At 21:09 11-07-1999 +1000, Peter Fullerton wrote:
>And: does the volume and length of replies shape the way the LO system
>works and what it pays attention to. I think it does. So I feel rather
>dismayed by those who say, "well, nothing's stopping you from writing in;
>if you have something to say, say it".
I am not sure if I fully agree with you, Peter. I think you are
extrapolating from "oral communication" to "written communicating", and
then to "communicating in a mailing list". Let me try to clarify what I
mean.
I have been one of the first users of e-mail - internally within IBM, some
15-20 years ago, where it was used to person-to-person and "group"
communication, organised to facilitate the WORK. In the last 7 years I
have been actively participating in and/or moderating "electronic mailing
lists".
At IBM, the objectives were getting the work done and creating
international CoPs (expression not used then). The majority of the mails
were normally long enough to convey the exact meaning that was needed.
Nothing more; nothing less.
In the beginning of the use of Internet a non written principle was "keep
your message short". As a consequence the level of discussion was normally
trivial (as it still is in the IRCs).
When we began to use mailing lists to discuss "serious things" (and
especially in the area of leaning) messages began to be much bigger. Then
it was impossible to read everything. So the concept of dividing the
discussion in different Threads emerged, so that people could follow only
the ones he was interested in. At lo-list we can have threads to discuss
more theoretical questions, and threads to discuss more practical
questions, like the use of LOs at work. Provided that there is people
interested in both questions, that a good thread with a good initial mail
is created, discussion will happen.
More: we can take from Open Space, something like the "rule of two feet",
and call it the "rule of one click". If I opened one mail and I am not
interested in the content, or have no time to read it now, I close the
message (one click). Sometimes I discover latter on that the thread is
interesting and can go back to my own Archives. A more radical application
of the "rule of two feet" is called "the unsubscribe rule". I can always
unsubscribe, create my own list, and nurture it, and stop complaining and
pressuring in the old list.
>For me, long posters also do
>themselves a disservice because they are less effective in communicating
>their ideas if lots of people bypass their posts.
I have heard that idea lots of times; but if it is so, why worry? Long
posts will be "punished" by their own length. The question is that long
posts, like long books, some times have superb ideas one can't miss. "'A
la recherche du temps perdu" (by the way the best novel of this century,
IMHO) has seven volumes of compact, difficult to follow writing. Should
we give the heirs of Proust (replace by James Joyce, if you prefer) the
suggestion to rewrite the book in one volume of 100 pages or so? Should we
appraise the "productivity" dividing the "content" by the number of pages?
And what to do with the "form", the "narrative", that Maturana showed us
that is the more important to convey meaning?
>"External auditory" comes from Neuro Linguistic Programming - the basic
>propositions of which I think are very sound, but the ways in which they
>have been extended and used can be a bit loopy to say the least.
I fully agree with you in this point. May I recall another
"presupposition": "the meaning of the communication is the response you
get". If a long post "receives" lots of answers doesn't this mean that its
author has NOT done a "disservice" to him/herself neither to the list?
> External
>auditories are people who process thoughts in highly literal,
>conversational ways and, indeed, often do so through conversation: that
>is, high energy, thinking aloud. Often the only way to shut them up is to
>tell them to shut up for a while. Typically, they occupy lots of airtime
>when in group settings; the same time, their energy is often very
>valuable.
Notice your words: "shut up", "airtime", "group settings" - you are mainly
talking of ORAL communication in group meetings. There you are 100%
write. Time can't be enlarged; the time used by the loudy people will not
allow others to communicate.
But here we have asynchronous communication: the time I use to write my
message is not the same that you use to read it; and you can even avoid
reading, and writing instead a post of your own.
>Getting through to external auditories is best done by telling
>them, and doing so directly. Hence my query about the keyboard equivalent
>of external auditories.
I think that in this 2 to 3 weeks we have been discussing a lot about "how
to moderate this list"; at the same time this has a side effect - many of
our major contributors, that we appreciate, and are used to, are
participating much less, because they fell rejected (by a minority, I
think). But those posts ARE NOT being replaced by some more "concrete"
stuff. Only by more complaints and more "moderating suggestions".
If I myself may give a moderating suggestion: why are those moderating
suggestions sent to the list and not only to the moderator? Can't we go
back and discuss mainly the real issues (bot theoretical and practical) of
LOs?
Best Regards
Art
--Artur F Silva <artsilva@individual.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>