Can you imagine SQALE operating with everyone using zoom at the moment?

And moneyflow.

We will dissolve organisational boundaries. Change, big-time.

Visit Sqale

 

A List

  • Adopting real-world in digital-world
  • Tronic Cup online competition
  • Academia: legacy of text
  • Sqale enables value-tracking across multiple digital channels

Real World Legacy in Digital Engagement

Attending an online conference, a workshop with Social Informatics academics: Workshop, Part 1: Sociotechnical Change Agents: ICTs, Sustainability, and Global Challenges (SIG-SI, SIG-SM, SIG-IEP), and it became clear that they were talking about trends.

Because of the proactive attitude of anthropologists from last week’s conference, about building tools for social change, I asked whether there were people there doing this. And further, whether they were changing the institutions they were in. Radicals.

Most of it was chat about problems of engaging institutions, or adopting different tech themselves.

I asked whether they had come across any tech which allowed them to track value across channels, or even from break-out rooms to larger presentations. Nothing.

I extemporised. I remembered how I created a self-organising tournament for Tron. They had tried to run them in the past, and failed. I realised they were importing real-world problems, basically how to move people around so that they all arrived at the same place. This is not a problem with virtual. The issue was timing, that was all. And I had the simple suggestion that we needed to trust players to turn up on time. The resulting system was very light, and worked so well it continued for years. Perhaps we were doing the same with virtual meetings: trying to import real-world organisational problems to the virtual world, eg organisations, ‘companies’, and ‘positions’.

This guy involved in AI ethics said that academics have been communicating virtually for centuries. Exactly, I said. Text was appropriate for people separated by miles and across time. This is no longer our problem. And yet, conferences are mostly people reading articles at each other. What?!

I was always bored with conferences. Didn’t understand them. It wasn’t about sharing information. It was about making decisions together.

So, no answer to any tech which can transfer value from digital channel to channel. Well, nothing of scale. Literally, someone said ‘scale’.

Actually, the AI guy sent an article pointing at China’s reputation attempt. And another participants talked about studying people’s online behaviour, and then seeing if it alters output of work relative to the same group’s work in the real world. Nobody seems to get what I am talking about — live, engagement with people, and minimal ways to track value, including comments.

 

  • Continue PhD?
  • Continue with ABC Education?
  • Re-focus on Reflexive Reading?
  • Attempt mathematical description?
  • How does this fit into life journey?

SUPER SWEET HEADING


A SUBHEADING

My supervisors walked me through the sequence of failure I am faced with: resubmit and fail, dropping me from PhD to DPhil, and at the end of three years, failure and I get nothing. Nice. Basically, is there any point in continuing? I say, yes, because at least it gives me time to consolidate my own experience and learning in a way which at least attempts to connect with academic institutions. 

Although my supervisors were adamant that I not study ABC State from the start of my PhD, it looks like the reviewers recommend that I should. Trouble is, Coronavirus continues to wreak havoc on secondary schools, and what little chance is now near-zero.

Looking at the pros and cons, I don’t think it is wise to focus on ABC State, which means that a shift to Reflexive Reading will involve a Re-Candidacy procedure. I will need to find another supervisor. If I don’t, whatever I submit will not be accepted, indeed will not even be read.

RESUBMIT

  • Theory Defined
  • More Reading 
  • They Don’t Get It
  • Coronavirus

 

ABC State

  • Worked for me
  • Theory Defined
  • School Interest
  • Simple Research
  • Coronavirus
  • Schools Busy
  • I Created ABC
  • Unnecessary Constructs

 

REflexive reading

  • Theory Strong
  • Research Ok
  • Interesting
  • Academic Only
  • Abstract
  • Threatening
  • No Supervisor
  •  

 

RR & XQ

  • Consolidate XQ
  • Avoid Language
  • Fundamental
  • Dangerous
  • May Not Succeed
  • Radical
  •  

 

 

No ABC State?

The reviewers of my Confirmation Report advise me to ditch RR and focus on ABC State, and look into a wealth of material in education. Admittedly, of the hundreds of documents I read, the thousands I searched through, I put in a handful relating to education. I find the suggestion to go into eg maths teacher, missing the point entirely. And the evidence I produced regarding how little we know about relations in teenagers wasn’t enough. I was reluctant to dive into specific group of concepts, like cognition, motivation, emotion and social learning (Panadero 2017), self-behaviour-environment and metacognition-motivation (Zimmerman 1990, 2003, 2009; Bandura), goal-motivation and emotion-regulation (Boekaerts 1991, 2011), meta-cognition and goal-motivation (Winnie & Hadwin 1998, 2008; Efklides 2011), to mention but a few. So many concepts, and correlations between these constructs. And evidence that connects these constructs. The idea of doing so seems to me to fall into categories, and crude models. And the whole point of ABC State is to avoid this spurious academic game. That’s harsh. These concepts are valid. And the clever mechanisms to try to capture data which provides evidence for these theories is considerable. However, in the end, they are not influencing teaching practices. Or at least, they do in the sense of telling the teacher things. ABC State is a social tool, and I haven’t been able to find anything like it. Closest description is Doll (2012) who delightfully connects complexity maths to social dynamics. But he doesn’t provide a tool.

Although my supervisors were adamant that I not study ABC State from the start of my PhD, it looks like the reviewers recommendation that I should has changed their mind; they are willing to continue to be supervisors. It is like I am completely ignoring my literature research and work, to start off where I was meant to begin a year ago. A waste of time. I am reluctant to do that. And also, it looks like further lockdowns is going to seriously disrupt schools, so the small chances of finding schools who are willing to conduct research will be further reduced. In sum, if I continue with ABC State, there is a high chance no school will be in a position to do it (hence postpone now), or the reviewers will not like the standard of my work. This second is a little more serious, and I will consider it below. Seems like the wrong path.

However, Wendy things it a shame that I am leaving ABC State. She advises to write a paper. This makes sense. I think I can do this. I am also creating a website and will be writing to the schools who indicated an initial interest before Coronavirus. I will thus be in a position to move forwards if anyone shows an interest.

reflexive reading

It shouldn’t be too hard. Do more reading around the academic process of reading. Construct a research programme for online participants. Perhaps conduct a Delphi Study for those who are interested. How interesting or useful is the method?

visit Reflexive Reading

relational Social science

I’m not suited for academia. Too creative. However, academia needs to change. Social science is based on the wrong method, the science of objects (ie physics) and its more recent mathematical tools (ie statistics). Social science needs to be relational. Reflexive Reading and its consequence does that.

visit social self

mathematical basis

Ever since I first explored XQ, back in 2008, I’ve teased out a few potential threads of exploration. But it isn’t easy. It is not a thing ‘to solve’. Rather a thing to contemplate. However, now’s the time to see if I can actually produce a minimal description of psycho-social dynamics.

visit XQ

Reflexive Reading, and some…

To focus on Reflexive Reading is a major risk. I might not find a supervisor. Which means that whatever I do write from now, nobody will read. And even if I do find supervisors, what I submit will probably suffer from the same problems my current submission suffers from: the lack of categorical manipulation, linear logic and simplicity. I might be able to present a relatively simple research project, but it is far from clear that anyone will ‘get it’. Look at how current submission has been dismissed, where academics are asking ‘so what?’ when I press them.

Which leads me to consider whether I might as well take a massive jump and attempt to formalise the XQ maths I’ve played around with, to see if I can present a more mathematical account rather than the verbal one which they seem to have problems with. Radical.

They seem to not want to engage the content, and the content is inherently reflexive and requires verification on their part. Without their verification, they must rely on a standard academic account, which is primarily category manipulation. The moral/ethical argument is ignored.

Decisions, Decisions…

  • Economics: Sqale
  • Fantasy: Urb
  • Education: ABC State
  • Business: Action Cycles
  • Academia: Reflexive Reading
  • Mathematics: XQ
  • Spirit: Zeroing the Distance

SUPER SWEET HEADING


A SUBHEADING

The primary objective of this reconfiguration of the happyseaurchin site is to provide a transparent window, which we may find is glassless to enable greater interaction or participation. I am attempting to collate my thoughts, consolidate previous work, and to assimilate or construct or confluence ‘products’. These ‘products’ are meta-tools by which we can alter how we operate. Like watching  river forming an oxbow, carving out its path through the land. All process. It gets a little tricky. I have multiple perspectives, tools, etc, and formalising them requires a reasonable amount of effort. Not brick-by-brick work, more like herding cats.

I’ve introduced the major systems and tools in the fixed pages of this site, and they are indicated to the left. There are a bunch of others, like tango and tai-chi, an online tournament structure, happening hangouts. These generally fit into the systems outlined, and they all involve our embodied presence and action. The text-related ones are relevant for this blog in order to escape the standard written-reading practices, reveal the underlying assumptions of word-thought construction, while providing a creative means for us to progress well through text. We need to subvert the standard writing-reading contract which induces a deadening effect (that all this has already been written for you), in order to reveal the actual process (that it is being written, word for word, as you read). That is, Reflexive Reading. I describe text-tango below.

Why the bed image above? Because some of my best thinking emerges from sleep, the surface of wakefulness where the rules of linear logic are loosened up to enable a more fluid exploration of thinking. Mindflow, I call it. We’ll be encountering that here. You have been warned…

Read Home Page Check About Page

Unique. Undefined. Unrefined.

Typical text. Although written alive to your live reading, the tendency is for the unsuspecting reading to fall into the standard practice of thinking it has all been written, and that they have to chase for the meaning which is being conveyed.

Relax. We are co-constructing the meaning. Yes, I’m writing this at the moment, but it could be you some day, or another. What matters is that we are sharing the experience.

Text-tango. This involves writing on a single page, deleting and editing as we go along. The process is captured on video, so the temporal nature is obvious. It is self-evident the text is being written.

There may be a finished ‘product’, a block of text, like these columns of text. The editing is not visible. Only the final product. The point of text-tango is to show the original writing and the editing process; both are creative.

Variations. I normally don’t edit typical text, because I think it is unfair. A well crafted piece of writing can become too seductive, where a first-time reader is struck by the well-crafted quality. I prefer the equality of writing live and reading live for the first time, with minimal editing. Closer to synchronous communication, talking rather than being lectured, a common misunderstanding when someone hears me talk. I am not lecturing. I am exploring. We are exploring. The proof of which is a new idea to us both.

Real Blabbing

Use the way-back machine to check out previous material. I will insert links for other material as I go along. Probably a set of links to the right side. I’m 50, so not so up to date with modern blog styles and formats for writing blog posts. As already noted, I have developed multiple ways of changing the way we read and write, which we will experiment with during this blog.

I am starting to compile the different areas of exploration I have conducted over my life, the various ‘processual products’ that I have formulated. That’s about thirty years of adult life. The intention is to produce clear descriptions of them. They are all pretty ‘minimal’: a handful of processes conducted simultaneously. But because they are minimal and processual, they generally go under the radar of people’s attention. As a result my life journey hasn’t appeared ‘understandable’ to others. The attempt is to make this clearer by showing how these different activities are related.

That is slightly misleading. Misleading in that I am misleading myself. I need to bring these processes together, with the hope of defining a minimal mathematical description. These blog posts could be conducted in private, but that would be in the same modality as the construction of the ‘products’. I didn’t want to confuse myself, to have my explorative meanderings, in the same ‘channel’ or modality as the work to construct the ‘products’. By making it public, I can pursue my line of thinking freshly, as indeed I write this, and I do not fall into the error of producing a ‘finished product’, which unfortunately is the objective of the real ‘work’. However much I like Sqale, and see it as a useful tool, or Reflexive Reading, they do require a considerable effort in creating.

I hope this makes sense. It may not. But then again, I am not explaining. I am exploring. The evidence will be in the subsequent posts, in combination with the actual results of what is created. For example, Sqale app. If the Sqale app takes off, then those parts of the blog which relate to it may be useful retrospectively for the reader, but more importantly, the writings are useful for me to sort out my thinking in relation to what we are doing with Sqale which may be influential in Sqale taking off. All too often, we see ‘success’ as a completed result, without the preceding toil and turmoil of its creation. We get retrospective fictions, sure, but they are dramatised; we then get inspired by these retrospective stories (I just watched Ford v Ferrari last night), and then attempt to ‘replicate’ them in our daily lives; in this process we end up replicating the fictive, not the real. Disorders occur. And we are particularly interested in how fiction becomes real, or how we realise things. So it it is important that we employ tools, and adopt methods, which equip us without colouring artificially. Which leads to this transparency. Not so dramatic. More struggle. But definitely real.

The world needs us to be more present and active, more than ever. If not, we shall succumb to the machinery, the machinery of tech, jobs, et al which contributes to so much automation of our lives.

1

posts written

2

sqale shares

0

credits awarded

8

average rating

Post-Posting

The above bar of number is not live. I’ll have to update it manually. And I may edit the whole thing considerably. Or I shall create another post which will be pinned to the top which is a generic Welcome with instructions on how to use the blog. But I will do this once I have got a bunch of stuff up. Yes, that makes sense. But for now, we’re done. I need to get on with the actual work. I may find that blogs are too distracting, or the format not as convenient as Gingko, or Apple’s TextEdit or Google’s online docs. May the experiment begin.