Not for everybody and NSFW, but you will learn. I promise. A lot. In this case you might save the cost of a movie and accoutrements and the time spent in watching POS “Wonder Woman”. It is a critique coming from many directions. This is what MST3K’s profane, bastard step-child might have been. Fun. It is funny. It is funly funny.
Here is a gif that shows what? Connectedness? Engagement? Frequency? All of the above or none?
Here is the larger visualization.
Here are my notes on #digciz tweets from Martin Hawksey’s event hashtag visualization :
I feel engaged with the subject digital citizenship and I am trying to “ante-up” by sharing digital objects that show I am an engaged digital traveller (Storify curation, comic, image quotes, #4wordstory). What I found is that the gif above shows I am engaged with people who already know me and are engaged with me. According to the gif above, I haven’t engaged with any of the principals who have organized #digciz.
So…I have engaged on my end, but only a “few but fine” who want to play crack the whip with me on the other end. I think this reveals a profound blindspot–if I put the food down where the goats can get to it, they will eat. Nope. It is very similar to the classic teacher trope–if I am teaching they are learning. How does this blindspot feel? Disappointing and discouraging. And it hints that either I should dampen my enthusiasm or amplify it. The former feels like folding and cutting my losses and the latter like I am doubling down for no good reason other than stubborness (and the few folks who are engaged). Since time is a zero sum reality this feels risky, assuming that Hawksey’s tool measures something more than frequency and reciprocal direction.
2. I share=you share. This observation dovetails with the number one above, but points to another blindspot: I assume that because someone doesn’t reciprocate, that they are not a good #digciz. Is this true? Is reciprocation a central principle of being a good citizen online? I use this gif frequently to argue for that position.
Is this true? Does the visualization measure reciprocation? Is much of what happens in a “citizenship space” hidden just like much of nature is unrevealed and often an unknown unknown? Or is lurking one of those known unknowns that we fail to account for, that is impossible to account for?
Is this visualization good enough to be a roadmap? I don’t think so for one main reason–it doesn’t take into account emotion. Venkatesh Rao has some striking comments on this idea:
60/ Uncertainty shows up as felt emotions: anxiety at being late, exhilaration at beating odds, felt freedom at being early, anger at being betrayed, gratitude for being unexpectedly aided.
61/ Your roadmap is simply the landscape of upcoming known-unknowns (including, crucially, around people/trust) made legible enough for your instinctive management behaviors to kick in.
62/ For this to happen, they must provide a sense of subjective proportion/importance in ways that cue emotional responses to people, events, and new information.
63/ A roadmap that does not evoke emotion is not a roadmap.
I could argue that this viz amounts to a trust map, but only in the vaguest of ways. Frequency and double-headed arrows don’t equal trust.
3. I think the ultimate blindspot I am finally seeing is that engagement is risky. It is a risk you choose to take or not. I am used to giving away my self and go hang the risk, but when confronted with the roadmap visualization above I have to ask whether or not to keep on down this road with this map. When you reach 60, this is not an idle question.
What I have decided, as John Boyd once remarked, is to fight the enemy, not the terrain. Fight the blindspot, not the roadmap. I will carry on for awhile with #digciz with a measure of leeriness and worldly weariness and some forced cheeriness, hoping that the game is worth the candle.
Venkatesh Rao called it a ‘frankenstack’. He defined it as,
An assemblage of information technologies duct-taped together with a mess of protocols, and forming what philosophers call a rhizomatic structure.
Everybody has his or her own frankenstack, so which one am I referring to ? The #Digciz.
The Storify embedded below arises directly from the #4wordstory hashtag and indirectly from the gathering of folks into #digciz ,part of the frankenstack rhizome. And the common plaint is one shared by @teachercreates (Emily Page Oh)
In this 24/7 all you can eat buffet of information, how do you keep yourself from gorging on desserts to save room for main courses? #digciz
— Emily Page Oh ✌️❤️✍️ (@teachercreates) June 1, 2017
So I try to curate a path through to a main course and away from the chocolate fountain–
Break the digital ice.
I call this trail a “feldgang” which roughly translated means “field walk”. I am a sheep farmer and I do feldgang’s every day. I have been doing them here for 30 years. I check the grass in the paddock where the sheep are to see if they need to be moved onto fresh grass. That is a very direct feldgang with a purpose. Sometimes I do general feldgangs. For example, I will scan a field for the green haze of growth that indicates good news for ruminants. Or I just turn over stuff and see what is there.
A few years ago I discovered you can do digital feldgangs as well. They can be particular or general. My storify above is both.
Part of the feldgang is intended to address those in #digciz who have been a part of #4wordstories. Storify is dead simple as a gathering tool to make this possible. Once I have created a ‘field’ then I can walk in it. Here are some of my discoveries:
1. #4wordstories are rarely concrete. There are exceptions.
2. #4wordstories are not poetic.
3. #4wordstories are abstract.
4. #4wordstories are often vague and de-contextualized.
5. #4wordstories might not arguably be stories at all in a fictive sense (plot, character, setting)
6. #4wordstories sometimes are more like zen koans than narratives, puzzles in service to the larger #digciz context
7. #4wordstories can (and did) inspire more creation
8. #4wordstories are invitations, implicit or explicit. Very few seem to regard them as invitations judging by the lack of response.
9. #4wordstories can be both examples and non-examples. (Note: Bonnie citing George Seimens’problems.)
10. I have some serious blindspots about the abstract, the adverbial, the lack of context.
So…the blog post is just a thinking out loud about what is in the digital field.
I started talking about the frankenstack at the beginning of this post and ended in the digital field. The rhizomatic nature of modern digital discourse is so apparent to me (and @teachercreates, too). Venkatesh Rao’s newsletter piece about rhizomes is a must read. I want to quote stuff, but it isn’t a hierarchical post so you gotta go for it all.
He is right on when he says,
43/ In a rhizomatic world, if your expectations and work habits are built around architectural cleanliness, you will get deeply frustrated and be perennially frozen.
44/ If you can only navigate well-paved paths and clean, well-lit spaces, you’ll likely spend a lot of time in low-value, or even futile, ritualized behaviors while getting nothing done.
45/ You must be willing to adopt an opportunistic approach to navigating complexity, and switch from ugly hack to elegant beauty, from amateurish fumble to expert flourish, in an instant.
The world he describes is most definitely #digciz. Get over it.