attraction in the context of H(_) - hyperconnectivity will stand for the " format of emotional connection".
          so here we go again

          respect=> (attracts) => trust, trust engenders expectation of reliability
          if & Only if, the expectation of reliability is mutual => friendship is seeded (needs gardening,nurturing ,care)
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            Looks good. Now it is all in the 'details'. The metrics you mentioned above. Which are multi-dimensional.

            How about turning that into a pyramid / tetrahedron? Friendship at the top point, trust, respect, attracts as the points of the base? That also works in 2D as a single triangle split into 3 others. I just like 3D better :-)

            • Trust
            • _./|\._
            • _./|\._
            • _./|\._
            • _./Friendship\._
            • _./__.^.__\._
            • _./...———’`——–...\._
            • /_________________________________\
            • RespectAttraction
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • wildcat wildcat
              17 months ago


              ok, I think its a good start, (how about a mind map for this?) we will need explain the 3D (yes 3D works for me as well) relationships within it, define the strengths of connections and their implications. (back later M(_) calls)
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
              17 months ago


              wow, nice ASCII art man, and you got around twine's annoying left space removal with the bullets, nice
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                17 months ago


                Thanks. Actually that is not spaces. I used spans with a variable amount of left and right padding to get that. The bullets / list were just convenient to prevent paragraph spacing, instead of using hard breaks. I tried to also specify the bullet style, as 'none', but twine would not cooperate.
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                  17 months ago


                  huge points for persistance
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                    17 months ago


                    Actually it is not that difficult. There is a fairly simple pattern to the graphics and offsets. Once a template line is created, it becomes cut, paste, tweak the offset numbers. The only 'glitch' was I did the initial piece using a local html editor, then found that the CSS for twine postings was messing up my assumptions. Had to redo the offset numbers.
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            Since you tossed http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/starsmy.htm [I've read and like it] into a comment in http://www.twine.com/item/11g1pkyfh-1xv/polytopia-the-emergence-of, I'll throw in a different sci-fi reference over here. One of my favorite SF books is Hellspark by Janet Kagan http://www.amazon.com/Hellspark-Janet-Kagan/dp/0812542754 One of the societies / languages referenced in the book is structured so that it is impossible to state *anything*, without also supplying a reliability for the statement.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Phil Duby Phil Duby
      17 months ago


      How's this for a bit of 'syncronicity'? This showed up in [only] one of my joined twines, one where I don't think it even belongs!

      http://www.twine.com/item/11hzdy56p-134/the-future-of-reputation
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      Having read the thread(s) about Friendship, and seeing that you all arrived (even if temporarily) to some mutual ground, I would like to check an idea that attracts me in the context of hyperconnectivity and friendship.

      This idea starts from the (my) expectation that C(_) will eventually effect the strong defining lines of a separate person and will allow for the emergence of a C(_) denizen which isn't necessarily comprised of one M(_) person.
      This may seem far fetched but still is one of the prospects I think lie ahead of us. For starters, I would like to incorporate into (unto?) me intelligent agents that will for example participate in a thread such as this. I would like to expand into more agents that will be able to absorb information that will become a shared source of knowledge for 'all of me's' and interacts as such.
      It is then that hyperconnectivity and friendship becomes so important. I use the term Friendship in this context as one of the criteria that is sustained by 'all of me's'.

      And I find the description you have reached (as in):
      Respect =>Trust => Friendship
      Friendship=> trust=> respect
      A potent starting point for that idea.

      So basically, thanks for a most interesting discussion, and yes, I would appreciate thoughts in the direction of Hyperconnectivity Friendship as including more than one M(_) individual.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        17 months ago


        Interesting prospect FTF. The concept of an "aware" agent has been drafted in other twines by several participants, but never expressed as you have I don't believe. From what I understand about the Semantic Web, this sort of describes what Twine is intending to do behind the scenes surrounding an interest, or discussion thread such as ours. WAY Back up at the top of the page, Twine has managed to automatically pull out and link a few concepts under the "tags" heading on the far right side. Although not really 'intelligent' at this stage, it is improving, and perhaps this type of system interaction may evolve into what you are describing.

        We have joked in the past that Twine is the "ghost in the machine" because occasionally things like synchronicity, serendipity, and circumstance converge in very weird ways--maybe this is actually the first evidence of the collective "we" you mean.

        The idea of Friendship evolving into that C(__) group intelligence may also be associated with the R-T-F triangle in a different way. As relationships in C(__) evolve, you tend to gravitate towards people with similar mental/emotional/conceptual makeups as your own. Part of the Trust that is generated is the Trust that they would most likely react in similar ways that you would react given a certain situation. Kurt calls himself a Stimulus-Response-Machine. Part of my Trust level with him involves following his comment threads in other topic areas, as he and I tend to think and react alike in many ways. (He's accused me of being his 'bother from another mother'. He's obviously the smarter of the two).

        In a sense, Kurt can sometimes act as my Agent as you describe--expanding the areas that I can explore because I Trust that the things (Stimuli) that cause him to react (Response) would also quite often, interest me. This is what leads to your intelligent Agents. Now, Kurt is a M(__) construct, but through his C(__) interactions with me, and the Trust level that has been created, the IA (Intelligent Agent as opposed to Artificial Intelligence) allows 'Me' to extend and share knowledge and interact collectively. (wow, just blew a circuit on that one!)

        I would suggest you take a look at the mindmap that wildcat put together to organize all we have discussed so far, and perhaps see if there is a way you can add connexion with your idea. Thanks for extending this in ANOTHER direction. Now I've got WAY too much MORE to think about!
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        interesting
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      17 months ago


      I just realized something kinda dumb and also kinda synchronic---looking back at your triangle above, wildcat, you have arranged the terms:

      Friendship
      Respect
      Attraction
      Trust

      Which reading downwards, creates the root for the latin word "Frater", or 'Brother'. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_organization

      "The only true distinction between a fraternity and any other form of social organization is the implication that the members freely associate as equals for a mutually beneficial purpose, rather than because of a religious, governmental, commercial, or familial bond, although there are fraternities dedicated to each of these topics.[1]"

      Now I don't think this was EVER conciously intended by any of us, but it IS rather interesting, don'tcha think? ;-) KEG PARTY! http://www.twine.com/item/11xf8k20q-6t/beer-and-investing
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
        17 months ago


        rpfiii, thanks for your extensive response. much to think indeed. btw, is there a link to the mindmap? Oh, and in true fraternity spirit... I guess FRAT beats the other option (slight change of order) ;-)
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
          17 months ago


          Sorry, I thought I had...http://www.twine.com/item/11xcwzljc-hs/fh-map

          It's actually just another Thread within this Parent Twine of Friendship--you can also get there by clicking on the Summary tab at the top of the page--there are many other interesting topics here...

          And yeah,LOL...I wasn't gonna go there on the order thing.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
            17 months ago


            Although in a different Twine, that's been Kurt's problem lately. ;-)
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
              17 months ago


              very funny that little coincidence, and that of me calling people brother bent etc thus far, I like fraternity best of all, in the french sense (unfortunate shades of meaning from n.am colleges detract though)
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                17 months ago


                fraternity fits the earlier thread as an alternative to guild, gang, society. A twine is a frat house.

                That [potentially] multiple M(_) entity relation to a C(_) entity from FTF plus rpfiii's response could translate into the evolved C(_) entity being the (one of the?) IA for a [meta] twine.

                Reading below, reversing that to multiple IA for a single M(_), from another agent definition, entities, competing for and sharing [scarce] resources [attention].
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          updated the description, at bottom of description you'll find link to the map
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      ok, I've seen the map, and i have no clue at the moment where is the appropriate joint. perhaps Wildcat can enlighten us...:)

      I re-read your comment rpfiii and it prompts me to further clarify something about the idea i presented.
      What I think about is rather different then a "collective "we" (as you put it). It will be more accurately phrased as "diverse I". The construct of which is to retain a balance between open edges and a degree of mutual fidelity.
      I love the example you brought (Kurt and you), and the light it also sheds on the fact that relations within C(__) indeed evolve and fast.
      I hope our minds will evolve as well, in the sense of getting to explore more forms and selecting from a variety of C(__) existence models.
      And if in M(__) friendship rise first and foremost from conditions (be it blood related, need-related, geography related, etc.), I'd like to see friendship in C(__) rise of choice, or if you like, interest in the abstract sense of the term.

      Given the difference in the conditions of birth of friendship, it also implies a difference in complexity. And that's why this Twine attracted me in the first place. I think lot's and lot's of terms and ideas will need lot's and lot's of exploration and novelty of thinking while we begin to establish ourselves in C(__). Further, Hyperconnectivity will soon outsmart the best of us (I for sure am overwhelmed already...), hence Friendship in this context, to my mind will and actually IS already, highly important.
      just few rambles, excited by this conversation.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • wildcat wildcat
        17 months ago


        thanks, ftf, you brought a new and fresh thread to this polylogue, the emphasis you made on it being 'diverse I's" (or maybe 'diverse eyes' ;-) instead of a "collective we" solves many an issue that many M(_) minds have with the idea of a collective intelligence arising. I think you nailed it with the statement :" balance between open edges and a degree of mutual fidelity", I think I'll go introduce it into the map under :"Possible evolution into" (down on the right handside), though we will need to fully understand what kind of Intelligent agent we are speaking about, for if I understood you correctly, you meant an agent which "stands for" a multiplicity of "I's" is that correct?. needs thinking and maybe an upgrade to our concept of what an intelligent agent is..hmm
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
          17 months ago


          yikes! REPLICANTS!!!
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
          17 months ago


          thanks for the quick inclusion everyone, and the encouragement wildcat. Being new to Twine i'm still testing my sea legs here (bouncing between threads, that will take getting used to and so far i haven't found a notification to mail feature for all the comments...).
          Indeed i am of the view that diverse "I's" (eyes will do too:) is presenting a difference to a 'collective we', in the sense that it puts to question what is an integral sentient unit, rather than taking for granted the M(_) based notion. In this sense, to your question wildcat, such IA can be standing for a multiplicity of "I's" or it can be a short (or long) lived extension of the integral sentient unit. it can be a specified extension (an expert) or an amalgamation of more than one aspect of the integral sentient unit. Of course the term 'stand for' requires expounding together with a whole bunch of aspects that currently are not part of our experience as single minds. I certainly don't have all the answers to these questions, but that's part of the fun, thinking it on.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
            17 months ago


            @FTF: Try this: http://www.twine.com/search?text=&start=0&type=Comment This is a search string that you can create a bookmark for in your browser that will parse Twine and search all comments made. It defaults to Most Recent (10 per page) and you can page through to see comments as they have been made in time-order.

            You can also use this as a start point to then refine search by using the Twine tools on the left side, where you can refine by Member, Twine, Etc. Sometimes though, this is cumbersome because these tools only show the most active choices. Alternatively, you can enter sub-search terms in the search window, such as a user name, or particular Twine thread like "Friendship" and it will take you directly there.

            I use these all the time, and have separate search buttons for Bookmarks, Twines, Notes, and All of Twine (takes forever to load that one) so it's pretty handy in keeping track of what's going down...
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
          17 months ago


          Just watched Nova Spivack's video "The Global Mind" and I find his presentation actually demonstrates beautifully the idea I am trying to describe here as Diverse "I's". So for example in his depiction of the city center, where we all walk and at the same time represent in virtual/augmented reality, any 'other' is also my agent. As he puts it, the boundaries between selves dissolve. love it!
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            There is an SF short story clear back from 1989 that includes that concept. I have it in book form, but someone entered the complete content online as well. I think the wording in the online version was tweaked a bit to match technology changes. I do not have the book in front of me to do a direct compare. http://www.twine.com/item/11xk71lk5-4b/the-gentle-seduction

            Within the context of the 'attention economy' we have discussed here, each other / agent will need to compete for the scarce resource of our attention, as well as being a 'store' for our knowledge. Agents can collaborate / combine toward that end. If there are separate / independent agents for our various interests, then information overlapping multiple interests can be increased in 'priority' by the 'voting' from the agents. When the agents get smart enough, and the interface to them fast and detailed enough, the 'boundaries' will start to dissolve. Where the 'I' ends and the tool / agent / other / exoskeleton begins will get fuzzy. Already happens today, to a more limited extent. We rely on the cell phone [or other] contact list to hold important phone numbers, dates, and other information for us. It is an extension of our memory, so the we do not need to spend the effort to memorize it ourselves. The process probably started when the first cave drawings expanded on purely oral information transfer.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
              17 months ago


              That is a beautiful story Phil. thanks for introducing it. In a jump to the closing of your comment - I do agree that to certain degrees we are already immersed in boundaries dissolution through technology. Further, I think we are immersed to a much greater degree in the realm of our mind. To put a complex issue into a crude form, it is my understanding and belief that most of us do not yet recognize the depth of that immersion because our habits that formed in M(_) settled for a very partial and narrow representation of what/who we are. It is also my hope that with technology we shall leap from the narrow outlook into a much more interesting, beautiful and varied one, so as to allow the "mind web" open us and for us a myriad of possibilities.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • wildcat wildcat
                17 months ago


                "It is also my hope that with technology we shall leap from the narrow outlook into a much more interesting, beautiful and varied one, so as to allow the "mind web" open us and for us a myriad of possibilities."

                I would love nothing more than to agree implicitly with your statement, however given the state of affairs of the human mind at present it appears that if the daily technological breakthroughs will not be attended to in a manner that inherently applies (and implies) freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of use, friendship both in M(_) and in C(_) will suffer greatly. for us to become polytopians we need understand thoroughly what it is that is changing, primarily on the conceptual level of our understanding of our identity in cyberspace. technology in itself is not the answer we are seeking, what we are looking for is the capability to express our innate desire for freedom and the appreciation of beauty in its conscious manifestation. these aspects I believe need take precedence when exploring the needs of the modern human, for though it is true that to a very large extent we already share a fair amount of our lives with other hyperconnected individuals, we nevertheless still see C(_) as a replica of M(_) (all illnesses included).

                to realize the beauty that you speak about and allow the boundary dissolution via technology, we will need first (or simultaneously) to upgrade/update the kind of mindfullness we use in C(_), partly by leaving behind us certain 'natural' traits and embracing new modes of behavior and fresh fashions of communication.
                Friendship in hyperconnectivity demands a tremendous amount of tolerance and mutuality, both of respect and care. in M(_) you can always escape to some other physical location, as C(_) increases and connectivity deepens, the escape button retreats to a practical impossibility.
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                  17 months ago


                  wildcat, these points are crucial and critical. To stress the point I was making, the hope I see is in the prospect that technology enables us Experience that which previously was almost not accessible (or accessible only within very unique circumstances).
                  I think 'experience' counts in coming to appreciate qualities/states such as freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of use, friendship and more.

                  I can see to some degree the problems of replicating M(_). Indeed, any attempt to reduce the 'revolution opportunity' will pay expensively.
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      17 months ago


      Welcome to our madness! www.youtube.com/watch?v=eir3-omjMVQ

      I don't know if you saw the link at the top header on this thread, but what we discussed here, actually began under a different thread, which wildcat conveniently summarized to start this one. http://www.twine.com/item/11h47cd1z-2h5/some-initial-notes-thoughts-questions

      There are some very interesting links back into other elements (tangents) where what you are considering has been brought up. Don't have time now to dig all that up, but if you feel like a Twine-scursion (Woops, another new term!) read this thread, follow back on some of the links, and for a really fun trip, hit some of the tag tabs at the top right to see where they take you. Remember to set an anchorpoint though--the seas of Twinearia can get pretty darned rough. (sheesh, ANOTHER piece for the lexicon). Where's Frank when you need him?
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      17 months ago


      Question of the day: should concurrency be designed or should it be allowed to emerge? (alternatively maybe a meta-concurrency should be designed and local concurrency in a particular polylogue should be allowed to flow unconditionally?)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
      17 months ago


      I think presence is the design artifact, concurrency flows from awareness. Discussion tracking functionality would also help. Attention management really. Concurrency relates to prioritized attention.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      17 months ago


      Sorry--my wife told me not to trust anyone online. :-)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • 17 months ago


      SUGGESTION: Please can all the married/partnered men on this twine ask their wives/partners for their definition of trust. Thanks.

      Alas, this is clearly a male-biased technical perspective on the components of trust with barely a mention of instinct / intuition of trust based on previous exposure to approximately similar personality types.

      GREAT BIG MISSING PIECES IN THE MINDMEISTER MAP:

      * degree of trust

      * situation of trust

      * rate / stages of trust accumulation


      A distinction should also be made between social trust and legal trust.

      In any case, if you're building a theoretical cluster model on trust it would be more 360-2020 to include what women think about it too, hmmn?

      As well as asking wives / partners, please consider joining female book club and asking them on what criteria they decide whether or not they can trust another member's book recommendation. Then go to a creche and ask the mothers on what criteria they would trust another woman with their child whilst they're at work, busy being high-fliers. Also why she would date one guy over another (trust rather than money may have something to do with it......).

      In any case, you may all find there are subtle but very important differences in how both genders perceive trust.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        Trust variations are not just gender related. It can also be cultural, or generational. Effectively every individual has their own perspective which makes different aspects / dimensions important to them in varying degrees. The map has only been expanded to the terms that need to have [personal] rating levels applied. Those levels could be a simple numeric scale, or a set of keywords or expressions. Combined with personal profile information about what trust means to that SPECIFIC individual (the dimension / aspect weightings), this could be used by a tool to help build rules for surfacing content based on the [article and other connexion] ratings and recommendations. This mixes into the another piece of the hyperconnectivity conversation, which is the "attention economy" and the limited attention resource.

        Instinct and intuition in C(_)? Some of this would be moving toward building those as *derived* values, based on the more technical ratings discussed. Instinct is really a summation of what we [think we] know. It would be quite valid to extend the trust model [and map] with personal ranking dimensions, and set their weight / importance very high. Doing that would allow setting trust levels based completely on 'gut feel', if that is your choice.

        Having a gut feel 'dimension' to trust is reasonable, to account for human ability to use information that you do not even know you have. Each individual could also specify how important that 'feeling' rating is to them for overall trust, or specific aspects of trust. When the gut feel rating varies widely from the calculated rating based on the more technical ratings, it could be a flag that it is time to verify the other rating values, or the weightings.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        you describe decisions made on incomplete information, not precluded by the foregoing (0's and 1's are so 20th century), but as you've shown, women are very welcome here!!!! my wife isn't the least bit interested in this crap, but that really has nothing to do with her gender, she just thinks this is all a giant waste of time.

        I think situation of trust is identical with context, which has been discussed (even if not in the map I haven't spent much time with), unless you can elaborate on the difference

        trust accumulation is interesting, what would the stages be?

        legal trust is worth a look, though my *intuition* would say it is not relevant, am I allowed to have intuition as a man? (I'm about as metro as you can get before crossing over...) :-)

        please continue to provide a female perspective so we can evaluate the disjoin

        would someone else do the book club empiricism and get back to the group please? I'm just here for the chips
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • wildcat wildcat
        17 months ago


        Thanks twain, these are important points, and yes I agree we should incorporate these aspects (will go do it now) , I have some questions though, if you care to elaborate:
        1. degree of trust is an interesting concept, however the metrics of trust are highly correlated to the concepts of continuity and constancy, if say a new person joins a given community the only manner for this person to accommodate a degree of trust is by using the metrics of others, therefore these cannot be only individual (and therefore also not private) for it to be a useful tool of the community. so how would you go about implementing the metrics for degrees of trust not based on your personal experience?
        2.situation of trust: do you mean situation as in the philosophical concept of situationism/situationist ?
        3. stages of trust accumulation: can you define these stages?
        4. social trust vs. legal trust? elaboration please?
        5.concerning the gender thing, there is no doubt that in M(_) gender differences in the conceptualization of trust/s makes for a huge set of implications on attitudes and behaviors and we are aware that much of these differences spill over into C(_), however as I see it, part of the liberation of C(_) is the elimination of the gender approach if for no other reason that C(_) abstracts the reality of M(_) via information. Having said that, I am aware that at this stage of the evolution of the infoverse said differences do exist, what are your suggestions concerning the implementation of GC(_) (gender in hyperconnectivity)

        There is no doubt that there exists an immensity of differences in the perception of trust based on M(_) be it culture, age,gender, nationality and above all conscious awareness and intelligence, however it is also true that trust between humans involves a set of universals that we can and should use to create the cluster that we need for the metrics to be useful and relevant. so lets concentrate on the universals, at least at this stage.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • wildcat wildcat
        17 months ago


        Updated the map to incorporate the three items you mentioned twain. these are under a new heading " trust economy" which at present I have put under "respect economy", am not certain about this location on the map ,suggestions?
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Phil Duby Phil Duby
      17 months ago


      Looks like Kurts http://www.twine.com/twine/11j3f8xrh-bl/authenticity twine is going to overlap with the trust conversation.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      Few quick thoughts on the recent developments:
      1. I don't trust gender. In fact, I don't choose a-priori closed sets as basis for trust. And btw, I don't know that all the participants in this conversation are males... :)
      2. Intuition as we know it in M(_) is not as evident and hardly valid in C(_). I find that i am in the process of developing a C(_) intuition. It is different and young, but my mind-gut impression for now is that it is leaning toward intelligence based cues.
      3. Degrees - are there really degrees in trust? i'm thinking this one over, am not sure.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        17 months ago


        #1 Is only determinable by interaction over time. As Twain says, men tend to respond differently than women. Exposure to a single comment or a few exchanges may not provide sufficient information to gleen gender. However, I would say that as you expand your interactions with people, you gain a sense of gender simply because you are able to put together all the little snippets of conversation and build up mental image of that individual--although somewhat 'fuzzy', particularly with no pictorial reference such as an avatar image (which can be easily faked). And that feeds back into the 'trust' element. If a person says they are female, posts an avatar as a female, and interacts as a female, you still don't know for sure if that's the case. without any external references beyond the interaction. Then it's up to your experience to decide, which feeds into #2.

        Intuition.

        C(__) intuition IS a different animal. You are very limited in the inputs you receive, particularly in a written only medium. You have to bring in your M(__) experience and knowledge base and apply it to your C(__) interactions. Intelligence based information is one major element as you've said. But you must apply your own intelligence to gauge the intelligence levels of those you are interacting with. You get an instinctive feeling just with written exchanges who's honest, who's not. Who's a decent person to converse with, and who's just a troll. Call it intuition if you want, but I believe it is really the process by which you go about measuring the veracity, intelligence, and compatibility quotients of the people you are interacting with. Those that match most with you mind-set and views tend to be considered "friends".

        #3--We've talked about degrees of trust before. People I don't know, People I've read comments from, People I've had exchanges with, People I tend to share with more often, People I follow, People I chat with regularly, Etc. These are all degrees of trust. Show me a list of members within Twine, and I can mark off each one into different columns, or levels or degrees of trust that I have with them. I have to use my intuition to separate them into these groups, as well as my experience and exposure to them over time.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • 17 months ago


      :*), oh you're all guys, FTF. Trust me on this. Even if you all changed your avatar names to Anon, it's obvious you have a high testosterone count.

      The way you're all interacting and the systematic structuring approach are all key indicators you're approaching it as guys. Plus the language you use. This reads like a group of engineers putting a blueprint together and forgetting about what it would FEEL like to live inside the house being built, the odd missing ventilation shafts and whether or not it's comfortable and welcoming for others.

      Nothing wrong with it being functionally set out like this, btw, only.........women may not want to live in the same house as you --- ha ha ha!


      (1.) Gender trust: a woman booking a taxi late-at-night online would trust a female driver for safety reasons (rape issues). A woman asking for medical health online would prefer to IM with a female doctor.

      (2.) Intuition is as evident and valid on M(_) as on C(_). We pick up *signals* from avatars, from sentence phrasing, from humor etc. that we're subconsciously matching with our perception filters to elicit immediate decision, "I get / like this person" or "That person's a bit....different / not my kind of person."

      Of course it's evident because, otherwise,........WE WOULD ALL CONNECT TO TWINE'S RECOMMENDATIONS instead of applying our own intuitions and going, "Hang on a sec', I don't THINK/FEEL this is a good connection for me."

      (3.) Degrees of trust: absolutely there is this. For example, there are friends you would trust to tell if you developed cancer WAY before you told others --- this too is related to stages of trust accumulation. Then there are friends you would only trust with not telling your partner you're throwing a surprise party for them. Then there are friends you entrust with casual things like.......taking dog for a walk whilst you're away on vacation.

      More later, including definitions for stages of trust accumulation. Now I have a proposal to write and some Flash coding stuff to do.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        It would be worthwhile to consider quantitative accumulation and qualitative transformation and their relationship.

        @twain - is gender bimodal, multimodal, or are their discreet sets - can someone be said to be 'more male' 'more female' in their responses - I would suggest that gender is multimodal, and continuous - but would certainly never factor gender out of an assessment of trust from the perspective of trust as a predictor of behavior. Also is there an element of ying/yang from the daoist perspective in gender, that in fact this is not a two dimensional distribution at all but may have male in the female and female in the male, mixed but not completely, and possibly still discretely. Can we say that gender is in fact contextual (you engage like a man some times, but other times like a woman).

        I happily look forward to your next installment.

        btw, I asked my wife for her impression of 'Trust', she stared into space long enough that I checked if she had heard the question, her response was, 'that's complicated, it depends on the situation, I'll have to think about it and get back to you' - wonnnnnnderfulll. Well done Twain.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • 17 months ago


          Targeted variations and dynamic according to situations.

          For example, when I'm examining a set of income statements --- maybe online, via email --- and have to assess whether I trust that CEO to perform / non-perform on his projections, my response is likely to be "more male". I'm dealing with a set of quantitative intakes which impact another set of quantitative reports --- principally ROI and value generation in the accounting sense. I don't sit and empathize with him about his dog being put down that morning. I seek answers to specific questions to gauge how reliable the numbers are so I can confer with my team and arrive at our decision: further investment / additional support / write down / exit.

          IF, he makes me aware his dog has died so he's upset that's not going to make me trust him more over the income statement! Also I assess it by whether it's professionally appropriate or just him making poor excuses for sub-performance.

          Conversely, if that same CEO was at a dinner party with me and telling me his dog got put down that morning I would be "more female", listen, maybe give him a tissue, relate an anecdote about how my grandmother had 3 dogs until one of them accidentally bit my mother so they gave the dogs away. Then ask him what arrangements he was making for its funeral and is he considering buying a replacement because..................I know this great abandoned dogs' home and they have some really cute dogs who could do with a good home!

          There's a trust relationship here too; he trusts my recommendation about the dogs' home. I implicitly trust that next time, he's not going to bring up his dog passing as the reason the income statement is what it is.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
        17 months ago


        :*), oh you're all guys, FTF. Trust me on this.
        well Twain, i still don't (know), and its fun:-) would you trust me on that?
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • 17 months ago


          Ok, you caught me out, TFT.

          I am actually a 66-year-old West Indian male scuba-diver, :*).

          Firstly, I know a priori that rpfiii, Kurt, Phil and François are guys --- partially because they referred to their wives and families and, again, because of the way they write. Wildcat I also deduce to be male by the way he structures his corollaries; plus I read some of his space cargo content.

          As for you.....you used the term "testing my sea legs". If you were a girl, you wouldn't have chosen this turn of phrase or others you deploy. A gender-neutral phrase would be

          "Thanks for the welcome, all. I'm a newbie and trying to figure it all out."
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
            17 months ago


            the point for me is, i don't need to know your gender (or mine) to have significant, rewarding, interesting interaction. that is the fun i'm having. I derive no relevant information from the gender bias in this context.
            and while i trust that the deductions you are applying are meaningful to you and are based on certain experience, they do not and to my mind cannot factor in all the variants (goes back to certainty). simply put, i may come from a sea-faring culture, hence my use of an expression that in your background indicates a gender... etc. etc. I admit it is interesting in certain contexts, I accept it may be usefull in certain contexts, but again, to me it is redundent in this polylogue, and more importantly, I find it liberating that way. cheers:)
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Phil Duby Phil Duby
              17 months ago


              +1
              Unless the discussion / polylogue is actually about a gender specific subject, the gender of the participants *should not* matter, and the participants should not care. That said, gender can be an important part of this [and other] polylogues where that provides alternative perspectives that need to be both 'surfaced', and have the context included. As Twain pointed out, gender has a built in bias associated with trust, and other aspects of M(_), C(_) interactions. In general, I would rather not focus on gender as *the* source a particular bias. Instead look at the range of (for lack of a better term) 'personality types'. If a gender tends toward one end of the spectrum fine, but the scale is what should be important, not sub group mappings to that scale. [Only] when gender is useful for understanding the bias, and smoothing the interactions, separate from the complete scale, include or map it as a separate scale.

              For 'defining' a C(_) cultural norm, how could it be make [built in] gender neutral?
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • 17 months ago


          Ok, you caught me out, TFT.

          I am actually a 66-year-old West Indian male scuba-diver, :*).

          Firstly, I know a priori that rpfiii, Kurt, Phil and François are guys --- partially because they referred to their wives and families and, again, because of the way they write. Wildcat I also deduce to be male by the way he structures his corollaries; plus I read some of his space cargo content.

          As for you.....you used the term "testing my sea legs". If you were a girl, you wouldn't have chosen this turn of phrase or others you deploy. A gender-neutral phrase would be:

          "Thanks for the welcome, all. I'm a newbie and trying to figure it all out."

          To cap it all, you wrote this: "Oh, and in true fraternity spirit......"

          If you were a girl, you would have written "Oh, and in true community spirit........"

          ERGO. YOU ARE A GUY!
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • shunya shunya
      17 months ago


      All right, so for all of you guys out there, let me state it plain and simple, I am at present embedded in a female body, and yes I find this thread both important and representative of my thoughts on trust in hyperconnectivity. what I do need to say here is that unfortunately twain is correct we do think about it differently, ('we', the minds embedded in girls bodies), and yes gender is taken into consideration when 'we' read a post ,an article or a comment. speaking for myself.however, I think its a temporary condition of an illness we took from everyday life and human history and brought online, this we will eventually need to take care of. be aware that many of us read this thread;-) so keep the good work
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        I would like to be aware of who reads this thread, but that is another discussion! Thanks for emerging.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        I also do not believe that gender will 'blend out' in C() unless we abstract intelligence (upload our brains) into a machine. The chemical basis of our bodies affects our stimulus/response modality. As the challenge to Twain above questions, is gender really a discrete set? in M() gender normally is (except transgender) but even if we define gender by physical manifestation in M() we still must define gender in M() behaviorally in a multimodal sense (gay, lesbian etc) though of course I am betraying my liberal attitudes, and my fundamentalist christian friends would violently disagree with this characterization. In C() we drop the physical manifestation from the measurement set, we still cannot drop the chemical composition of the body and mind unless we decide societally to flatten gender and other differences in brain chemistry artificially.

        note to wildcat - a thread on gender within FH would likely be a lively node in it's own right..
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          17 months ago


          @kurt: ok, but maybe a short note of intro as to why we think such a thread is important in understanding FH(_) is in order, care to write a short note of intro? or would you prefer I do it?
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            Gender seems to mean more than it *should* in C(_). Our M(_) experiences and cultural backgrounds bring expectations of differences of what it means to be friends with someone of the same and opposite gender. Different implications. With *strictly* C(_) connexions, that distinction *should not* matter. I don't really seeing it go away though. At least not yet. With more (higher percentage) of C(_) only connexions, perhaps it will 'blend out' over time. Or maybe when a high enough percentage of people (entities) have enough connexions that are expected to be only C(_).
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
              17 months ago


              Gender and biochemically distinct responses will not go away, the more important question is, should they be factored out in this manner at all? Is Gender the most important or useful container or is it simply an artifact of M() that we can group in different ways in C()
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                17 months ago


                Gender and biochemically distinct responses will not go away agreed. I would just prefer to separate 'gender' from 'biochemical'. Gender provides biochemical 'predispositions', but many of the supposed gender related personality traits are part of a continuum. Gender differences provide different 'center points', but with more overlap than not. Only the 'extremes' (if that) are really tied to gender. I do not think gender is *only* an artifact of M(_), but I do think that gender should be much less *important* in C(_).
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
            17 months ago


            I'll give it a shot since there is a but in your response.
            Heh, on second thought it seems to be happening here anyhow, my kingdom for the ability to promote a comment thread to a post and remove it from the original thread.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • wildcat wildcat
        17 months ago


        thank you Shunya, as others have already shown in their responses, you are most welcome and your comment brings home another aspect of FH which we tend to forget, and that is that many minds take part via lurkdom (kudos to twain for the coining) in an going polylogue such as this one. I have no idea how we can become more aware to that fact (other than remembering that we speak in public and that the spectators outnumber the contributors (my cyber instinct tells me that is a potential ratio of between 10-6 to 1), maybe some kind of metric system of reading spectators should be put in place). having said the above, in your comment you said:" I am at present embedded in a female body", that is a highly interesting manner of presentation (must say haven't heard that from many female humans, if at all), would you care to elaborate?
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
          17 months ago


          This is what she's implying

          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
          17 months ago


          sounds to me like shunya is ambivalent about being gender stereotyped
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • wildcat wildcat
            17 months ago


            ahh! but then, aren't we all?..... in fact I am rethinking the whole gender thing, we need it and we don't.. some creativity is needed here
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Phil Duby Phil Duby
              17 months ago


              I don't think gender itself is really needed in the connexion model, but many of the implications / distinctions (dimensions) implied / carried from M(_) related to gender (stereotyping) are needed. I just do not want to tie / limit those dimensions to gender. Once [the model is] setup / implemented, each individual should be able to choose where they are (want to interact) on those dimensions as part of their profile (which can change over time). That may (probably will) result in some distinct clustered 'data points', I also expect the edges to be rather 'fuzzy'. Now if you want to create some profile baseline 'presets' based on gender, age, nationality, etc., that should be useful.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                17 months ago


                it is worthwhile to consider other grouping functions than gender to encapsulate the stimulous/response profile distribution of a person (another grouping function up for discussion) in multiple dimensions of interaction. OMG that's a mouthful, so sorry.
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • 17 months ago


      XLNT, shunya! Thanks for being brave and leaving lurkdom to join us, :*).

      By the way, don't mind me. I by no means attempt to represent 51% of the global population or 1.4 billion people (Chinese) or even my East-West education or my family's teachings.

      More diversity (gender, age, culture, religion, etc.) of active threading, please!
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        on this note, are stimulus/response thresholds distributed in a statistically significant way across gender modes? (in english, will a male respond to a stimulus in a social context before a woman will?) if the answer is yes, we have some issues to resolve to encourage participation in these forums by other than a self selected group, or we will fail miserably to represent the sum of human ability in digital form - but that's probably another thread too.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
          17 months ago


          I don't think thresholds differ. I think we are suffering (currently) from an overbalance of technical/male/engineer/philospher types within Twine-space (I love the term lurkdom btw, twain!) and that skew is reflected within this twine thread and others. I think the threshold, as exhibited by shunya just now, is two-fold: There has to be a significant comment/event/point-of-view for the passive reader to be compelled to comment or otherwise add to the thread; and there has to be a pre-determined level of trust established by that passive reader to feel that their comments will be well received, welcome, and accepted by the others already involved in that thread. I don't think either of these are gender-related as much as they are comfort-level related.

          Had this been an exclusionary group--a bunch of alpha-males huddling together plotting the destruction of the world or something--we would have reacted completely differently, first to Twain adding her two cents (now worth $42.50 in this economy) and then shunya emerging from the dark cloud that surrounds us. Welcome to our discussion, we look forward to additional insights from the majority gender!
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • wildcat wildcat
            17 months ago


            "There has to be a significant comment/event/point-of-view for the passive reader to be compelled to comment or otherwise add to the thread; and there has to be a pre-determined level of trust established by that passive reader to feel that their comments will be well received, welcome, and accepted by the others already involved in that thread. I don't think either of these are gender-related as much as they are comfort-level related."

            No doubt, the comfort level is a fundamental (true for M(_) true in C(_)) however how can we account for the fact that shunya entered the thread?, can we show where the :"pre-determined level of trust" has moved from -being ignored- to -compelling-? (as a side note I think this is as important as it gets in understanding FH(_) since these issues are the ones that at the end of the day determine the 'success' of a polylogue in making us more intelligent/aware/conscious and finally more willing to participate in the emergence of a polytopia.
            in other words, can we define the conditions of comfortability in a C(_) communication/polylogue?
            another question: who established the trust that compelled shunya to enter? herself (as a spectator?), us (as contributors?) the interaction? hmmm pondering
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
              17 months ago


              well, clearly, it's charm, wit, and humor, which we all seriously lack. (except for Kurt).
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • 17 months ago


              wildcat,

              The female approach to getting answers for this would be to..........GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO SHUNYA and respect her as a person rather than as some abstract to be intellectualized. Let her Enlighten us herself!

              @ SHUNYA --- hey there, WOW! Now you've got us all intrigued: "temporary condition of an illness". What are the symptoms and the cures, in your view?

              Also, do you want to shine a light on what made you comment? Thanks. We're really interested in encouraging more women to help in building this House of Hyperconnectivity --- 'cause, clearly, the guys are doing the speak lounge a wee bit weird / lop-sided.

              Cheers, Twain.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
                17 months ago


                ... . . .

                [sulks away in corner]
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • shunya shunya
                17 months ago


                Thank you for the shout twain, I am here, watching and learning, truly I don't call myself a lurker ,actually its kind of degrading I think, I see myself as a member of this community in which we all share and though it is true that I didn't contribute until now, it is untrue to say that this is not a community, from which I learn and imply (I took part of this thread and talked with my son about it which resulted in an enlightening conversation about friendship in general and his activities online in particular, for me this is part and parcel of a community usage).
                Now, let me tell you that for many years (working in the computer industry) I came across an incredible amount of uncomfortable gender bias which had nothing to do with my contributions and I wouldn’t like to see this phenomena repeated here, on twine in particular and in cyberspace in general, and when I followed this thread I sensed that it does not carry that specific illness (lets call it by its real name, its called chauvinism and for me is a friendship breaker) so when I saw that the thread has become wide enough to accept input that is not directly correlated to semantics but is highly important to the future of humanity as a global community I decided to join the conversation.
                thanks for listening
                More later
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • 17 months ago


                  Thanks, Shunya, and we look forward to your next posting!

                  I agree about the "lurker" term. Unfortunately, it's exactly because an insufficient number of women are piping up when the male researchers come up with C(_) terms so then "lurker" is adopted into our common Web lexicon.

                  It's not intentional chauvinism, I don't believe. I think it may be accidental oversight; the guys forget to ask us women and then we just go along with it because it's already....."there", if you know what I mean. Plus it's partially our responsibility for being shy (a bit more introverted) and not putting our case forward more.

                  Personally, I think "active reader" is a nicer and more gender-equal term. "Lurker" is actually pretty derogatory towards men actually --- like they're some sleazy, shadowy stalker type.

                  Anyway, I think Twine IS different and it's great that wildcat had added Gender to his model.

                  This time round we get a chance to shape the lexicon! HOORAY!

                  So........you go right ahead and tell all the women you know to come onto this twine and present your thoughts on gender trust and what you believe should be in it and where everything fits in!

                  We're going to make the only non-ill model in C(_)!!!!
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                    17 months ago


                    I have been using various forms of digital communication for a *long* time. I think the first time I encountered *lurker*, would have been on usenet. In the context that I saw it being used there, lurker was *intended* to be derogatory. As usual, things get used elsewhere, outside of the original context.

                    active reader thinking about it. Active in the sense of 'investing' the attention to open, read, follow the thread? Otherwise, it *feels* more passive to me, until the reader 'comes out'.
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                      17 months ago


                      see Participation twine (actually not much there but a placeholder, but discussions are welcome - the mere act of coming out and participating, without actual contribution is in fact valuable, and this value is generally not accounted for - we could call the people who watch without participating Participants, or the audience (though the latter carries some connotations of structural passivity which I find less useful).
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • wildcat wildcat
                      17 months ago


                      in this vein I have updated the map to now include , under the heading 'characters' the following: 'advocators' and 'propagators' and also under pathfinders a new subheading called 'stimulators'. reading Shunya's latest comment it is obvious that spectator is an insufficient terminology. in this case the very act (though unknown to us until revealed by Shunya's comment) of taking part of this thread and creating a conversation in M(_) is both an act of propagation and advocacy. this has large implications and goes way above the 'active reader 'aspect. maybe a reader propagator? or alternatively an interactive reader? it appears that C(_) moves into M(_) just as much as M(_) moves into C(_). new terms needed to account for this flow.
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                        17 months ago


                        parsing out Shunya's value added - Participation + Surfacing (to her son) + Contribution (discussion with son, who also contributed, but in a different context) and if she shared her conversation with her son (which I will assume for the time being was NOT computer mediated, thus not Captured (another Dimension of Value - see Valuation) thus not share'able) she would be Surfacing again - your concept of propagation is equivalent to my Surfacing, I believe.
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                  17 months ago


                  I got *called* previously on using 'lurker' in the thread previous to this here in FH
                  http://www.twine.com/item/11h47cd1z-2h5/some-initial-notes-thoughts-questions?discussion=flat#c_85
                  At that time I came up with alternatives: spectator, observer, onlooker, witness, watcher. My personal [initial] preference from that was spectator, but that still has some incorrect connotations. That part of the thread did not get followed up on then. Have you ideas on what term(s) would be accurate / appropriate / generally acceptable?
                  Another context could be students listening to a lecture. Best I have come up with so far is listening to a 'panel' discussion or debate (can get quite heated here), where the 'floor' is always open for input from the audience. That still does not get a term with good connotations though.
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Phil Duby Phil Duby
              17 months ago


              "can we define the conditions of comfortability in a C(_) communication/polylogue?"

              I guess I have not worded some of my previous comments well enough.  Those "conditions" are extremely individual. I expect significant patterns / trends around certain 'themes', but [at least] gender, age, culture, personality type all impact where the thresholds lie on the scale.  Make that scales.  The dimensions that have been brought up before.

              Re the attention economy, and 'smart' agents:  Any technical system that is to make decisions on our behalf related to this will need to learn / be trained on our individual scales.  Which dimensions are important to me.  How important relative to other things?  That information needs to be part of personal profiles for the system to make 'intelligent' choices.  A challenge that will go with that, is that [many] people are not particularly good at articulating those aspects.  It is so built in / automatic / conditioned, that it can not be seen anymore.  It comes out as intuition / instinct because we do not really know what the decisions are being based on.  Perhaps the system can become smart enough to 'learn' us by or C(_) [inter]actions.

              All we can do at this point is attempt to identify some of the more obvious possible considerations / criteria. It will need to evolve, both as a whole, and individually.  I mentioned elsewhere (here someplace) that mutual trust can develop even when the personal criteria are quite different, as long as each party satisfies the criteria of the other party.  The *easy* (low hanging fruit) cases are just the ones where the 'world views' are similar (or maybe 'compatible').

              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                17 months ago


                @Phil, you said: A challenge that will go with that, is that [many] people are not particularly good at articulating those aspects. It is so built in / automatic / conditioned, that it can not be seen anymore. It comes out as intuition / instinct because we do not really know what the decisions are being based on. Perhaps the system can become smart enough to 'learn' us by or C(_) [inter]actions.

                Perhaps we will gain by being involved (in an aware fashion) in the articulative procedure.

                As to satisfying the other's criteria, as you said, see my response to wildcat, i think we go in similar tracks here.
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
              17 months ago


              @wildcat, it seems to me that trust is a creature of interaction to begin with. It is so in my own mind, when a threshold of trust is arrived at, and it includes IA’s even in M(_) in the sense that ‘others’ and/or aspects of me have representation and effect in my mind’s interactive states. Therefore I would take your question to mean: what/how achieves effect in interaction and then I would ask how it differs in M(_) and C(_).
              To the first part of this question, I think a threshold of trust is arrived at when a level of coherency is established so that I am comfortable with a multi-angled description. Comfortable enough to include it in my self description.
              Now as to the difference between M(_) and C(_), I would say there is a difference of conditions of satisfaction. I think C(_) allows for greater fragmentation, in the sense that I do not take into account factors such as someone’s appearance, smell, background etc. so I can pick ‘fragments’ that satisfy the conditions without sifting through and being biased by that many factors. These ‘fragment’ are composed into the IA I’m in interaction with. It is a far more open state of affairs that in turn affects the level of openness of my self description, which I think has the potential of increasing trust.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • 17 months ago


          Men will respond more rapidly if there's a problem to be solved / piece of code to be de-bugged / solution to be built.

          Women will be first to respond if they read that someone else is upset and needs comfort.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
            17 months ago


            Conversations between a man and a woman:

            Man: I know how to please a woman.
            Woman: Then please leave me alone.

            Man: I want to give myself to you.
            Woman: Sorry, I don't accept cheap gifts.

            Man: May I see you pretty soon?
            Woman: Don't you think I'm pretty now?

            Man: Your hair color is fabulous.
            Woman: Thank you. It's on aisle three at the corner drug store.

            Man: You look like a dream.
            Woman: Go back to sleep.

            Man: I can tell that you want me.
            Woman: Yes, I want you to leave.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            Stereotyping, but works as a first approximation.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
            17 months ago


            I find this to be simplistic, do we have anybody doing gender research in the audience? Come on down to the stage and pull up a chair.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • 17 months ago


      What's shown in C(_) is the same which is shown in offices and boardrooms all over the world. It may not be male intention to exclude female participation and yet this is what happens.

      It's empathy (different from comprehending a problem), it's language, it's tone, it's leveling the communication fields, it's mutual transmittance of "I get where you're coming from so let's see where we should go from here" etc.

      The ratio of lurkers to active participants is known as the "90-10 rule" which if you Google you'll find loads of research on.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        So what is needed, which direction do we need to head, to [somewhat] level the C(_) field? I don't think a usable answer is to 'change' people to move them more toward the 'other side'. Some are / will be willing to change, I *expect* that most are going to be "my way is the right way".

        I previously mentioned a thought about 'defining' a C(_) culture. If that were possible, then setting up the [cultural] rules / expectations [correctly] could at least somewhat mitigate for the 'inherent' differences. This would need to be taught / learned like an new language + culture. I don't expect that to be practical either.

        If we get *good* automated [language] translation, we might get some benefit in this context as well. English to English translation for gender, generation, cultural differences. So the biker gang leader could converse with the prissy school teacher grandmother. Of from a comment on another thread, the Ferengi with the Klingon.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      @all, first of all apologies for being rather short in responses (am sneaking in here in between some tasks:) .
      I will try to extend what I began with, which both Kurt and shunya touch upon in their responses.
      As i said: I don't apply a-priori closed sets as basis for trust in C(_). That is for the reason that I see C(_) as a space which is not as 'infected' by M(_) perceptions (in that i think like shunya, if i got the point right). And that is a huge difference. hence to my mind gender in C(_) should play no influence whatsoever on the intelligence. Saying that does not presume to ignore or contradict Twain's notions and experience. I propose that C(_) gives us an excellent opportunity to free ourselves from beliefs that took root in M(_), which are probably valid at least some of the time/cases in M(_) but are not necessarily (to a great extent) in C(_). That's why i call them 'beliefs'.
      I very much like the presentation of Kurt regarding a spectrum or variety of genders, definitely more than one. I think it is so in both M(_) and C(_), only in M(_) we are conditioned by habits to narrow the gender spectrum to male and female. Why carry this narrowing to C(_)?

      It follows that my intuition in C(_) cannot work in a 'copy-paste' fashion from M(_). given that lots of the conditions and habit are not as strongly embedded in C(_), i for one am acclimating myself to evolve relevant intuition. But that is a long discussion again...

      As to trust degrees, as i said, i'm thinking it over, but in a sense this very polylogue is giving me a real good opportunity to nail down a beginning. As it is, i find this polylogue trustworthy, and that is exactly the point i was making concerning intelligence based interaction. the degree of trust goes hand in hand with the degree of intelligence. i feel comfortable to exchange these thoughts with {total strangers}. The point being, you are not total strangers, given the degree of allowance the intelligence at play makes available. whether it is the subject, the views, the humor, the warmth, the interest, and some other aspects i don't yet manage to pin-point, it feels 'at home' enough to entice me into trust.

      In M(_) for instance, for an interaction to evolve in the speed it does here, it would take very exceptional circumstances. In C(_) we may have covered 2 earthly years of interaction already. I embrace this as a proof of our capacity for intelligent interaction.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        17 months ago


        cool. Can I borrow a dollar now?
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        "short in responses " At least you got some in. I started about 12 hours late it looks like.
        "not as 'infected' by M(_)" +1
        "gender in C(_) should play no influence whatsoever" +1
        "degree of trust goes hand in hand with the degree of intelligence." Make that *perceived* intelligence. If someone disagrees with us [on something *important* to us], generally they are automatically *not as smart*. Also mix in anything with [large] emotional beliefs. Intelligence and logic can have very little to do with. Religion and politics are couple of good examples where intelligence is [many times] just not enough. How many times have you heard [of] some say something like "That person is a ______, I don't trust him/her", where the label should really not having anything to do with trust or intelligence?
        EDIT Lets add 'articulate' as well as intelligent to that, which will directly affect *perceived* intelligence.

        For your "trust degree", rpfii's quick comment may be an easy example. Would you lend 10? 100? 1000? 10000? Assuming it is not *just* "don't have that much", different people will have [for you] different thresholds on how far you trust them to pay it back, and when you would [expect to] get it. That also overlaps with risk and importance. Depending on circumstances and personality, each of those sums mean different things to different people. And money is only one dimension for trust. For those more 'athletically' inclined, who would you go mountain climbing with, where your life can literally be in someone else's hands? Is that the same people you would lend money to? or your car? or something else that is *important* to you? For some people, the people in each *category* will be quite similar. For others it is not.

        "our capacity for intelligent interaction" +1
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
          17 months ago


          "+1" ? I take it that is a sign of agreement…?
          in that case 'articulate' +1 :) though let me emphasize that 'intelligence' isn't the same as logic and reason. it is also openness, active attraction, beauty in interaction, and so much more. Any step towards diminished degree of unnecessary beliefs is a step towards increased intelligence, as i see it.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • Phil Duby Phil Duby
            17 months ago


            'intelligence' isn't the same as logic and reason +1
            diminished degree of unnecessary beliefs The trick is to agree on which beliefs are [un]necessary.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
              17 months ago


              no agreement necessary, all beliefs are provisional expedients

              agreeing on an unnecessary belief would itself be a belief, adding a superstructure to a crumbling foundation
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                17 months ago


                Ok, then my current belief in this particular idea coincides with what you have described. It is part of my 'working model'. Maybe a shared belief.

                Got to get the building inspector in to check those foundations occasionally. Figure out if it time to move to new 'model'.
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      p.s: to add to my last comment - lurkdome in M(_) may come to mean a life long unchangeable condition. i think the increased freedom of C(_) comes to mean an emergence such as we've witnessed here is more likely to happen!.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Phil Duby Phil Duby
      17 months ago


      Bringing in what I think is a related concept. Certainty, our own or the *appearance* in others, whether justified or not, is going to have significant impact on trust. Especially I believe around the intuition and instinct 'labels'. This is just another aspect of not knowing what we know, not know what information is used in decisions, *knowing* things with no bases in fact.

      http://www.twine.com/item/11j9lgt9w-86/the-certainty-bias-a-potentially-dangerous-mental-flaw-scientific-american

      The article labels this a 'bias'. Our individual trust profiles are also all based on bias.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        from the article:
        "At bottom, we are pattern recognizers who seek escape from ambiguity and indecision. If a major brain function is to maintain mental homeostasis, it is understandable how stances of certainty can counteract anxiety and apprehension."

        this discussion would be interesting overlaid with arguments that belief affects outcomes, or in extreme arguments that belief creates reality (not always that 'out there' think stock markets). we could of course slip into discussions of realism vs idealism, tree falling in the forest and all that.. LOL

        anyhow, a good point that certainty bias intersects trust, we do however eventually have to choose a level of abstraction in order to come to a useful model.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Phil Duby Phil Duby
          17 months ago


          Certainty can be *useful* in life and thinking. Anything that is deemed *certain* does not need to be thought about (again) when encountered. The answer / solution / appropriate actions is just *known*. First problem is that certainty beliefs are probably not really certain. Second problem is another useful 'tool' that lets us use existing known 'rules' in new situations. That results in applying those certainty rules in inappropriate contexts, and because they come with that 'always that way' label, they do not get questioned (easily).

          have to choose a level of abstraction Yes. It also may need to be simplified more than we (I at least) would like, but having the fuller model 'on the table' should make the simplification choices more reasonable.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      Phil, thanks for the link, interesting read. The article concludes with: "Only in the absence of certainty can we have open-mindedness, mental flexibility and willingness to contemplate alternative ideas."
      I think that is a good thing, but bias is also good in that it helps, focus, select, direct etc.
      I would suggest 'aware-bias' in the context of trust which combines the two goods. Can that be possible do you think?
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        Possible yes. See earlier comment about being willing to look in the mirror.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        17 months ago


        I keep saying 0's and 1's are so 20th century - I believe we are moving toward a greater comfort level with probability distributions (intuition is really the attempt to make decisions with incomplete information, and this is often not a choice we can afford not to make (ie rock climbing - the rock I am holding on to is crumbling, which rock will I choose, not having time to test them)

        "open-mindedness, mental flexibility and willingness to contemplate alternative ideas"

        I would submit this should be the goal of our educational system. A move from positional to provisional.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      17 months ago


      @all Map has been updated to include Gender bias and Certainty biases (under new heading Differences & Biases)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • 17 months ago


        Good, thanks, this is helpful.

        I'd like to share this. Growing up, my mother and I had our fair share of robust intellectual debate because, whilst our thinking is aligned along gender lines, we vary along certainty dimensions. There is a mantra she used to use which verges on absolute certainty about eventual outcomes being precisely as she postulates which I disagreed with. Examples like, "She will definitely marry him," based on my mother's pure emotional intuitions rather than any emerging factual evidence that the couple in question even liked or knew each other.

        Meanwhile, I being a maths graduate and scoring 99% in my Prob+Stats exams, appreciate there is such a thing as the Bell's distribution curve, confidence levels, standard deviations and a whole raft of metrics which points to NO ABSOLUTE INFINITE CERTAINTY OF ANYTHING. Even proofs we have inherited as "facts" are not necessarily absolutely certain.

        In any case, I prefer the approximation and relativism model. None of us know with ABSOLUTE certainty that we can trust another individual --- whether on M (_) or in C(_). The concentration of certainty (0---100%) fluctuates according to new and displacing information that constitutes the states of trust accumulation or depletion.

        Ok, now I have to go and do the grocery shopping so you'll have to excuse me.


        ==========================================================

        [And, naturally, I owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to my mother for a lifetime of having someone close I could exercise my brain and compare and contrast thinking with. She's very intelligent is my mother (if more emotional and "female"-biased than I am).
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Phil Duby Phil Duby
          17 months ago


          +1
          I said (I think in the previous thread) that rankings are really 2 things: The actual ranking level, and the confidence level (certainty) of that ranking, both values of which are dynamic.

          I will have to risk a small tease here though.
          Twain said *WE* (this thread) reads like a group of engineers putting a blueprint together pot? kettle? black? And yes that is [only] slightly out of context.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      17 months ago


      Edit: top line: (or MINE, not mind).
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • 17 months ago


      GENDER TRUST + THE INTERNET

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_5-6_50/ai_n6079160/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/1/1/4/9/pages111493/p111493-1.php http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=854588


      Alas since I'm not an academic researcher and nor have I ever focussed on Gender Studies empirically, I think it would be good to have a strong placeholder for Gender and to try and populate it as best we can from these sources --- until we find someone on Twine who can cast stronger light on the issue.

      Anecdotally, there are plenty of examples of gender being a trust factor; please see research about online dating sites.

      I believe gender difference is a key dimension and as with all theoretical frameworks..............Just because we may not individually be able to relate to it and therefore less inclined to go and actively source the material and try to glean gold nuggets from it, doesn't mean that it isn't a gold nugget. We simply haven't ventured into that part of the stream yet to look.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        17 months ago


        Well, I tried a little experiment for the last day or so, just being a "lurker" and not an active participant. I have to ask, how can people reading these threads NOT feel compelled to interject, comment or otherwise add to the conversation? I find it very difficult to read, read, read, and not want to be part of what's going on--even if it is to just toss in a Rick Astley link! If 'lurker' is too derogatory, then we definetely need to come up with something that is less offensive, but at least makes the reader feel comfortable enough to become part of the story.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • François Dongier
          17 months ago


          "how can people reading these threads NOT feel compelled to interject, comment or otherwise add to the conversation?"
          Would love to answer this in detail, but I just don't have the time for it right now :) Just a few remarks in no particular order: I actually think highly of lurking as a means of following what's going on without spending too much time on it. I like the idea of following a conversation without feeling that I have to intervene. Like reading blogs without posting or commenting much. I actually spend more time reading articles and books than Twine conversations. And I feel that discussion/conversation is not always the best way to clarify my thoughts. I tend to prefer more structured representations. I'm pretty busy just now on other things, but when I come here to lurk at this conversation on friendship, I just try to extract the new elements that fit my own view/mindmap of the topic. Selfishness maybe... or just hesitation to post unclear, disorganised ideas (like this comment). I hope to soon find the time to work on the mindmap and then share it with you. In the meantime, I'll keep on lurking...
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Phil Duby Phil Duby
          17 months ago


          Short answer: limited attention available. Not enough time to do *everything*
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
          17 months ago


          well I just answered, and twine lost it...grrrrrr. it was a very long answer, so twine has forced me to rewrite it, which should be more succinct, perhaps twine is becoming intelligent after all.

          the brain mouth gap varies based on:

          1. culture - try having a conversation as a Canadian with a Jamaican when you first step off the plane, they will never speak because you don't shut up long enough for them to consider that you are done talking, have some rums, sit on the beach, rellllaaaaaax mon, and you may leave enough time after your last phrase for them to suddenly start talking to you. This is well documented.
          2. social comfort level - some people barge into conversations, others need to warm up to the crowd, and the crowd may disperse before they get warmed up
          3. mediation - because of the medium, we cannot adjust our communication style to the group participants, because we don't even know they are there in some cases - in a meeting room the person is physically there, has body language and can be brought into the conversation actively because it is clear they have a good reason to be there and should be heard. As a result much of our conversation becomes the 'public face' of ourselves and worse, a watered down public face so as not to create the potential for misunderstanding or offense. This is one of the reasons politicians are so good at saying nothing (yes it's actually a skill not a character flaw)
          4. communication style - as put by François below, some people may feel the need to structure their argument before making it - this increases the effort of responding, and widens the gap - if the conversation moves on or someone else makes the point, contribution becomes unnecessary
          5. argumentation style - or how opinionated are you comfortable being - some even contributors here, are empiricists, show me the evidence or shut up - and if they are that way they will likely not participate in most conversations since they cannot properly back up their immediate response without a good deal of work. (to paraphrase my grandfather, my personal take is empiricism where necessary, like when launching rockets)
          6. Personal Investment - whether you are positional or provisional in your statements, ie how invested are you in the statements you are making - if you are willing to easily change your mind when presented with new argument that is compelling, and if you do not tie your self image to your ideas, you are more likely to participate as the weight of participating is not so great.
          7. permanence - if you can't ever edit or delete a comment you would feel compelled to be very careful before making one - twine's (oddly unusual) ability to edit and delete comments is a behavior changing affordance
          8. representation - if you have never commented before, a new comment carries quite a different weight in defining you than if you have made thousands of entries in a given context. it is very disturbing for someone who feels they are a complex multifaceted individual to start to comment because that first comment or comments define them in the minds of others, and this definition will necessarily lack dimension and fullness - to the extent that a person is sensitive to what others think of them this will widen the gap.
          9. Willingness to be wrong / look stupid in public - every time you post you take the chance that someone smarter or well credentialed in the topic of discussion comes along and says you are wrong or worse that your commentary is on a topic long ago resolved and if you'd only bothered educating yourself on the subject before opening your ignorant trap you would save us all some time - or something slightly less rude than that.
          10. process or goal oriented - the process of discussion is one of learning by doing, this is in stark contrast to restricting oneself to learning by reading, which is heavily goal oriented (I need to know how to code a js drop down menu, I need to do this today or I will be fired, I am goal oriented, not process oriented for this purpose) - process is far less efficient than goal oriented learning, but in my mind better suited to understanding complex unsettled subject matter - some will not have the patience for the ambiguity and incompleteness and will only tune in when the information has been agreed upon and structured - this is fine too.

          There is a wonderful quote, but I forget the exact quote and the attribution, to the effect of I never correct the spelling and punctuation errors in my work, because people might take the content too seriously.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • wildcat wildcat
            17 months ago


            @kurt, could you please move the comment to its new abode 'FH(_) building the model' (explicit reason: too many comments on one page disagrees with purpose of clarity and following the thread, no other option is known at present)
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
        17 months ago


        All of those examples / samples include strong M(_) components. For strictly C(_) connexions, does that still apply (as strongly)?. For FH(), how much M(_) overlap is to be expected / included? From where we started here, my 'scope' has been connexions found, formed, developed in C(_), with no expectation / intention of M(_) interaction. We are seeing several instance here of overlap / extension into M(_) interactions mixing in with C(_). That raises the importance of M(_) based interaction attitudes / patterns from what I have been looking at, including (especially?) the gender related perspectives. My 'concern' has never been with including gender based aspects / perspectives into the model. Only with 'labeling' (limiting or stereotyping) those aspects as gender specific. If including gender means a more complete / accurate list will result, good. I just want to avoid limiting the *attributes* to a specific gender in the final result. If we end up with a fairly complete model, I expect it to be quite complex to tune the profiles to the individual (by the individual). Having some 'presets' that match 'stereotypes' could speed up getting a first approximation. Some possible inputs that I see to use for those presets are: gender, age, culture, education, nationality. Each of those could adjust one or more of the detail (dimension) scales up or down from the 'baseline', based on the averages for that subgroup. Other sub groups that could be useful would be personality type information, but I expect that typical users do not have that information 'on hand'. IQ and EQ would have similar problems.

        Here are some of things I think need to be kept in mind, and used as goals for the FH() trust conversation:

        • building a model of the 'considerations' that go into trust
        • a profile (relative importance weightings) of what trust means to an individual
        • setting individual rankings on the trust scale (UI / UX)
        • using the trust levels to assist filtering, surfacing
        • using the trust information provided by personally ranked individuals to expand the 'ring of trust'
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Phil Duby Phil Duby
          17 months ago


          I just watched the video at http://www.twine.com/item/11jft64j3-162/an-anthropological-introduction-to-youtube
          After that I will have to adjust my views on the importance of M(_) contexts in C(_) connexions. There is way more M(_) style interactions happening using C(_) type connexions that I have been considering, with or without M(_) 'meetings'. I have been trying to keep them as fairly separate and distinct 'modes', but that shows, and I can see expansion of, blurring and migration of information and context in both directions. I can see that trend accelerating as participants become more comfortable with both the technology, and the 'audience' within the camera / connexion.

          In some ways, I am not pleased with that direction. C(_) connexions look like such a nice / convenient way to *drop* some of the unneeded M(_) 'baggage'. However, this does 'widen' the communications channel. Some of the things that get automatically filtered in the C(_) connexions I have been considering, DO make it through for some connexions.

          Moving forward.
          FH() trust dimensions need to include M(_) attributes. The degree they are important will vary by (in addition to previously mentioned considerations) the extent that the individual 'perceives' the connexion as relating or tying back to M(_). The same applies to risk factors, that I said are perceived as lower in C(_).
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      17 months ago


      @ALL,
      ladies and gentlemen , friends in hyperconnectivity, as this thread has become too long and cluttered it is my suggestion that we move the polylogue to a new thread which I hope will take this discussion to the next level, the next level being " FH(_) ,Building the model" (following phil), concomitantly we will open another thread entitled " Gender in Hyperconnectivity" or GH(_) (following Kurt) that will explore the ramifications and implications of the concept of gender in a hyperconnected environment.
      please, for the benefit of all our readers, spectators and potential contributors and interactivity, lets move our comments there. (note is on front page of this twine)

      ps. note to twine feedback, the comments pages are almost impossible to manage (showing last comments and so on, creating this need to relocate again and again, so if any one has any suggestion concerning this particular problem, pls step forward and help)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • glennmiles glennmiles
      17 months ago


      I tried to find a general definition of communication so that I can define to differences between conventional and electronic interaction. If anyone can direct me to such a definition please let me know. The kind of information I am after I have started to structure in http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show_public/11126732 . All help appreciated.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)
    Add a Comment
Report This

Twine is about discovering, collecting and sharing the content that interests you. Learn More

Stats

First Posted By

wildcat

First Comment By

. .•∞º˙

Tags

Community Tags

Who's Interested In This?

Forgot your password?