recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : goodwill   6

Sha Hwang - Keynote [Forms of Protest] - UX Burlington on Vimeo
"Let’s close the day by talking about our responsibilities and opportunities as designers. Let’s talk about the pace of fashion and the promise of infrastructure. Let’s talk about systematic failure — failure without malice. Let’s talk about the ways to engage in this messy and complex world. Let’s throw shade on fame and shine light on the hard quiet work we call design."
shahwang  2015  design  infrastructure  fashion  systemsthinking  complexity  messiness  protest  careers  technology  systems  storytelling  scale  stewartbrand  change  thehero'sjourney  founder'sstory  politics  narrative  narratives  systemsdesign  blame  control  algorithms  systemfailure  healthcare.gov  mythmaking  teams  purpose  scalability  bias  microaggressions  dignity  abuse  malice  goodwill  fear  inattention  donellameadows  leveragepoints  making  building  constraints  coding  code  programming  consistency  communication  sharing  conversation  government  ux  law  uxdesign  simplicity  kindness  individuals  responsibility  webdev  web  internet  nava  codeforamerica  18f  webdesign 
january 2016 by robertogreco
Ello | scrawledinwax
"1) Digital social structure is a bit like a first date: the initial tone sets up what comes next.

2) For now, Imma ignore Waxy's post from earlier today. Instead, I'm curious about what it means to produce a space with the same socio-structural parameters as Twitter: asynchronous socializing, reverse chronology - and maybe most importantly, an open social list--follow anyone and follow as many people as you want.

3) That structure means that, at least for me, my initial instinct was just to follow people whose names I recognized, or I know say cool things (or both). That means that very quickly, my feed filled up with things that, as with Twitter, are smart and interesting and possibly too much.

4) Stepping back, I realized what I want from a social network currently is constraint and safety.

5) I want the former because I think stricture is now a more important parameter than choice when, returning to the same Deleuzian point I always return to, the infinite multiple comes first, the individual subtraction second. I think "no" is the operative word, not "yes".

6) I want the latter for different reasons. Maybe I chose the wrong word. As a straight male, I've never experienced harassment online, and for some reason, I've never been subject to very much explicit racial abuse (though plenty of assumptions that I know less than others). But when I say safety, what I mean is that I want to be able to talk about ideas without: a) the risk of a semi-private statement spilling out in the into the public; b) that I can talk with people who are, in a general, roundabout way, like-minded. It's not so much that I want an echo chamber as to have one or two spaces where the comfort of familiarity and an interpersonal history lends itself to what is, for very clear and understandable reasons, missing from the structure of Twitter: an assumption that you meant well, and that you are willing to engage and learn when you fuck up. Twitter is a network in which, for reasons I can't quite figure out yet/articulate, foregrounds positionality - i.e highlights and amplifies the relationship between a subject position and an utterance. That linkage has more more wiggle room amongst friends; for me to talk publicly about feminism is unnecessary, but privately amongst (mixed) friends, can be enlightening and healthy. And I suppose that that's party what I want from a digital social structure: some sense of limit so one can make mistakes and learn, without the significant affective and psychological consequences that come from doing it on a place Twitter."
twitter  ello  socialmedia  navneetalang  socialnetworks  discourse  constraint  conversation  trust  safety  networks  socializing  social  2014  goodwill 
september 2014 by robertogreco
The steel man of #GamerGate — The Message — Medium
"Every so often, the Long Now Foundation here in San Francisco hosts a debate. It might be about nuclear power or synthetic biology or perhaps the very notion of human progress — high-stakes stuff. But the format is nothing like the showdowns on cable news or the debates in election season.

Instead, it goes like this:

There are two debaters, Alice and Bob. Alice takes the podium, makes her argument. Then Bob takes her place, but before he can present his counter-argument, he must summarize Alice’s argument to her satisfaction — a demonstration of respect and good faith. Only when Alice agrees that Bob has got it right is he permitted to proceed with his own argument — and then, when he’s finished, Alice must summarize it to his satisfaction.

The first time I saw one of these debates, it blew my mind.

Our democratic culture has, I believe, basically given up on debate as a tool for changing minds or achieving consensus. Instead, we use it as a stage for performance, for political point-scoring. When we debate — and this is true whether it’s a big televised event or a little online roundtable — we direct our arguments not at our opponents but rather at our allies. We rile the base. We face the choir. We preach!

Apparently, the Long Now Foundation didn’t get the memo, and neither did L. Rhodes. In his piece addressing #GamerGate, he truly speaks to his opponents, and his focus never wavers. There are no winks to his allies and no dog whistles that I can detect. It’s a miracle of tone. There are so many opportunities to be snide, to score a point — just one little point! — and he takes none of them.

Rhodes’s piece reminded me, also, of Alan Jacobs’s reference [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/jacobs/thomas-nagel-is-admirably-fair-minded/ ], years ago, to the philosopher Thomas Nagel’s review of a book by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Nagel is a staunch atheist; Plantinga, a devout Christian.

Jacobs wrote:
Having confessed that he “cannot imagine believing what [Plantinga] believes,” Nagel nevertheless must acknowledge that Plantinga is doing excellent philosophical work and that his arguments cannot be easily dismissed. Moreover, Nagel clearly relishes simply being exposed to ways of thinking so alien to his own — he obviously finds it refreshing.

Instead of the straw man argument — that scourge — we have the steel man: “the best form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented.”

The fact that Nagel takes this approach shouldn’t be surprising; it has long been valued in philosophy and rhetoric, and more recently by the so-called “rationalist” community online. This is laudable — I mean, these people really know how to argue! — but there’s an inertness to the practice in those communities: a sense, too often, of arguments unfolding for their own sake in a hermetically-sealed arena.

So the thing that impresses me about Rhodes’s piece is that it is real: enmeshed in a real conversation and addressed to real opponents, which implies real risk. This isn’t a philosophy symposium; it’s a roiling argument that has spawned mobs of internet harassers.

Did Rhodes’s piece turn #GamerGate around? No.

Did it change a few people’s minds? There is evidence, here on Medium and also on Twitter, that it did. In this culture — on this internet — that’s a small miracle.

There’s a recipe available here, for anyone brave enough to use it: strong arguments presented in good faith not to our allies but to our actual opponents. I use the word “brave” very consciously, because I believe this is just about the most dangerous kind of writing and thinking you can do."



"This kind of writing is dangerous because it goes beyond (mere) argumentation; it becomes immersion, method acting, dual-booting. To make your argument strong, you have to make your opponent’s argument stronger. You need sharp thinking and compelling language, but you also need close attention and deep empathy. I don’t mean to be too woo-woo about it, but truly, you need love. The overall sensibility is closer to caregiving than to punditry."
debate  empathy  ethnography  listening  robinsloan  lrhodes  alanjacobs  thomasnagel  alvinplantinga  goodfaith  strawman  steelman  strawmen  steelmen  philosophy  rhetoric  conversation  goodwill  mindchanging  mindchanges 
september 2014 by robertogreco
Academic Kindness
"A record of unsolicited kindness, unexpected goodwill, and excessive generosity in academia."
kindness  grace  academia  via:anne  highered  highereducation  goodwill  generosity  moreofthisplease 
february 2014 by robertogreco
How Food Could Determine Libya's Future - Christopher R. Albon - International - The Atlantic
"Ongoing shortages could leave the rebels too weak to topple Qaddafi, but the U.S. may be in a position to help"
food  libya  crisis  us  policy  goodwill  qaddafi  2011 
march 2011 by robertogreco
Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world | Video on TED.com
"Clay Shirky looks at "cognitive surplus" -- the shared, online work we do with our spare brain cycles. While we're busy editing Wikipedia, posting to Ushahidi (and yes, making LOLcats), we're building a better, more cooperative world."
clayshirky  cognitivesurplus  collaboration  knowledge  psychology  twitter  trends  ted  technology  socialmedia  surplus  community  change  sharing  cognitive  internet  culture  citizenjournalism  onebreakstheother  intrinsicmotivation  motivation  economics  goodwill 
july 2010 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read