Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The bottom up model

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The bottom up model

    I'm trying to develop some ideas which will wind up in my podcast and hopefully into a talk I intend to give at DC14, so I thought I'd bounce them off the forums here and see what people thought. These ideas are going to be a bit too complex for my podcast's target audience and I'm trying to think of ways to simplify them. I'm sure it's going to take a few successive rewrites in order for that to happen. My apologies to all you blog and Podcast haters out there, but hopefully this explanation will help elucidate you as to why they are important, which is something the mainstream media has horribly failed to describe with any degree of clarity. Anyway, let's begin...

    The bottom up model describes the process of amateur content syndication by anyone. This has occured so far in the form of blogs, which syndicate words, podcasts, which syndicate speech, and vidcasts, which syndicate video. When the claim is made that blogs have been around forever but weren't really noticed until the term "blog" was coined, what is being overlooked is the fundamental syndication technology which lets anyone tap into a little bit of your stream of consciousness and receive regular installments of your ideas, quickly and easily.

    This model fills a gap in the information distribution process which sits between traditional word-of-mouth and the traditional top-down model employing a large scale, expensive distribution process controlled by a media outlet. By filling this gap the bottom up model fixes a number of problems which exist in both the word-of-mouth distribution model and the top down model.

    When information is passed via word of mouth, its quality degrades quickly. What you end up receiving is a series of successive interpretations by various people. You risk people embellishing information, adding irrelevant or false information, or mistaking what they heard, among other things.

    The bottom up model fixes this problem in several ways. First, blogs can leverage word-of-mouth spread of information to gain popularity, but rather than someone who wants to spread the blog's information having to communicate everything directly, they can simply point you at the blog and you get the same copy of the information that the original person read.

    The bottom up model can facilitate a word-of-mouth like analysis of ideas, with bloggers responding to other bloggers, adding their opinions and other relevant information as they see fit. However, unlike word-of-mouth exchanges, blogs can link back to each other and to the original information they were analyzing. In this way, you can see the process of ideas evolving, as well as sifting through the opinion to find the actual facts being discussed so you can judge them yourself, rather than a thirdhand or fourthand account of them.

    Everywhere people are having convergent ideas which they may not be aware of. How many times have you thought of something you considered novel only to discover that someone else has already thought of it. This happens all the time: people come to the same conclusions as each other independently, but unless you can get your ideas noticed no one else will be aware that you have had them. The bottom up model lets people form groups to work on problems which the media and mainstream society have not yet taken notice of.

    The biggest problem of the top down model is fairly obvious: access. In order to mass distribute your ideas through the top down model, you have to find some way to tap into the system, and so the flow of great ideas is blocked by the additional barrier of trying to get a media outlet to notice your ideas and embrace them enough to fund packaging them for mass distribution.

    The second problem with the top down model is the issue of oligarchian control. The top down model places the means of mass distribution of ideas in the hands of relatively few people. Since these people ultimately select what ideas they broadcast, what you end up with is a vision of the world skewed to advance the agenda of those who control the broadcast system, be they a Ted Turner or a Rupert Murdoch. The bottom up model lets anyone select any ideas they want to and package them for mass consumption. Likewise, an idea consumer via the bottom up model has the freedom to select anyone's ideas they choose.

    The third problem with the top down model is the issue of feedback. If you have been misquoted or your opinions mischaracterized by a mainstream media outlet, your options in the past were rather limited: you could write a letter to the reporter who mischaracterized you asking them to clarify your position, you could write a letter to the editor indicating your dissatisfaction with the way the reporter interpreted your ideas, or you could turn to another media outlet and attempt to appeal to their desire to discredit their competitors and let them report on your mischaracterization by a rival.

    The bottom up model provides a much needed instant feedback mechanism to the media. If you have been mischaracterized by the mainstream media you can now simply write about it in your blog and give the exact interpretation of your ideas you wished for the media outlet to have reported, then other bloggers can pick up on your ideas and spread the word for you. Reporters can now browse the blogosphere and see how people are reacting to their stories. Through this process they can discover factual inaccuracies in their reports because bloggers will inevitably point them out, or they can discover new and relevant information to include in a follow up article. Several news sites now feature a "Who's blogging about this article?" feature which gives you instant access to all this information, so you need not even wait for a follow up article, you can peruse the blogs and discover the factual inaccuracies or mischaracterizations for yourself.

    However, the bottom up model is not just important because it now plays a vital role in the flow of ideas from person to person; it's most important because it mimics the behavior of consciousness itself. The leading model of consciousness among neurophysiologists, cognitive scientists, and phenomenological philosophers is called the "pandemonic model," and consists of innumerable specialists who can remove and insert ideas from a global workspace. When a specialist finds a particular idea sitting in the global workspace which they like, they can tell other specialists, or they can provide their own embellishments to the idea then their copy of the idea into the global workspace. Ergo, ideas which are good enough to be noticed by large numbers of specialists are the ones that dominate our thought process and used to take action. The bottom up model lets people collectively shape ideas which "bubble up" through the blogosphere and capture the attention of more and more people.

    What you eventually end up with are very compelling arguments for particular courses of action, the kind which, if they were in our heads, would lead us to take a particular course of action. The way people work in groups will more and more start to mimic the way the specialists which comprise consciousness work collectively to solve larger problems. The behavior of human society will thus continue to take on more and more of the characteristics of a single conscious entity.
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B0
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B1
    [ redacted ]

  • #2
    Originally posted by bascule
    My apologies to all you blog and Podcast haters out there, but hopefully this explanation will help elucidate you as to why they are important, which is something the mainstream media has horribly failed to describe with any degree of clarity.
    Disclaimer: I hate blogs. Podcasts... Ehh. People posting audio files on teh intarweb; what a novel concept. Modifier to the disclaimer: despite the fact that I dislike both, I do fundamentally agree with the idea that people should be able to put whatever drek they may have up on a website somewhere for people to read or ignore as they choose.

    When the claim is made that blogs have been around forever but weren't really noticed until the term "blog" was coined, what is being overlooked is the fundamental syndication technology which lets anyone tap into a little bit of your stream of consciousness and receive regular installments of your ideas, quickly and easily.
    And this is the fundamental problem with blogs: they're little more than opinion, typically of the unsolicited variety. While that's fine from a free speech standpoint, I've noticed more and more that opinion and fact are being confused - particularly as syndication of blog content takes place. More on that later.

    This model fills a gap in the information distribution process which sits between traditional word-of-mouth and the traditional top-down model employing a large scale, expensive distribution process controlled by a media outlet. By filling this gap the bottom up model fixes a number of problems which exist in both the word-of-mouth distribution model and the top down model.
    Yeah, but if all they're dishing up is crap... Why bother with either one? "Fifty-seven channels and nothing on."

    When information is passed via word of mouth, its quality degrades quickly. What you end up receiving is a series of successive interpretations by various people. You risk people embellishing information, adding irrelevant or false information, or mistaking what they heard, among other things.
    And, coming back to my earlier point, this is *exactly* the problem with 99.9% of blogs out there: lots of opinion, very little actual analysis, and opinion being taken as somehow more important than fact. While I'm thrilled to bits that everyone has found their little corner of the Internet to let everyone know that they think dangerous thoughts (and have pictures of their cats to share as well), it's all op-ed. As we all know, journalism (which, though it pains me to say it, blogging is technically a form of) is meant to be objective, not subjective. Op-ed is, by definition, subjective, and a major factor in the decline of high-quality journalism and unbiased reportage.

    Unfortunately, blogs struggle to overcome being essentially op-ed works, and thus ultimately fail to be anything other than an insight into someone's opinion on whatever particular subject they happen to be writing about at the time. While that may be all well and good for curiosity's sake, there are so few out there that are little more than regurgitations of news reported elsewhere yet tainted with more opinion and even less fact.

    The bottom up model fixes this problem in several ways. First, blogs can leverage word-of-mouth spread of information to gain popularity, but rather than someone who wants to spread the blog's information having to communicate everything directly, they can simply point you at the blog and you get the same copy of the information that the original person read.
    Again, with no more guarantee of accuracy.

    The bottom up model can facilitate a word-of-mouth like analysis of ideas, with bloggers responding to other bloggers, adding their opinions and other relevant information as they see fit.
    Well... This is how it's supposed to work. What you end up with, though, are little communities of sheeple who vapidly devour every word written in a particular blog as gospel, not bothering to research beyond what they're presented with. Granted, this could be said of virtually any media outlet - but blogs are adding in yet another layer of opinion to the mix, thus further obfuscating any factual value the information they're communicating may have had.

    However, unlike word-of-mouth exchanges, blogs can link back to each other and to the original information they were analyzing. In this way, you can see the process of ideas evolving, as well as sifting through the opinion to find the actual facts being discussed so you can judge them yourself, rather than a thirdhand or fourthand account of them.
    The only blog I can think of that presented anything of actual value to the world, straight from the horse's mouth, was The Survival of New Orleans Weblog. People were actually receiving first-hand accounts of exactly how fucked-up the situation was there in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina at a time when established news media couldn't get in or give comprehensive neough coverage as a result. Score: blog(s) 1, any other form of reporting several million.

    Seriously, how many other blogs are out there that are direct, unbiased and opinion-free (or as unbiased and opinion-free as they can get), and actually providing something useful to the world? As a percentage, I'll hazard a guess that it's damned small.

    The biggest problem of the top down model is fairly obvious: access. In order to mass distribute your ideas through the top down model, you have to find some way to tap into the system, and so the flow of great ideas is blocked by the additional barrier of trying to get a media outlet to notice your ideas and embrace them enough to fund packaging them for mass distribution.
    Sure, but how is this different to, say, public-access television or radio? Every distribution system has inherent barriers to access.

    The second problem with the top down model is the issue of oligarchian control. The top down model places the means of mass distribution of ideas in the hands of relatively few people. Since these people ultimately select what ideas they broadcast, what you end up with is a vision of the world skewed to advance the agenda of those who control the broadcast system, be they a Ted Turner or a Rupert Murdoch. The bottom up model lets anyone select any ideas they want to and package them for mass consumption. Likewise, an idea consumer via the bottom up model has the freedom to select anyone's ideas they choose.
    Re: oligarchian control: that's largely down to mass-market forces. If there's money to be made by giving people what they demand (even if it's not what they might need), it's what they'll get.

    Re: choices: you can have as many choices as you want, but that doesn't mean any of them are any good. I've got 500 TV channels coming in here over digital cable, but I'm not watching any of them right now because, well, the programming sucks at the moment. I'm also not reading any blogs for similar reasons.

    The bottom up model provides a much needed instant feedback mechanism to the media. If you have been mischaracterized by the mainstream media you can now simply write about it in your blog and give the exact interpretation of your ideas you wished for the media outlet to have reported, then other bloggers can pick up on your ideas and spread the word for you.
    Okay, and in all fairness that's how it should work. So how many bloggers do we have being misquoted in the mainstream media on a regular basis that actually *need* this ability?

    Reporters can now browse the blogosphere and see how people are reacting to their stories.Through this process they can discover factual inaccuracies in their reports because bloggers will inevitably point them out, or they can discover new and relevant information to include in a follow up article.
    Or be bombarded with yet more useless opinion.

    Also, re: 'blogosphere': see 'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide'.

    Several news sites now feature a "Who's blogging about this article?" feature which gives you instant access to all this information, so you need not even wait for a follow up article, you can peruse the blogs and discover the factual inaccuracies or mischaracterizations for yourself.
    Again, that only presents how it's *supposed* to work. How it actually works is a far cry from the intent. Great idea on paper, but like a lot of really good ideas, people ultimately fuck it up to the point where it's worse than useless.

    However, the bottom up model is not just important because it now plays a vital role in the flow of ideas from person to person; it's most important because it mimics the behavior of consciousness itself. The leading model of consciousness among neurophysiologists, cognitive scientists, and phenomenological philosophers is called the "pandemonic model," and consists of innumerable specialists who can remove and insert ideas from a global workspace. When a specialist finds a particular idea sitting in the global workspace which they like, they can tell other specialists, or they can provide their own embellishments to the idea then their copy of the idea into the global workspace. Ergo, ideas which are good enough to be noticed by large numbers of specialists are the ones that dominate our thought process and used to take action. The bottom up model lets people collectively shape ideas which "bubble up" through the blogosphere and capture the attention of more and more people.
    Dude... I know what you're smoking, and that's fine by me. But you may want to cut back a little; that's *really* overblown.

    Comment


    • #3
      skroo, I'd agree with most of what you're saying, but these are problems that can be solved through better sorting. Some sort of peer review process is obviously needed; my hope is that this can be accomplished ad hoc solely through analytics.

      Originally posted by skroo
      Dude... I know what you're smoking, and that's fine by me. But you may want to cut back a little; that's *really* overblown.
      You might want to read this paper before you jump to that conclusion so quickly:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CY/0506024

      The Hyper-Cortex of Human Collective-Intelligence Systems

      Individual-intelligence research, from a neurological perspective, discusses the hierarchical layers of the cortex as a structure that performs conceptual abstraction and specification. This theory has been used to explain how motor-cortex regions responsible for different behavioral modalities such as writing and speaking can be utilized to express the same general concept represented higher in the cortical hierarchy. For example, the concept of a dog, represented across a region of high-level cortical-neurons, can either be written or spoken about depending on the individual's context. The higher-layer cortical areas project down the hierarchy, sending abstract information to specific regions of the motor-cortex for contextual implementation. In this paper, this idea is expanded to incorporate collective-intelligence within a hyper-cortical construct. This hyper-cortex is a multi-layered network used to represent abstract collective concepts. These ideas play an important role in understanding how collective-intelligence systems can be engineered to handle problem abstraction and solution specification. Finally, a collection of common problems in the scientific community are solved using an artificial hyper-cortex generated from digital-library metadata.

      Full paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.CY/0506024
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B1
      [ redacted ]

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bascule
        skroo, I'd agree with most of what you're saying, but these are problems that can be solved through better sorting. Some sort of peer review process is obviously needed; my hope is that this can be accomplished ad hoc solely through analytics.
        Hmm... OK, can you expand on that a little? I think I see what you're getting at, but the process by which it would be achieved is escaping me.

        You might want to read this paper before you jump to that conclusion so quickly:

        http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CY/0506024
        Will do later today, once I've got some actual time. Bombarded with work presently.

        Comment

        Working...
        X