houshuang · February 12, 2020 11:34
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 - Writing is a powerful way of learning and since making connecting concepts however, without a safe space and a community it can be difficult because we feel that we are not the experts and that we have not much to contribute and that we might not have an audience. Or if we do, we focus too much on SEO and superficial metrics like likes and we sell them get deep and meaningful feedback. graduate level seminar or a peer to peer university course was a space where you could with a small group of trusted people explore topics. There's the concept of a cohort. So, you have some shared understanding, you are perhaps at a similar level, although because you are advanced students, you do not start from scratch. You come from different disciplines and you bring very different ideas and connections to the discussion. You have a guaranteed audience who are interested engaging with your ideas, ideally in a constructive way, where they give you useful feedback, and where their ideas build upon your ideas. There's also the concept of synchronicity, not in the sense of a two hour class, but in the sense of individuals who have decided to devote a certain amount of time over weeks or months to the pursuit of certain questions. The granularity of the worldwide web can be much slower. People might pick up on something you wrote a long time ago, but do you might have moved on by then? Are there ways to foster these kinds of groups? Are they reading circles? Are they informal research networks? Does it depend on different technologies or media? You saw some of this in the open education blogosphere. That was a community that was fairly small, the core participants and where people were committed to similar goals and they were benevolent towards each other because there was an activist stick bent. Yet they had very different ideas and disagreed about both specifics and philosophical questions. There was a large amount of shared understanding so that each post could build upon the previous one. And you didn't have this tedious introduction in academic papers. It was practical and pragmatic because people were looking for real solutions and not posturing. It was referential, and there were debates going on between the main people. And if you joined those debates, you could get picked up and get the wide readership. But it was also in a way, a new field where everyone was pioneers. How can you recreate this among people? Learning Quantum Physics at the first year bachelor level, or studying neuro science, who are not pioneers, where everything they say has been said better before. There is a connection here to the tension between trying to figure things out by yourself, trying to figure things out in a small group and going to the source material. Look at the course that we did with Knowledge Forum, where we spent four weeks reading a book and the next four weeks digging into the ideas from our own standpoint. We could have spent the whole course continuing to read the external inputs. What was the value of that exercise? Was it primarily In practicing certain cognitive skills was it in the learning that happened in the knowledge that was created 
 - Game be as another example of this kind of emergent collaboration. It is a bit analogous to open education movement, perhaps because it is at the forefront. And so the people feel they're activist and they're bringing in ideas from all over. But nobody is an expert. Although of course, they have their leaders. And the interesting point is the difference between physical space and virtual space. If you meet in the group of 20 people in any given location, you will not have the world experts but the moment you write something online, almost unless you artificially limited it can reach anyone in the world and Things like Twitter has actually access everybody that that's because it's so easy for snippets of information to get picked up. Whereas before, if you had some blog, hidden away, it might be part of, even though anyone could theoretically find it would typically be part of a smaller link ring or something like that. So what could something like game the or the social network in March look like or even the peer to peer University, if it was more hubs and spokes and distributed, and you had smaller communities working more intensely that had their ideas upwards. So we're going back to kind of the idea of connectivism versus Knowledge Building and the link between them. 
 - To add to my previous note about learning, there is something thrilling about the possibility of posting about a famous book and having the author of that book, respond. On the other hand, it's not a very safe space to practice your understanding.
	- Writing is a powerful way of learning and since making connecting concepts however, without a safe space and a community it can be difficult because we feel that we are not the experts and that we have not much to contribute and that we might not have an audience. Or if we do, we focus too much on SEO and superficial metrics like likes and we sell them get deep and meaningful feedback. graduate level seminar or a peer to peer university course was a space where you could with a small group of trusted people explore topics. There's the concept of a cohort. So, you have some shared understanding, you are perhaps at a similar level, although because you are advanced students, you do not start from scratch. You come from different disciplines and you bring very different ideas and connections to the discussion. You have a guaranteed audience who are interested engaging with your ideas, ideally in a constructive way, where they give you useful feedback, and where their ideas build upon your ideas. There's also the concept of synchronicity, not in the sense of a two hour class, but in the sense of individuals who have decided to devote a certain amount of time over weeks or months to the pursuit of certain questions. The granularity of the worldwide web can be much slower. People might pick up on something you wrote a long time ago, but do you might have moved on by then? Are there ways to foster these kinds of groups? Are they reading circles? Are they informal research networks? Does it depend on different technologies or media? You saw some of this in the open education blogosphere. That was a community that was fairly small, the core participants and where people were committed to similar goals and they were benevolent towards each other because there was an activist stick bent. Yet they had very different ideas and disagreed about both specifics and philosophical questions. There was a large amount of shared understanding so that each post could build upon the previous one. And you didn't have this tedious introduction in academic papers. It was practical and pragmatic because people were looking for real solutions and not posturing. It was referential, and there were debates going on between the main people. And if you joined those debates, you could get picked up and get the wide readership. But it was also in a way, a new field where everyone was pioneers. How can you recreate this among people? Learning Quantum Physics at the first year bachelor level, or studying neuro science, who are not pioneers, where everything they say has been said better before. There is a connection here to the tension between trying to figure things out by yourself, trying to figure things out in a small group and going to the source material. Look at the course that we did with Knowledge Forum, where we spent four weeks reading a book and the next four weeks digging into the ideas from our own standpoint. We could have spent the whole course continuing to read the external inputs. What was the value of that exercise? Was it primarily In practicing certain cognitive skills was it in the learning that happened in the knowledge that was created
	- Game be as another example of this kind of emergent collaboration. It is a bit analogous to open education movement, perhaps because it is at the forefront. And so the people feel they're activist and they're bringing in ideas from all over. But nobody is an expert. Although of course, they have their leaders. And the interesting point is the difference between physical space and virtual space. If you meet in the group of 20 people in any given location, you will not have the world experts but the moment you write something online, almost unless you artificially limited it can reach anyone in the world and Things like Twitter has actually access everybody that that's because it's so easy for snippets of information to get picked up. Whereas before, if you had some blog, hidden away, it might be part of, even though anyone could theoretically find it would typically be part of a smaller link ring or something like that. So what could something like game the or the social network in March look like or even the peer to peer University, if it was more hubs and spokes and distributed, and you had smaller communities working more intensely that had their ideas upwards. So we're going back to kind of the idea of connectivism versus Knowledge Building and the link between them.
	- To add to my previous note about learning, there is something thrilling about the possibility of posting about a famous book and having the author of that book, respond. On the other hand, it's not a very safe space to practice your understanding.