[FRIAM] Can you guess the source.

[Allison Pinto]

If you all have already seen this clip, sorry for the duplication, but if
not, this definitely seems to fit in with the conversation that is alive
right now re:  phase transitions relating to technology:

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/introducing-the-book-p1.php? 

:)  Allison

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Michael Agar
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:15 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Can you guess the source.

"Reflexivity" is one of those terms...  Nice and neat in set theory,  
a relation R is reflexive in set A  iff for all a in A aRa is true.  
Then there's the ethnomethodology version, which means talk and  
situation dynamically co-constitute each other. Then there's the  
focused ethno version I learned, namely that the ethnographer is part  
of the data. Then there's the critical theory version, namely putting  
a project in broader historical context to evaluate interests it  
serves with a critical evaluation vis a vis a model of the good society.

Almost as bad as trying to define "complexity" (:

Mike


On Apr 13, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Matthew Francisco wrote:

> Dr. Daniels,
>
> I want to make sure I understand you.  See below...
>
> On 4/13/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>>> reflexivity is also a part of cybernetics (of second order), and
>>> cybernetists think that complexity theory is a part of  
>>> cybernetics too...
>>>
>> For the social scientist, the approach raises two problems:
>>
>> 1) Too much reflection means too much attention to models of the  
>> world.
>> To ask the right questions means having unbiased data on how  
>> people in
>> some context of interest actually behave.
>
> I take it that when you say context of interest you are inferring that
> this is a model of the world.  I understand you as meaning that
> context is unstable, always shifting, as a natural outcome of
> reflection.  The act of shifting contexts and perspectives and between
> models of the world is reflexivity.  That's a good way to think of it!
>
> Asking the right questions means settling on a few world models at the
> most but one, a context of interest, is preferred.  I'm, however,
> unclear on the relationship of unbiased data to the framework you are
> proposing.  Does biased data arise from gathering data in one model of
> the world, moving to another, gathering more data, moving to another
> model of the world and so on?  I believe that there is some other
> criteria that you have for determining if data is biased or unbiased
> that might not be related to one or many world models and the shifting
> between them, but I'm unsure.  I acknowledge that I may be asking the
> wrong questions here.  Please advise!
>
>
>>
>> 2) It's typically not possible to sufficiently influence or observe
>> people to understand cause and effect across individuals or groups.
>> The insights gained from reflexive participation will just be the  
>> kind
>> of models we get living life (but with fancied-up language to  
>> sound more
>> important than they are).  Seems to me this kind of modeling is  
>> more the
>> domain of the intelligence agencies than universities.
>>
>
> I take it that when you say that there is an impossibility to
> influence or observe then you are speaking from a particular model of
> the world.  I cannot understand what you mean by sufficiency until I
> better understand where you are coming from.  I think that it is most
> appropriate here for me to take responsibility for my ignorance on
> this because I don't think that I adequately explained the model of
> the world that I'm living in when I speak of reflexivity much less
> interpret how you think about it based on what I said or what you
> already know.  I really would like to share it with you if I can, but
> I also don't want to bore FRIAM (I'm absolutely capable of that!).
>
> I think that if reflexive participation, as you put it, by an analyst
> could get at the world you experience living your life then it would
> be a highly successful approach.  That's a pretty radical claim you're
> making!  I'd say that such analysis would give some insight into
> another person's world but definitely not a replication of the same
> model.
>
> I recently watched a whole slew of spy movies (The Conversation,
> Syriana, The Good Shepard.) and I think that you're absolutely right
> that the model of reflexivity your proposing, shifting between models
> of the world, fits with the narratives portrayed in these films.  You
> defiantly gave me an entirely new way to think about reflexive
> sociology!  Does such an approach not belong in the University?!?  I'm
> intrigued.  Thanks for this response, you really got me thinking!
>
> Have a good night
>
> Matt
>
>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org