Comments on: Conversationalism http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Central Indiana Homeschool :: Knowledge as a Conversation :: November :: 2005 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1994 Central Indiana Homeschool :: Knowledge as a Conversation :: November :: 2005 Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:01:45 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/#comment-1994 [...] And Savage Minds elaborates: Weinberger is something of an Internet utopianist, so his post leans heavily on new technologies that have provided conduits for the wide transmission of ideas—as he says, you may not be IM’ing Chinese Communists or Jihadists, but the conversations others are having in out-of-the-way corners of the network are refracting through the whole. But I think his comments can be abstracted from the technology issue to encompass a way of looking at social communication in general. As noted here and elsewhere, the model of cultures as bounded entities is highly unsatisfactory as a way of looking at the modern world (and possibly of looking at human history at any point). Comments » [...] [...] And Savage Minds elaborates: Weinberger is something of an Internet utopianist, so his post leans heavily on new technologies that have provided conduits for the wide transmission of ideas—as he says, you may not be IM’ing Chinese Communists or Jihadists, but the conversations others are having in out-of-the-way corners of the network are refracting through the whole. But I think his comments can be abstracted from the technology issue to encompass a way of looking at social communication in general. As noted here and elsewhere, the model of cultures as bounded entities is highly unsatisfactory as a way of looking at the modern world (and possibly of looking at human history at any point). Comments » [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Doyle Saylor http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1319 Doyle Saylor Wed, 31 Aug 2005 17:06:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/#comment-1319 I think of the issue of bottlenecks in terms of conversation. For example, how many people can engage in conversation at once? Once that relatively small number of every day practice is succeeded, then most people observe rather than converse as long as a technologically unaided state of face-to-face conversation prevails. The Technology (computing communications) moves to expand the input of larger numbers of people in the conversation and shifts the character of information in the conversation. Most conventional content is one-to-many in character of use, books, movies, television, etc,. The receiver does not 'talk back' to the content coming into them. In basic conversation, face-to-face, every day speech acts, the characteristics of a technological 'many-to-many content' of a conversation is modelled. For example is it real time? Are parallel emotions channels communicated well? Is attention shared well between people? To sum up, we have impoverished ways to understand what conversation does. We tend instead because most media functions in one-to-many standards to not appreciate that the exchange process might have larger scales of impact than basic conversation provides. Global culture is dominated by one-to-many models of knowledge. Face-to-face implies technology breeching a barrier in the culture of the bottlenecks of basic conversation. thanks, Doyle Saylor I think of the issue of bottlenecks in terms of conversation. For example, how many people can engage in conversation at once? Once that relatively small number of every day practice is succeeded, then most people observe rather than converse as long as a technologically unaided state of face-to-face conversation prevails.

The Technology (computing communications) moves to expand the input of larger numbers of people in the conversation and shifts the character of information in the conversation. Most conventional content is one-to-many in character of use, books, movies, television, etc,. The receiver does not ‘talk back’ to the content coming into them. In basic conversation, face-to-face, every day speech acts, the characteristics of a technological ‘many-to-many content’ of a conversation is modelled. For example is it real time? Are parallel emotions channels communicated well? Is attention shared well between people?

To sum up, we have impoverished ways to understand what conversation does. We tend instead because most media functions in one-to-many standards to not appreciate that the exchange process might have larger scales of impact than basic conversation provides. Global culture is dominated by one-to-many models of knowledge. Face-to-face implies technology breeching a barrier in the culture of the bottlenecks of basic conversation.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

Report this comment

]]> By: bill benzon http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1317 bill benzon Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:17:46 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/#comment-1317 Consider American vernacular musics as a centuries-long cultural conversation. On the whole, it's been a remarkably fruitiful affair. Yes, lots of garbage, but lots of good stuff too. And there's no particular reason to think that it's over or that all the colorful difference is about to merge into a neutral grey-brown sludge. Consider American vernacular musics as a centuries-long cultural conversation. On the whole, it’s been a remarkably fruitiful affair. Yes, lots of garbage, but lots of good stuff too. And there’s no particular reason to think that it’s over or that all the colorful difference is about to merge into a neutral grey-brown sludge.

Report this comment

]]> By: oneman http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1311 oneman Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:32:08 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/#comment-1311 I see a lot of criticism of Internet "echo chambers", but what people say doesn't jibe with my own experience and I wonder how much actual research there is behind those critiques. Here's the thing: I don't actually know all but one of my co-Savage Minders. We are a community, however small, composed almost entirely of relations among online personas. I have first met dozens of people, including my current partner, through online forums, chatrooms, email, and so on. I have built lasting online relationships with people as far away as Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Rumania, not to mention people within the US and Canada, through the Internet. As the "Face-to-Face" thread notes, there is a difference between these relationships and my normal day-to-day interactions with physical presences, but one thing that cannot be said is that the Internet has made me more insular. I really do not think I am some great exception. At the same time, I can see where many people spend their online time chatting or communicating with real-world friends, as teenagers used phones Back in The Day (tm). I can see where the news-gathering potential of the Internet is ignored in favor of games and porn. But the impact of the Internet -- and of conversation networking in general -- is not that every person is in touch with every other person, but that a handful of people are in contact with a handful of other people, who are in contact with a handful of other people, and so on. It only takes slight overlaps in those networks for information to circulate quite widely. For me, though, the interesting question is how much our non-online interactions also follow this sort of pattern. Think, for instance, of Clifford's _Routes_ and the idea of cultural "flows". It's clear that there can be no flow without channels -- so what are the channels? In a world of irreducible difference, such difference would stand in the way of meaningful exchange. At some point, there are conversations -- people talking to other people -- and that implies some degree of commensurability, or there simply would not be cultural flow. So one question is, is there some sort of threshhold, some point at which the overlapping of conversational networks is too low for ideas to spread? What are the factors that allow opposition or unintelligibility to transform into conversation? In a world of conversations, can we meaningfully sort out humanity into cultural units? How? I see a lot of criticism of Internet “echo chambers”, but what people say doesn’t jibe with my own experience and I wonder how much actual research there is behind those critiques. Here’s the thing: I don’t actually know all but one of my co-Savage Minders. We are a community, however small, composed almost entirely of relations among online personas. I have first met dozens of people, including my current partner, through online forums, chatrooms, email, and so on. I have built lasting online relationships with people as far away as Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Rumania, not to mention people within the US and Canada, through the Internet. As the “Face-to-Face” thread notes, there is a difference between these relationships and my normal day-to-day interactions with physical presences, but one thing that cannot be said is that the Internet has made me more insular. I really do not think I am some great exception.

At the same time, I can see where many people spend their online time chatting or communicating with real-world friends, as teenagers used phones Back in The Day ™. I can see where the news-gathering potential of the Internet is ignored in favor of games and porn. But the impact of the Internet — and of conversation networking in general — is not that every person is in touch with every other person, but that a handful of people are in contact with a handful of other people, who are in contact with a handful of other people, and so on. It only takes slight overlaps in those networks for information to circulate quite widely.

For me, though, the interesting question is how much our non-online interactions also follow this sort of pattern. Think, for instance, of Clifford’s _Routes_ and the idea of cultural “flows”. It’s clear that there can be no flow without channels — so what are the channels? In a world of irreducible difference, such difference would stand in the way of meaningful exchange. At some point, there are conversations — people talking to other people — and that implies some degree of commensurability, or there simply would not be cultural flow. So one question is, is there some sort of threshhold, some point at which the overlapping of conversational networks is too low for ideas to spread? What are the factors that allow opposition or unintelligibility to transform into conversation? In a world of conversations, can we meaningfully sort out humanity into cultural units? How?

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1309 Kerim Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:29:38 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/#comment-1309 This touches on the comment <a href="http://savageminds.org/2005/08/16/the-rest-of-the-world/#comment-1191" rel="nofollow">Ethan Zukerman left</a> on my "The Rest of the World" post. I expressed skepticism about how many people actually bother to read global blogs, even though it is now so easy to do so. He insists that journalists and others do make use of sites like Global Voices, which is great. My skepticism, however, comes from numerous studies which show that the internet has served to make many people more insular. Rather than everyone getting the same information from the same mass-media, people are now more likely to live in an insular world where they only read blogs by like-minded people, thus reinforcing, as opposed to "negotiating" their preconceived notion of the world. Not unlike <a href="http://www.orgnet.com/divided.html" rel="nofollow">this graph</a> of Amazon book readers. Not to be too wishy-washy, but in the end I suppose both the optimism and the skepticism are equally justified, and there will be a vast majority of people living more insular lives, but more and more people who are willing and able to seek out opposing views and engage with them. In other words, you can look at that graph of Amazon books and see it as a glass half-empty or a glass half-full... This touches on the comment Ethan Zukerman left on my “The Rest of the World” post. I expressed skepticism about how many people actually bother to read global blogs, even though it is now so easy to do so. He insists that journalists and others do make use of sites like Global Voices, which is great. My skepticism, however, comes from numerous studies which show that the internet has served to make many people more insular. Rather than everyone getting the same information from the same mass-media, people are now more likely to live in an insular world where they only read blogs by like-minded people, thus reinforcing, as opposed to “negotiating” their preconceived notion of the world. Not unlike this graph of Amazon book readers. Not to be too wishy-washy, but in the end I suppose both the optimism and the skepticism are equally justified, and there will be a vast majority of people living more insular lives, but more and more people who are willing and able to seek out opposing views and engage with them. In other words, you can look at that graph of Amazon books and see it as a glass half-empty or a glass half-full…

Report this comment

]]> By: Matt http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/comment-page-1/#comment-1307 Matt Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:12:35 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2005/08/29/conversationalism/#comment-1307 Interesting post. Say, how about a link to Long Sunday? (We could talk about it.) Interesting post. Say, how about a link to Long Sunday? (We could talk about it.)

Report this comment

]]>