Battling seemingly endless negativity – assumptions about behaviour

This came up in discussions today but I frequently come across it at work and in my own communications too. I don’t know if anyone else finds this but one of the things that is really bugging me not just in cck09, in my job, but seemingly everywhere with interactions online – is that when you do or say anything – communicate using whichever technology and tools, there are massive assumptions made about not just what we say, why we are saying it, what method of communication we are using etc etc Sometimes its great, you can work really well together because these assumptions are positive and you just get on and do stuff.

I would be the first to admit to being over-sensitive at times and can find the online world a minefield. (Actually I think that is a good trait for my current and recent roles) I am completely convinced that I am not the only person who feels this way. Sometimes so many misunderstandings that you then spend, well goodness only knows how much time it takes to clear up because you maybe choose the wrong tool to say the wrong thing in the wrong level of detail with the wrong context at the wrong time. And it all gets messier and messier. Its one of the things that is putting me off using Google Wave at the moment, I feel like I have enough chaos using the tools I already do and no immediate urge to make it any more chaotic. I don’t want to spend time explaining comments and context which have fired off at that moment.

NB I am not saying that in cck09 I have had lots of misunderstandings with people and by writing this sentence I am making the point – again

This is why the work and technologies of Cognitive Edge’s Sensemaker and their network are going to be so valuable. Their methods do not involve intense heated, long conflict between individuals or groups but look at the wider picture. I attended part of the training this week in London (next part – Feb) Have an inkling now about complexity, but hope to spend a lot more time investigating further. I am not going to embarrass myself by outlining in detail what I have understood or not, prefer to explore more first. With Sensemaker, video below, you are gathering fragments and exploring patterns based on those fragments – i.e. a long detailed exchange between two people as a whole artefact is of less significance than series of fragments that can be pulled from both that exchange and other people’s conversations.

I would not call myself a practitioner (still feel like a novice at this point), but following a conversation with my manager earlier this week and with the two workshop organisers, decided to test the water a little – not as a formal introduction of the method as such. Mostly over coffee break, looking at examples of conversations or experiences with technology that really inspired/irritated or made easier/difficult. Areas that often come up – sharing, storage, privacy, access, errors & accuracy, technology taking over – promoting silo working, wasted time – speed of communication being both good and bad; and moving more towards the conversational – inability to control replies, encountering selfishness and resistance to change, subjective views, perception of ability to share knowledge.

When talking with people about online collaboration or in my previous role about using technologies in learning, research – similar areas also appear in conversation. Endless amounts of textual content being processed by individuals cause all kinds of mayhem in communication as we try to make sense of what we are seeing. Some technologies have yet to be really ‘magic’ as far I have noticed with the web and that is one area that I consider myself experienced.

Is it all negative ? No ! Its great to connect – that bit is really magical – just like phones – still talking with people all over the world is still mind-blowingly amazing ! I would just appreciate it if we didn’t find ourselves being propelled into using technologies with unrealistic expectations about the good / bad of human relationships and be more cautious. Not necessarily use them less, but look at how they’ve been designed, pause and think about what can realistically be achieved using them.

I am still trying to make sense of the value of conflict – it was very interesting to gain more insight into this at Cognitive Edge but I don’t want to put anything more in writing until I get round to reading The Magic of Conflict which has been sitting on the bookshelf next to me for several weeks now. As individuals the volume and variety of information means that as individuals we can’t possibly do this without creating more problems for ourselves. We need technologies that can make sense and now!