[p2p-research] The psychopath as peer? (redirecting to other thread)
Paul D. Fernhout
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
Wed Nov 4 23:01:07 CET 2009
I replied over in this thread (mostly to get "psychopath" out of the subject
"[p2p-research] P2P platforms for wide ranging discussions beyond email?"
Stan Rhodes wrote:
> I didn't realize the thread had undergone more branching. My reply to Michel
> in the psychopathy email covers most of the points I would include as a
> reply to this. You are correct about me referring to your own personal
> blog. Posterous is certainly the easiest when it comes to email-to-blog
> Technology cannot solve all difficulties in organizing and providing
> perspective on a body of information, nor all problems in inter-personal
> communication. Sometimes, the remedy is old-fashioned discipline in
> presenting a viewpoint or mental model as concisely as possible.
> Many of us probably want "a better stigmergic platform than wikis or emails
> or web forums or Google Wave for creating public interlinked knowledge
> covering a wide variety of interrelated topics from a wide variety of
> perspectives, especially one that is interlinked with things like real time
> data acquisition, simulations, and digitized historical records." However,
> by definition, email is not that platform (if it can even exist), and trying
> to use email for something beyond its basic strengths invites a lot of
> I appreciate the desire to have a version history of assumptions, concepts,
> and thoughts surrounding a topic. I actually think it's doable, using
> semantic metadata with a starting database of something like Wikipedia or
> Zotero. For example, in my research, I've envisioned an "assumption map"
> that links models with their assumptions, and acts as a sort of key for the
> jargon of various disciplines in the behavioral sciences. I expect someone
> is already working on something similar to connect assumptions.
> Although I like brevity, I like concision more. Depending on the
> dictionary, they are almost synonymous, but I see brevity as focusing on
> being brief, and concision expressing a concept or closely-related group of
> concepts clearly in a very tight way. An email on a complex topic may not
> be brief even though it's concise. I certainly lay no claim to skill in
> this area, although I work at it.
> The obsolescence of RSS seems greatly exaggerated. Scoble is no stranger
> to hyperbole, and he's mostly a tech news junkie. My RSS is mostly
> research-based, and I'm not sure how I would be better served by, say,
> Eurekalert tweeting all the time. I can prioritize what I look at first,
> and what I skip, by the reputation of the site and the feed. I could
> probably do that with twitter with the right client and the right settings,
> but why bother? Both could be better, but can't they always?
> When it comes to proprietary software, services, and products, people have
> to vote with their use, their dollar, and their voice. Consider them
> signals broadcast from a potential market. You use "corporatist" and
> "capitalism" and yet I really am not sure what they are supposed to mean.
> Anyway, that's a different conversation, but a good example of what I meant
> by brevity versus concision.
> -- Stan
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think Twitter solves a lot of these questions, but persistence is an
>> issue there. Stan's desire for brevity and links is certainly solved by
>> Twitter. I agree blogs are the place for bulk. Even something like the
>> mini-blog tools allows someone to say as much as they like without much
>> Research lists of this sort, and Nings for that matter, appear obsolete.
>> RSS is even largely replaced by Twitter though I still like my reader.
>> People like Robert Scoble are claiming Twitter makes RSS meaningless.
>> A lot of people dislike services provided by corporations for political
>> reasons. That view hurts others seeking reasonable efficiencies in my view,
>> but it is certainly anyone's right to hurt others' efficiencies...for
>> example, it is now clear to me that Google Mail is superior to any and all
>> competitors...and yet people choose to not use it. Why? Who can say.
>> Politics I assume. Why does Yahoo or Bing exist? No one can find them
>> superior. But one might just as well ask why Chryslers, airbuses, etc.
>> exist. Inferior products will always have political reasons for
>> existing. That's another reason why capitalism really isn't capitalism at
>> all, but corporatism...and P2P is as corporatist in its own way as for
>> profit is.
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
>> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>>> See also the other thread I started here:
>>> "[p2p-research] P2P platforms for wide ranging discussions beyond email?
>>> (was Re: The psychopath as peer?)"
>>> Stan was not saying I should put stuff on the P2P blog' as I read it; he
>>> was suggesting I have a separate personal blog. And that is not the first
>>> time someone has made that suggestion; there's certainly a lot of truth to
>>> what Sam points out, as I write in the above linked post. But in general, as
>>> I say there, I think we need even better P2P communications tools than what
>>> we have. So, that is a way to take his point "meta" in a topical way. :-)
>>> --Paul Fernhout
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
More information about the p2presearch