With what I came away with, when I approach the problem of public participation in policy, I start with "Why do what we do what we do?" … as though designing a hotel lobby, or subway platform, or retail space, or heh a marketing campaign.
Why do folk surf the web? why do they graze long form items, and browse magazine sites? what are they doing on forums and blog posts?
If I tap into the consumerist dynamic then I've wasted my life. It's not about wealth and position.
Is Socrates a loser? didn't get wealth … was executed as disruptive … how can he be the model of anything? 🙂
If you have a moment, mouse-over the !Q! thingies on http://gnodal.protension.com (My idea of interactive design, circa 2003!)
Addenda: Material I haven't looked at in the longest time!
* http://gnodal.protension.com/mandate.html (short)
* http://gnodal.protension.com/overview.html (TL;DR)
* http://gnodal.protension.com/selections.html (notes to myself; enormous)
Reshared post from +Bernard Tremblay
Too cryptic by half? Perhaps.
I'm not great at small talk. If you think of the A-types who do public relations, I'm the guy who's cat-herding in the back rooms, getting things to flow together by working with people who really aren't interested in techne and praxis. (Great example: 's "Kind of Bloop" project at KickStarter. Andy's not the performer/musician, not the recording engineer, but he ram-rodded the production of the tunes and of the CD. <kickstarter.com/projects/waxpancake/kind-of-bloop-an-8-bit-tribute-to-miles-davis>)
So I don't look for small talk. I chat about, well, Andy's role in that project … or, most recently, how the Carr Center for Human Rights supported the deployment of a satellite imaging system in the domain of crimes against humanity … and I look to see who shows interest.
Indirection? Yes. Historically, design for GUI was stolen; design for mouse was stolen. Hijacking design is standard practice. I don't go on at length about this because, well, if a person doesn't the way the world works it's going to take more effort and time than I have just now.
And anyhow, the reason I've spent my life on this is just that: folk don't seem to understand how the world works. So I've devised a method and technique to cut through that. <many2many.wordpress.com/about/>
For over a decade I've watched our resources go towards "low hanging fruit". (The iron law of capital, yes? Resources flow towards greatest ROI … there's actually very little new about #AttentionEconomy .) When I see the best of what we have I don't join in the boosterism; that's seductive, especially when it's rewarded. I'm far more likely to comment along the line of "It's good as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far."
For the moment, I'll proceed with something like a parable.
Why do we build atom-smashers? To advance our knowledge of the world, of course. But that's true of all scientific instruments. Why an atom-smasher?
To break things into their component parts, so we can study them more closely.
I say that's what discourse does. So I created a method/technique for "bullshit smashing", to take apart propositions like "climate change is a myth". It just so happens to work very well positioned as a decision support system. It also turns out to be an interesting way of teaching.
Shall I roll out the detailed design document? I won't do that. I only have 1 farm … I won't give it away.
I probably should already have written a system requirement specification. I was naive: I spent years combing the world to find someone who was already tuned into the problem. A small handful of near misses, but nobody's targeted the problematic.
It's about discourse. Not schmooze and chatter and marketing … discourse. If folk don't get that, then they won't get what I'm aiming at.
Hugh MacLeod's image of "things cloud".
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.