These are research pages. This is not an academic treaty about people. It is very much based on the real experiences of teachers within the social ambience they find themselves in on a daily basis. The objective is not to reach some kind of objective conclusion. We are merely exploring ideas about social dynamics. Hence, the methodology of research is not what you might expect. To that end, I suggest some conventions to assist whoever might be interested in exploring these matters. Please be patient.--Fidocancan 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
conventions[edit | edit source]
There are number of conventions, which we can discuss in the talk page.
- put experience first -- the specific conditions of any particular social dynamic is unique to the people and place; let us avoid producing objectifications, reports, arguments or even agreements; let us honour the real people we deal with on a daily basis
- systems thinking -- don't think linearly, and certainly not objectively, but synthetically, simultaneously; do not judge another based on words or comparing one element or concept, but rather wait until a system is outlined -- the chances are it makes sense in its own rights; this is a daily lesson when working with kids :)
- language as relative -- please allow multiple interpretations of any word, and have patience to accept a collection of thoughts or values that creates a system
- get real -- honour the people we are with, not some ideas however much we are attached to them
There is no need to try to ascertain the exclusive, objective truth of a matter. Hence, no need for argument. Simply deepen our understanding of the phenomena we experience in the real world, in our classrooms for example, by allowing ourselves to enter into another person's comprehensive understanding of the same phenomenon. We must not accept or dismiss based on a shallow engagement of words. Rather, we learn to appreciate the people involved and their ontology, their experience, their conclusions are true relative to them and their context.
objectives[edit | edit source]
Here's a few objectives to start off with:
- provide an environment for participants to explore their thinking and to share/stimulate at the same time
- aim towards a more accurate description of psycho-social dynamics in our respective lives
- aim towards producing multi-agent models for psycho-social dynamics, and some maths
- learn from our research individually so knowledge is equated to real skill and experience; we get better at what we do
- provide some kind of community for people who are interested in exploring these kinds of ideas
- honour the children or adults we teach with improved learning environments
some lingo and metaphors[edit | edit source]
Given the convention regarding use of language, the following are used only as much as they point at real-life dynamics which we experience. Extended metaphors provide some much needed accuracy. Alternative descriptors are encouraged. Eventually we might be able to use mathematics to describe certain dynamics.
- psycho-social -- the phase-space of virtual engagement
- subjectivity -- the location of the individual, fathomlessly deep, psychological makeup well beyond verbal description into the real of principle-belief; also called singularity; imagine a blackhole
- event horizon of self -- most of us engage each other in terms of roles, where we do not open ourselves up but keep much of ourselves private; the event horizon is where to delve into a person and go beyond mere role and social difference, but to really fall into the self-definition of a person
- gravity of thought -- thoughts have certain mass, as it were, and we tend to fall into thinking patterns because of them
- words as vectors -- words have effect, or at least, their use in certain contexts trigger semantic, emotional and behavioural responses whether we like them to or not; hence words seem to have a life of their own
- phase space -- the multidimensional space where will and words and behaviour and thought exist; physicists use 3d and time for specific phase space of physical matter, whereas we have more subjective qualities
- verifiable -- the science of objects is testable through falsity; if we are to be rigourous with our research, we must have testability, and we test a thing by verifying it
- self-emergent -- by thinking a thing, it exists, as least in the virtual space of thinking and if we speak about it, then it becomes real in a cultural sense, and here you are reading these words now; we make things happen
- subjectively immersed -- we are entirely part of the social dynamic; pretending to be objective is a harmful delusion, and we must be as accurate as possible regarding our own involvement in the system we are describing
moot[edit | edit source]
As we talk about our experiences, and apply language patterns borrowed from other areas, certain topics may emerge that we are all concerned about. These are listed here, together with some invitational topics.
- self-discipline system -- this is a big one: to generate a system where self-discipline is not something learned for fear of the consequence of disciplining, but because of learning the consequences of our actions and their beneficial and detrimental effect on our friends and colleagues; this is a shift from a hierarchical system towards a horizontal system; authority imposed from above, eg from a teacher, indicates a failure by a class to monitor itself
- respect points -- most award systems in schools are substitutes for money; can we produce a currency which is not based on receiving and accumulating, but rather enumerates the values of respect? that is, the act of giving, not receiving... relating individual action and collective consequence?
experience in the field[edit | edit source]
Individual thoughts about our experiences and how it relates to mathematising social dynamics. Any insights welcomed.
active members[edit | edit source]
Stick down your name if the material here resonates with your real life experience, or if it is an area which you would like to contribute to.