Connectivism represents a new way of knowing. But if it is correct, it is the way we have been knowing all along, and may not require a leap across an enormous gap to adapt to the new theory. Stephen Downes summarizes connectivism as “the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections,” which means learning “consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks” (“What Connectivism Is”). This is a revolutionary thought, denying at once that a piece of knowledge is an object that may be transferred from one to another and that knowledge can be pinned down to representations of it in language.

In a world connected by the Internet, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that one facet of connectivism is true: knowledge is distributed across the network. This point by itself is easy to accept, but the broader point that knowledge does not rest in the heads of individuals is harder to, as we used to say, wrap one’s head around. In fact this metaphor of enclosing knowledge in an individual brain is not a connectivist metaphor. Instead, a knowledge-seeker must visualize connecting up with knowledge, or growing out into it. The edges of knowledge are not defined by the skull, but are rhizomatic and spread outwards to other nodes in the network (See“Rhizomatic Knowledge” article by Dave Cormier).

Some will make the transition to new connectivist metaphors, while others, especially those who are not deeply integrated into communities of practice with connectivists, will stick to traditional metaphors describing knowledge as a commodity they possess in their heads. Fortunately, I think it is possible to work and learn with people who do not subscribe to this theory. Even among those who do not believe in connectivism or have not become acquainted with it (including those who don’t think much about theories of knowledge), connectivist techniques may be applied in connection with them. What might appear to an uninitiated learner as a transfer of knowledge would be represented by connectivism as a new connection to a knowledge network. Certainly a teacher knowledgeable in connectivism will approach the task of teaching differently, but would a student unfamiliar with the theory recognize that their guide is more connecting them up to the nodes of their own learning network than transferring static knowledge? I think the experience would feel like “learning,” as the student has become familiar with. Not “learning” in the sense of getting drilled for recitation of “facts”, but authentic learning, complete with the feeling of connection to understanding and community.

Connectivism posits that knowledge is “subsymbolic,” below the level of language. Language is a system of reference to concepts in the network that allows users to communicate and build structures of that knowledge, but words do not refer to absolute objects of knowledge. Knowledge is personal, relative to one’s network connections and what one has become familiar with. The set of nodes they are connected to in a network graph determines their “perspective” and what knowledge is available for reference by language. The example, “Paris is the Capital of France,” only represents knowledge in that those who are connected to the concepts of states and their governments can use this referent to call up these structures that exist in the network between people. After all, even the borders of France are not things that exist in the physical world, but agreements between many who have connected to the concepts of sovereign states. Even without knowing connectivist theory, people are able to access this knowledge.

I’ll offer a final example to clarify why I think that while connectivism represents a large revolution in knowledge, but when classrooms and communities begin shifting to using connectivist theory consciously as they attempt to spread (grow rather than transfer) knowledge will not impose a difficult transition on those in the network who do not subscribe to the theory. It is the matter of the interpretation of artifacts of knowledge, such as a story in a book.

An author writes a text from his or her own perspective in the network, accessing concepts and referring to them with language that are shared in his or her community. It is inevitable that the text spreads beyond the author’s perspective, because even another node in the author’s network is connected to a different set of nodes than the author. As people with different perspectives access the text, they interpret its meaning into concepts they are familiar with (concepts in their network). When an author writes about learning, connectivists understand this reference differently than constructivists, applying the concepts of their own network to it. Thus, interpretation of a particular artifact is a shared phenomenon, but an individuals interpretation depends on their placement within the network. Familiarity with a particular set of perspectives colors an individuals interpretation of a knowledge artifact. When somebody who doesn’t believe connectivist theory applies their personal knowledge to a new artifact of knowledge, a connectivist would be able to read this as growth of knowledge (connections) in the network.

An example of this process occurred to me recently as I listened to a presentation on was the issue of queer identification with superheroes (University of Oregon Understanding Superheroes Conference, 23 October 2009). The presenter asked the question, “Is Batman gay?” She pointed out that there is no definite answer to this question. Many authors have approached the Batman character, portraying their own visions within the structure laid out by DC. Batman gets into some pretty hairy situations with Robin, but the question of the interpretation of his sexuality is typically outside the author’s conception and in the realm of interpretation by diverse networks of readers. The identification of “queer moments” in Batman depends on a reader’s connection to a network where that interpretation is familiar. Just as one would only be able to apply a Marxist analysis to an argument if one is familiar with Marxism and those who offer that perspective. Connecting is practice. By doing it, one grows connections (knowledge). Practicing connection enables pattern recognition, enabling wider variety of pattern recognition and interaction as learners expands their network. Adapting to connectivist theory doesn’t involve a drastically different form of practice than learners have engaged in already. For the most part, a connectivist understanding applies to the learning activity nonconnectivists do. Once people have adopted a connectivist understanding, however, they can tailor their practices to actively attempt to grow understanding in their network and expand their network toward people and perspectives that align with their interests and experience, reaping greater benefits.

Theoretically competition would encourage private insurers to reduce their profit margins (to spend more of their premiums on health care coverage), but you have to be careful to analyze why their profit margins are around 20%… and what mechanisms of competition you would introduce with a “public option”… Insurance companies try to assure those profits now by recission and cherrypicking customers to avoid those with highest risk and by preventing those who buy insurance independently from buying into group pools. (There’s also the issue of insurance companies getting huge discounts on medical bills from hospitals– read this for one account of how they game the system: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/134353/fainting_in_this_country_can_carry_a_$10,000_price_tag/ )

For example, the way the “public option” is set up in some of the bills right now, people who get insurance through their employer would not be able to choose it, and in fact many uninsured people wouldn’t be able to choose it either. Here’s a flowchart explaining who would be eligible: http://www.donkeylicious.com/2009/08/flowchart.html

The effects of the changes the insurance industry will be able to force into the bill may make it so that the only people eligible for the public option are generally “high risk” customers, while the mandate in the bill that everybody must buy insurance forces most of the uninsured with low risk (generally young people) to buy private insurance that they are unlikely to use fully. The effect of a public option that gets only the most expensive customers will be to create huge cost overruns on the public side and greater profits on the private side. Then the private guys can say “look! the government can’t run health care! see what we’ve been saying?!?!?!” when the reality is that the program was just set up to fail.

Another change in regulation that has been proposed by some is to allow people to buy insurance across state lines to get a better deal. This seems like it would increase competition, but consider: a company currently offering insurance in many states could then offer it only in states with the weakest consumer protection laws, so the policy may be cheaper, but there may be changes that affect the available quality.

Another element is that medical insurance companies are exempt from federal antitrust laws (Peter DiFazio is trying to change this, but not getting listened to.) Only this industry and professional baseball are exempted. This exemption exists despite evidence of real collusion between the companies to establish this 20% profit margin. This is another factor to consider when trying to analyze the effects of the “free market” in health care, because idealized free market models rely on competition, not collusion.

So some reforms may introduce competition, but you have to be careful to look at what the competitive mechanism is and what might undermine the effect. You have to analyze how the “free market” would be competitive or uncompetitive in this instance… whether it would actually be a free market or not, in effect. I would argue that health care is not a very free market, and that is the reason behind the 20% profit margins. Reforms that further cartelize the industry would not be effective, but reforms that introduce real meaningful competition might reduce that 20% figure and improve quality. But the proposed legislation doesn’t exactly address the real mechanisms of why it is uncompetitive, and the “public option” as figured, doesn’t do a very good job of competing on a “free market model”, because few people can actually choose it.

So while it may “seem” like a “free market” could manage this system most efficiently, you have to look at why the current system is so inefficient and decide whether it is “free” or not, and then look at proposed reforms to see what the actual effects will be. They cannot be generalized to “increasing regulation” as a single linear variable, and their effects will not be something as simple as “drives prices up.”

This sort of resource compounds its value when it proliferates. Youtube has a huge number of songs and music videos uploaded, including live performance videos. Services like Spotify (not available in the US), and the subscription option Rhapsody give users a wide vareity of licensed tracks to build playlists from. Blip.fm builds another layer on top of these streaming resources, by making social sharing of tracks effortless and fun without hosting most files itself. You can follow “DJs” on Blip.fm who play things you like; they build their own reputation and introduce their subscribers to new music at the same time.

So, first point: this is good for music listeners.

Despite not paying for the Thieves tracks you might listen to tonight on MySpace, their availability might translate into ticket dollars (or maybe CD sales) for a portion of their audience. This consumption, when it happens, is increasingly driven by informed choice, and less by marketing. More people listening to an artist’s tracks means more exposure. More discussion about them (even little bits, like the comments on some Blip.fm posts) builds buzz the same way an organized marketing campaign does.

So, second point: this may be good for artists on the whole. Some of this activity produces revenue directly for artists (like the subscription service Rhapsody.) Some of it produces revenue indirectly. Some of it produces no revenue, and may even potentially subtract revenue if a user that would have bought a CD doesn’t when they find they can listen to some tracks online for free.Research has for a while been indicating that this is not true.

Some of the listening over these streaming sources is not authorized by the copyright holders. For example, some of the tracks queued up on Blip.fm from wherever they are around the web (frequently they are Youtube videos) were not authorized uploads. The objection of a copyright holder to one of these tracks has to take the form of a DMCA takedown notice to the service where it is hosted, not to blip.fm, which only hosts authorized tracks itself. So even when a few tracks are rooted out, the service stays almost completely whole. Legality is questionable, but the industry may be forced to ride the wave anyway.

There is value in finding music that appeals to a certain individual. These tools increasingly make it possible for individuals to navigate the increasingly vast world of available music to find the artists that appeal to them personally. Predictive algorithms, like on Pandora or Last.fm help guess new music that might be appealing, but the best way to find out new music is to find out what people you know are listening to. Word of mouth. There is a huge variety of music available, so filtering mechanisms have become more important. Discovery of music in general is easy, but it is hard to determine whether you have discovered the “best” that there is. Radio used to be the most important filtering mechanism, but radio has not done very well in the Web era. Formats have become more and more standardized when users want more individualized choices. As curators of content, radio stations haven’t developed individual personalities or featured their DJ staff for their own personal tastes. Instead, relatively homogenized playlists are the norm. There are exceptions among college radio stations and independents like WFMU, but for the most part, radio is losing out to individuals in the area of offering individualized music choices. In their stead, individuals using services like Spotify and Playlist.com are sharing their own modern mixtapes. And users are enjoying it.

So, will the other side of the music industry, the record companies that have been suing music fans, be driven to come on board with an “on demand” paradigm?

The last couple weeks, I’ve been getting a lot of Net Neutrality notes, and today’s libertarian reaction to the FCC neutrality push was interesting. Libertarian group BreakTheMatrix is acting as if this new government regulation of markets is going to destroy the innovative opportunities ISPs have had to do what they like with their networks, the opportunities that have made the Internet such a great place. It seems to be really knee-jerk and formulaic and disregards that ISPs have mostly kept their networks neutral so far. The neutrality is what the other side says has created such an innovative atmosphere, not the freedom of the ISPs to disregard it.

Eric Odom, founder of American Liberty Alliance (ALA), the group that launched and organized the tea party movement across the country, announced Friday what he calls a movement-minded news portal and his answer to the the Huffington Post.
Read more at Dawn Teo’s blog on the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/tea-party-founder-announc_b_300347.html

Essentially, Odom feels that the Huffington Post displays a liberal bias and performs a role as a one-stop aggregator of news content for liberal-minded consumption. He says,

“I mean, I despise a lot of what is written at Huffington Post. But the reality is… they’re good at it. They cover very wide ranges of topics and they cover them well. On our side you need to visit a good ten sites in the morning to get the full web digest. On their side you just go to Huffington Post and you know about everything that’s happening.”

Teo takes exception to his assertion, citing aHuffPo’s open editorial policy, where bloggers may post whatever content they like, as long as it is accurate. But, what if we assume that Odom is right, that this process, or even the self-selection of bloggers who apply to post under the Huffington Post masthead, does introduce a liberal bias to the content? Does this undermine HuffPo’s credibility, or would creating an outlet emphasizing opposing viewpoints be the proper response?

I’ll get back to this question in a minute.

Transparency vs. Objectivity

I have been thinking about transparency vs. objectivity in recent months, after reading two articles:
Putting Man Before Decartes by John Lukacs and Transparency is the New Objectivity by David Weinberger

They both describe a shift in the value of the role of a publishing journalist (for example), from an objective mediator of news content to a reliable curator. The consumer of news then takes up the responsibility for arbitration, the decisions about which facts are true and which arguments are persuasive after evaluating multiple perspectives. Lukacs and Weinberger claim that transparency rather than objectivity represents a more authentic role in what Weinberger calls the “ecology of knowledge.” The traditional assumption of objectivity, he feels, is an aspiration that is impossible to truly achieve.

Claims of objectivity are always open to question. They are often refuted, so when you accept a source’s evaluation, you still must cite the evidence that underlies the argument. This means that an objectivity claim must be evaluated by the reader in any case, so it may be better to drop the pretense and leave it up to the reader to decide in the first place. Weinberger suggests that “transparency” is an alternative goal that replaces some of the function of objectivity, recognizing that the perspective offered by a blogger or journalist no longer can be a “stopping point for knowledge.” Instead, journalists must build their credibility on transparency, which exists where a reader “can literally see the connections between the final draft’s claims and the ideas that informed it.” The reader can follow the logic and assess the validity of the conclusion. It isn’t necessary to rely on a claim of objectivity to believe. Over time, credible sources establish their reliability; you become familiar with their premises, and maybe even their biases. But they don’t establish objectivity, and they don’t need to, because their goal in a linked knowledge system is not to establish stopping points.

Understanding

Instead of attempting to be objective, Lukacs suggests that a historian could aim for a different goal, understanding. He says, “The ideal of objectivity is the antiseptic separation of the knower from the known. Understanding involves an approach to bring the two closer” and adds, “All knowledge is personal.” A reader’s goal in the pursuit of knowledge is to bring it closer to oneself. When reading news of distant events, the account of an observer who promises objectivity and delivers a story “balanced” with quotes from a couple opposing perspectives fails to make the best understanding of the issues at hand possible for the reader. Side A says, “…” Side B says, “…” End of story? This type of journalism is a stopping point.

There are dangers to pursuing “objectivity” by “balance.” J. Bradford DeLong posts an example about Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald. He cites Michael Massing, writing for the New York Review of Books, who with one hand praises Greenwald’s abandonment of “balance” in his columns and with the other criticises the “polemical excesses,” which prevent Greenwald from coming up with a practical argument. But it is precisely the fact that Greenwald holds to strong principles without equivocation that allows his readers to get something of value from his arguments. It may be that a politician could legitimately believe that there are some “practical considerations” that justify a program of interrogation-by-torture in some instances, but it is not Glenn Greenwald’s role to dilute his every article with that concession. A reader can see through his posts to the principles he holds, and when readers feels there is an exception to one of those principles, they can add the perspectives of others justifying the exception to their understanding. As DeLong notes, Massing fails to reference the “persuasive” arguments against Greenwald anyway. This is one of the “stop sign” moves that doesn’t work in the ecology of linked information. It is a claim of objectivity, that (I think) fails to counter Greenwald’s transparency.

Transparency does not undermine the authority of a source; it may actually enhance credibility. Furthermore, lack of transparency can undermine a claim of authority. If Massing had linked to the President’s supporters who had persuasively countered Greenwald, his assertion could be upheld.

Curation

I see the role of a news aggregator, such as the Huffington Post and Eric Odom’s proposed right-wing news portal, as a curator of content. These sites organize and present a particular take on the relevant news and commentary of the day. Odom notes that the Huffington post has become a very successful news curator for people sharing a liberal perspective, meaning that liberal readers go there and get a personally satisfying dose of news content. He believes that HuffPo’s curation leans toward perspectives that embody a particular bias, and he wants to counter it with an alternative of his own that leans in another direction. It looks like he is accepting that a transparently partisan curator is a necessary player in the news ecology, that transparency supersedes objectivity.

The important point here to me is that HuffPo’s curation of content has created a one-stop-shop of value for liberal news readers. Curation of content is one of the primary roles of a publishing Web citizen. In his presentation at the 2009 Open Education Conference in Vancouver BC, Gardner Campbell identifies it among three “recursive practices” that students engage in on the Internet. I think they can be adapted to how any web-publishing individual behaves. Each of the three are critical to how information spreads through the “knowledge ecology” of the modern world, and the Huffington Post embodies each. The first role is “Narrating,” being willing to think aloud, telling the story of the process of learning. Curating is the second, meaning “arranging… stuff for yourself and people who come to see it.” The third is Sharing. About Sharing, Jon Mott says, “Meaning happens when the two people connect.” I think Lukacs’ concept “understanding”, which is personal could be substituted for “meaning.” The sharing of content connects people and builds understanding. The Huffington Post is a place for narrating (blogs), curation (organized links to news stories and reporting) and sharing (comments and social networking features). It may be because of its fulfillment of these three roles that it has grown to be such a popular location in the news space.

Danger

There is a potential danger embedded in a news ecology where individual readers rely on the perspectives served up by a curator that does not aim for objectivity. That is the possibility that reading only perspectives that arise from one’s chosen premises could lead readers into an echo chamber that would be dominated by “groupthink.” Groupthink is ‘a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action’ (Janis, 1972). Social networks where users self-select “friends” based on common interest or belief are susceptible to this kind of concentration of agreeing opinion, where alternative perspectives are shut out. Twitter, a network where users choose to “follow” only those who they want to regularly read might be particularly susceptible to this weakness. Commentators note this weakness and sometimes also caution readers to actively try to avoid groupthink by paying attention to their consumption and sometimes even encourage them to actively follow thinkers they tend to disagree with. So we can see that it isn’t exactly the transparent bias of the members of the selected group that tends to cause groupthink, but the tendency not to step outside the space of comfortable arguments one probably already agrees with.

The availability of alternative perspectives makes it possible to counter this tendency, and an informed media consumer should try to read articles from a variety of perspectives and maintain an awareness of the ideological slants of their reading material. Where journalists and other commentators pursue objectivity over transparency, however, it diminishes a reader’s attempt to perform this ideological sorting. It can produce a false sense of security when news users feel they have achieved an adequate survey of available positions after merely hearing several selected quotations from different sides of an issue. The selection of particular quotations included in an “objective” article may actually omit the views of outsiders to the traditional debates. (Frequently, journalists seem to seek comment from one Democrat and one Republican and call it a day). A news reader must question an “objective” article’s choice of embedded perspectives as part of analyzing its objectivity, and this step could easily be missed. A “transparent” commentator bares his or her premises and argument so that it may be more easily evaluated. I think it is these perspectives that will be ultimately more valuable for the news consumer.

Knowledge is a Process

The image of an “ecology of information” entails that the development of understanding is a process, not an end product. Understanding develops and is refreshed in successive generations. There are no stopping points. Instead, there are jumping-off points for continued discussion and growth of understanding. I think a partisan curator of content could thrive in this environment, but it will only lead to the development of better understanding when the transparency of premises allows the critique of those premises. Dawn Teo is right to be worried about the quality of Odom’s new news venture if it may only post articles when “the editorial team approves [bloggers'] posts. In other words, bloggers will get paid only when their articles are in agreement with the site’s founder” if this process means that the premises of the right-leaning arguments are not up for discussion. If that is the case with Odom’s news site, the needed critique of those principles will still happen, but outside the space Odom is creating. If conservative readers rely only on Odom’s project for their news consumption, this could be a recipe for destructive groupthink. In the new ecology of information, curators have to build and constantly justify trust. It’s harder to be endowed with trust, but it can be earned.

Understanding the Progress of Science through Metaphor [DOC]

Causes of War Final Paper-Elite-led violence and WWI [DOCX, Word 2007 Format]

I recall that I got an A on this paper.

Theories of Ethnic Violence [.DOC]

Ahmad Mahdi (For some reason our teacher called him that instead of “Ahmad Hamdan”) is currently an inmate in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. He was captured by Afghani forces during the invasion of Afghanistan two months after September 11, 2001, and the Afghanis transferred custody to the United States military in December of 2001. He has been declared an enemy combatant, and is alleged to be one of Osama bin Laden’s personal bodyguards. In July, 2003, President Bush determined that “there is reason to believe that Mahdi was a member of al Qaeda or was otherwise involved in terrorism directed against the United States.” Mahdi has remained in custody at Guantanamo ever since under the authority of the President’s executive order of November 13, 2001 establishing procedures for detaining enemy combatants. Mahdi filed a writ of habeas corpus in April 2004; at roughly the same time, the US government formally charged him with conspiracy to commit attacks on civilians and civilian objects, murder and destruction of property, and terrorism. He was slated to be tried before a military tribunal, but requested review of his situation in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in the summer of 2004. The hearing determined that he was an enemy combatant subject to further detention.
You now must rule on Mahdi’s habeas writ. The questions before you may include the following:
• Do you have jurisdiction to rule on the writ of habeas corpus?
• Were the military commissions (Mahdi’s only current recourse to the legal process) properly authorized?
• Do the 1949 Geneva Convention’s rules impose a bar to Mahdi’s trial by military tribunal?
Your answers to these questions will determine whether or not you grant habeas relief to Ahmad Mahdi.

As it turned out, the court decided the case a couple months later very similarly to my proposed ruling, against the military tribunals.

ConLaw-Proposed ruling on detainee tribunal

Political Economy-Policy Analysis-Offshoring