All Discussion Threads]
Commentary by LeahGrrl ()
on link by Carol Herntier, CCK11 As I Err I Learn, February 20, 2011.
Carol, you're successful at getting your blog in the blogroll. :) I will check out your blog; I know how you feel, sometimes it's like caroling down the street by yourself.
Best,
Leah (Hits Today: 797 Total: 797)
[Link] [Tags: none]
[Previous][Next]
Comments
Stephen Downes,
February 22, 2011
There has been some discussion via the topics of last week about (a) whether one type of network is more natural than another, and (b) what sort of network structure is preferred. My argument is that network structures are not inevitable in any sort of naturalistic way, and that a mesh structure is preferred, because it is more stable.
Here is an opportunity to illustrate both points with a single action. Networks are formed by the connective activity of each of their nodes - in a social network, by you and me. These nodes control the kind of network that is created. If we just connect to the most popular nodes, we create a power law. But if we are consciously inclusive in our network building, we get a mesh formation.
So here is a link that connects to the less popular, creates diversity, and makes the network more stable. It is what I have consciously done for a decade at OLDaily, and the way I prefer to contribute to the creation of networks in my online courses. What about you? Do you attend to the loudest and most influential voices, hoping to augment your own standing with some reflected glory? Or do you consciously reach out, hoping to augment the network by strengthening its mesh?
Ken Anderson,
February 22, 2011
We're talking about learning, right?
For me, I like to connect to many different voices, influential, loud, quiet, humble, reflective etc. I think there is something to be learned from all of them, and connecting has nothing to do with "augmenting my own standing with some reflected glory". My connecting has to do with '"augmenting my understanding/advancing my knowledge/attending to my learning" and I feel this is done by not excluding any voice, including the popular/unpopular ones, while acknowledging that there are very many voices and it may not be possible to listen to them all, in one lifetime.
I am not wedded to an understanding of 'strengthening a mesh' by my reaching out; I try to be humble about this and just offer my resources and let other people make their own choices about whether they like them or not - I don't have an agenda other than wanting to learn and enjoying interacting with others while learning. You seem to equate stability with popularity - popular means less stable, somehow. I don't see this connection. I prefer diversity, but my sense of diversity includes popularity. There may be some good reasons that some nodes are popular, that is not, as you suggest, a lemming-like attraction to them and a seeking of personal glory by basking in their light. Maybe they have some valuable knowledge that they are sharing. Then again, maybe they don't. I like to hope that I can discern the difference.
Ken Anderson,
February 22, 2011
>a mesh structure is preferred, because it is more stable.
>and makes the network more stable
What exactly do you mean by "more stable"? Do you mean resistant to change, a sort of annealing or hardening process, as you used the term in your elluminate prez of Feb 18th?
Stephen Downes,
February 23, 2011
By 'more stable', as I have explained before, I mean 'resistant to cascade phenomena'.
Ken Anderson,
February 23, 2011
I was just confirming your definition. How do you define cascade phenomena?
Stephen Downes,
February 23, 2011
http://www.downes.ca/post/53882
Ken Anderson,
February 23, 2011
An underlying assumption of this characterization of 'cascade phenomena' is the view that those being subject to it aren't thinking entities and are unable to decide upon a course of action for themselves, rather, they just 'follow the herd', being easily influenced and always prone to having the 'same state of mind' as the influencers. How does the mesh network resolve this?
Stephen Downes,
February 23, 2011
I make no such assumption.
Ken Anderson,
February 23, 2011
Excellent! Why the antipathy then towards cascade learning?
Ken Anderson,
February 25, 2011
Well, I guess Stephen Downes chooses not to elaborate on his anti-cascade argument, and leaves it to those of us that wonder what he means to figure it out for ourselves. Here is what he said above:
"So here is a link that connects to the less popular, creates diversity, and makes the network more stable. It is what I have consciously done for a decade at OLDaily, and the way I prefer to contribute to the creation of networks in my online courses. What about you? Do you attend to the loudest and most influential voices, hoping to augment your own standing with some reflected glory? Or do you consciously reach out, hoping to augment the network by strengthening its mesh?"
I see a contradiction in this. Stephen Downes argues that in theory the less influential the better for the sake of stability of the network, yet in practice he wields some non-inconsequential influence through his OLD daily, lecturing, blogs, courses etc., any of which could be considered to be centralized hubs in their one-to-one relation and transmitting features. So the contradiction I am seeing is that the practice is not in line with the theory. I think the theory may need adjusting.
You can preview your comment and continue editing until you are
satisfied with it. Comment will not be posted on the CCK11 until you have clicked 'Done'.
