Rethinking nodes in networks

When we're making a study of a network or formulating an explanation for outcomes produced by a network, we need things to examine. We are prone to make a "thingy" of nothing or of an ongoing processing. Alfred North Whitehead coined the term "misplaced concreteness" to separate his "process philosophy" from all the scientific studies that had made things of processes in order to study them objectively.

In the Prince of Networks, Graham Harman characterized Whitehead as the grandfather of Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory. Latour takes exception to scientific explanations that add a false dimension to their descriptions of networks. He expects explanations to emerge from sufficient complexity of descriptions, rather than conforming the data to established explanations. He treasures Whitehead's investigative principle of "beginning and ending with wonder".

As I've pondered how all this might support our rethinking the concreteness of nodes in a network, I've made a lot of associations to the possibility of nodeless networks. If there's nothing there where connections come together, we have to wonder what the intersection is about. The connections would meet with wonder and explore what it's about. There could be no "misplaced concreteness" in a absence of nodes.

What could occur at "connections over nothing" is significant learning. The unknowns could come to the forefront of the experience. The exploration of combined questions, possibilities, hypotheses, and contrasting descriptions could replace the so-called "learning" of information through network connections. The takeaways from the encounters could enrich each exploration and better articulate the intersection.

This is a reversal of preexisting nodes forming new connections. This proposes preexisting connections resulting in emergent nodes. The coming together is the constant process. The resulting nodes come and go. The process begins and ends with wonder.

Missing interfaces users and edges

Our eyeballs can see nodes, but not connections unless they're hard wired. Most connections are subtle, hidden or implied without taking form. As result, there is excessive attention on nodes, as Ailsa recently explored on her blog: Exploring the dark wood. In the comments I added there over the last few days, I explored some connections to Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory. Since then I've been reflecting on what else is missing in all this exploration of connections. Interfaces, users and edges came to mind.

When systems are closed they lack interfaces. They seem to be for internal use only. They don't share information, make access easy or attempt to connect outside it's own boundaries. yet these closed systems are very well connected internally. Their lack of external connections is usually an indication of internal availability to every kind of resource, support and information they need.

When networks are self serving, there are no users to be served. It's all self-service and DIY functionality. There's no need to understand users or uses made of the functionality. Everybody is free to do what they want as if that will be useful to them. Providing structure to guide uses or advance the users abilities seems excessively imposing, authoritarian and industrialized.

When networks are ubiquitous, they lack edges. They seem to be everywhere in a way where there's no way to cross a line, reach a limit or hit a wall. Thus there is no supporting those who may have come to an edge, gotten stuck or maxed out. Everyone is getting connected as if that's an end in itself.

If a network had interfaces, user support and edges, many would say it's no longer a network. They make a purist argument about connections between nodes that handle anything that comes up. They might also argue that a system with interfaces, user support and edges needs to be more networked, interconnected and complex. Interfaces, user support and edges are missing from the focus on connections because connections and edges are mutually exclusive in the minds of these advocates.

What if connections and edges are two sides of one coin when we give less emphasis to nodes? What if there is a both/and alternative to replace the either/or conceptualization? What if nodeless networks are comprised of connections that require interfaces to compensate for the absence of nodes? What if a network that embodies wonder, questions, unknowns and ongoing explorations would easily imagine it serving users encountering edges in spite of all the connectivity? What if I explore this further tomorrow?

CCK09 Networked theories

This morning I was contemplating how learning theories function in a larger context. It occurred to me that, in spite of being extremely complex internally, learning theories could function as a closed system in isolation. It would not be an explicit intention of theoreticians to create a silo, group or disconnected cluster. It would occur to filter out excess complications, distractions and other burdens on the scarcity of attention.

Not being a specialist in learning theories gives me an opportunity to take a broader look. This picture came to mind of seven theories that all inform each other. By being interconnected, they exchange insights, metaphors, patterns and models. By providing a larger context to each one, there's an added perspective that prevents going to extremes, reinventing the wheel, relying on antiquated premises or eluding practical applications of the theory.

Briefly, here are the six theories that could inform and contextualize learning theories like Connectivism.

1. Design theory addresses how we: come up with new ideas, solve problems when we take our minds off of the challenge and get unstuck when no inspirations are coming forth. The theory also explores how we make effective decisions while avoiding premature convergence, procrastination, perfectionism and over-reactions. 
2. Change theory addresses how some changes endure while others fizzle out. It looks at changes that happen spontaneously and those that take concerted effort. It explains how resistance to change gets provoked and how stability can deteriorate into stagnation.
3. Socio-political theory explores how we get along and get things done together. It explains how gatherings of people successfully advance diverse agendas, protect their rights,  reach agreements, resolve conflicts, and create support systems.
4. Economic theory looks at the pricing and distribution of goods and services. It explains how enterprises succeed, innovations get nurtured, workforces maintain a standard of living and economic interests go to war with rivals.
5. Media theory examines the effects of the appliances we use to receive information and entertainments. It explains the reverberations through economies, cultures and institutions when a change in technology gets innocently introduced as an added convenience.
6. 21st Century science is exploring quantum theory, complexity theory, network theory and ecological theory. It's explaining phenomena like emergence, self organization, connectedness and contagion.

Each of these theories could inform learning theory advancements with different perspectives, questions and frameworks. Each of these theories could also be enhanced by considering how learning happens, what impedes its occurrences and which are the better ways promote more learning at every level.

CCK09 Putting Connectivism into practice

I've been striving to transform my growing knowledge of Connectivism into an actionable practice. I've gotten better at talking the talk, but not walking the talk. Speaking the language seems like a start in the right direction to me. This morning I continued to reflect on how to put CCK into practice and came up with a preliminary protocol. As I explored different alternatives, I formed a strong association with the following pattern of practices. I see myself and others practicing Connectivism whenever we are:

1. forming new connections and upgrading established connections to a network cluster inside or outside us, connections within that cluster and connections between clusters.
2. using our personal contexts to realize significance, meaning and/or applications of the otherwise meaningless signals received through our connections
3. recognizing patterns in the connections and meaning we've formed which opens up further questions, investigations or explorations which leads to more connections
4. becoming more salient to other cognitive and social networks by being more accessible, receptive, responsive and valuable to those other connections, meanings and perceived patterns

Not surprisingly, I was practicing Connectivism when I came up with this protocol. I recognized a familiar pattern for me where I fall short of "walking the talk". I also perceived a pattern of opportunities to explore a new possibility, reflect on alternatives and formulate new connections. My personal context (valuing pragmatism) was attributing significance to a "lack of practice" and "need for actionable knowledge". Having formulated this protocol, it appeared very salient to my cognitive network. Strong connections formed between it and many clusters within my cognitive network.  If it appears valuable to your cognitive network, I will have succeeded at becoming more salient which will lead to more connections.

CCK09 Speaking the language

As I read the Moodle forum threads for the CCK09 course, the online readings as well as the numerous blogs I've subscribed to, almost everyone is speaking of or about Connectivism. That works if Connectivism is a learning theory. That means to me that we're all theoreticians looking for the right way to sound prescriptive. However, that premise invites me to get stuck in the idea stage with too many abstract concepts to contemplate. The pragmatist in me wants to comprehend what Connectivism is good for, what can I do with it and what happens when I act as if Connectivism is true.

As I reflected on that distinction (theoretic/pragmatic) more deeply this morning, I realized I ought to be speaking the language of Connectivism in lieu of speaking of or about it. Speaking the language could create a context that generates lots more meaningful associations in my conceptual and social networks. This approach could even get me to "learn how to learn" and "reform how I get my/our learning to happen". So I'm going to try out assuming that:

• connections, links and associations are synonymous with learning (noun)
• connecting, linking, associating, tying together are synonymous with learning (verb)
• when I'm strengthening a connection or forming a new connection, I'm learning more than before
• when I'm reforming a connection, I'm learning more ways that the learning is inherently functional or applicable to other endeavors
• when I'm dropping a connection, I'm unlearning something I wrongly assumed, concluded or tied together
• when I lose a previously reliable connection, I'm experiencing the consequences of not using that learning for any purpose
• when I've made a lot of connections, making lots more connections will happen more easily than before

Why didn't you say so sooner?
I was making lots of connections to the question"What is Connectivism?" without associating all those connections that I formed with the pattern of theorizing/neglecting pragmatism.

What difference can speaking the language make?
I associate that question with pragmatism and my fond pursuit of usefulness. Thanks! When I connect with anything deeply, I associate that with a world view or way of seeing everything. I come from there by connecting with it's premises, basis for conclusions and assumptions about it's value. Speaking the language represents all that pattern in an unspoken way so that listeners/readers can form their own connections to that deeper level.

What's a good place to begin "speaking of connections"?
Perhaps connecting what we already know with the possibility that it's retained and accessed as a network of connections. If we start from the experience that our knowledge is already structured as a web of connections, adding more connections is no change at all. We speak the same language as our knowledge and get the benefits of understanding how it functions easily.

CCK09 Your learning theory in use

You already have a learning theory you use everyday. We all do. It's something that makes it possible to learn when it's not happening easily. Our "learning theories in use" explain what happened, give us something else to try and compare ourselves to others.

Your learning theory may tell you when is a really good time to learn something compared to other times, as well as how important or unimportant the timing is. Your learning theory may explain why you forgot something you wanted to remember or how you got the facts turned around when you already had the ideas right in your mind. You may be able to explain how others learn more or faster than you can, or the reverse where you're the one learning more and faster.

Your learning theory gets called upon when it has become evident that you did not try hard enough to learn something. Your theory will suggest what to do again with more determination, discipline and endurance. It may also prioritize among your options for how to take a different approach to get a better result. Your learning theory may explain the differences between learning endeavors that come easily and those that turn into struggles. It may give you a sense of what to avoid and what to pursue with no motivation problems.

Your learning theory will also reject ideas that seem absurd, impractical or unfounded. Your theory endures because it provides you with stability, confidence, familiarity and resourcefulness in the face of varied challenges, setbacks and progress. Without your learning theory, you'd always be disoriented, insecure and afraid to learning anything else.

Your learning theory in use may need an upgrade. You may have jumped to conclusions about "what's wrong with your ability" or "how you compare unfavorably to others". Your theory may rule out very effective alternatives that make learning lots more fun, energizing, adventurous and rewarding.

Your learning theory in use does not change by learning to talk about new theories. The changes come about by reflecting on how and why things happened to you, for you and with you. By rethinking your explanations, inclinations and resignations, your learning theory in use can be revised to better serve you. With that much familiarity with your own learning theory, just think how you could connect to others' learning theories is use too.

CCK09 Getting it totally

Here's some reflections for CCK09 on "what is knowledge?"

When we know what we know and know what we don't know, Confucius said "we truly know". Most often, we don't know what we know because it's tacit knowledge that we call upon without conscious reasoning in order to know what to do, how to do it and how to steer clear of likely pitfalls. Our explicit knowledge may not even connect to our tacit knowledge. We'll "say one thing and do another" much to our own embarrassment. To know what we don't know seems paradoxical if all our knowing exists at one level. However we can know the limits of our understanding, know what remains an open question for us, and know what seems so unfathomable we cannot even formulate a question about it yet. On one level we don't know what we don't know, on another we only know what we know, then above that we can know the boundaries of what we know and top it off with knowing what we don't know.

We we know something objectively, that's only the half of the challenge. We can point fingers at it, label it accurately and disconnect from it having anything to do with us or our way of seeing. When we also know something subjectively, we turn three of our fingers back at ourselves, interrogate our basis for labeling it and connect "what we're seeing" with our very personal "perceptions and attributions" We own the inevitability of all being spin doctors who bias how we filter and frame what we take in. In the process of coming to know ourselves through the failures of our objectivity, we find we can empathize with or even  identify with the subject of our objective viewpoint. With sufficient practice, the separated object and subject merge into one experience. We are being the observer and the observed all at once.

When we think of knowledge as a thing, we can work at it and try to get it right. When we regard knowledge as an ongoing process, we are continually expanding and deepening our knowledge. We transition from knowledge as property and possessions to knowing as adventure and explorations. We live our questions instead of clinging to what's known to us. We return to innocence after a long bout of being right and jumping to conclusions. We value our curiosity along side our expertise, our fascination with our familiarity and our wonder with our pattern recognition.

When we presume we can make ourselves know more, accumulate more knowledge and become more knowledgeable, we get to be right about that. So be it. When we presume that knowing more comes about naturally, we get to be right about that. We go with the flow of losing some of what we knew to know more comprehensively, inclusively and deeply. We use our inner stillness to let something new arise to explore, ponder and tie in. We learn to trust a process that delivers more to discover each day. We come from a place where life is about experiencing and acting regardless of all the conceptual baggage we've picked up along the way.

CCK09 Possible process taxonomy

I've been pondering how each connection that we make (or that simply happens by association) is dynamic and affected by context. Last week, I read a blog post: CCK09 Ulop’s Taxonomy of Connections (TOC), which got me thinking more about kinds of connections. George Siemens then interrogated the premises of Ulop's taxonomy:

My goal is to create a foundational theory of learning - one that starts with a solid foundation that serves as a suitable structure on which to build education of the future. From my perspective, this requires consideration of connections as entities on their own. How do they form? Why do they form? I'm not convinced that we have different types of connections. Instead, we have connections that exhibit different attributes in the process of forming and re-forming. But, the connection itself carries the same definition at all levels (neural/social/conceptual)

In my current grasp of connectionism, it makes sense that connections are defined by what nodes they connect or what nodes they are located in between. That definition does not change when the connection reforms from weak to strong. It regards connections as "entities on their own". Yet that solid definition of the connection does not characterize the dynamism of the connection or answer process questions like "how do they form?" and "why do they form?". So I pursued the possibility of a characterizing process attributes of connections in a taxonomy. These characteristics begin to answer questions of "how?" and "why?". They frame the definition of the connection as "in process" of forming, growing, changing, learning, evolving, transforming, etc.  Here's a sketch of a process taxonomy for defined connections :

• 1. Repellant - connected by mutual exclusion or denial of each other's validity as I've explored in connections that fail to form due to error, distance or dilemma. In the process of rejecting, refuting, correcting or guarding against the connection.
• 2. Tentative - connected by queries, curiosity and openness to new signals. In the process of exploring possibilities, getting questions answered, trying out alternatives, discovering unforeseen options
• 3. Conceptual - connected by agreement in principle. In the process of staying on message together, speaking the same language, sharing the same explanations
• 4. Causal - connected by commitments. In the process of following a sequence, producing outcomes together, providing input that becomes output, proceeding unilaterally through a chain of events
• 5. Recursive - connected by cycles. In the process of providing feedback, maintaining reciprocities, balancing exchanges to seem fair
• 6. Synergistic - connected by compatibility. In the process of realizing mutual enhancement, generating transformations, energizing collaborations
• 7. Comprehensive - connected by paradoxes. In the process of balancing multiple polarities, realizing the "best of both" for each component, escaping the tyranny of either/or

As I've since reflected on this taxonomy, I've been wondering if it works as a migration path. Perhaps the first process is a starting point for an evolutionary process within its context. That would suggest the higher orders in the process taxonomy might function with more resilience and sustainability. Instability might move through chaos into a dynamic equilibrium that functioned more inclusively and "connectedly". More to ponder ...

CCK09 On the horns of a dilemma

In addition to recognizable patterns in new ideas of error and of excessive distance, connections may also fail to form when they are "on the horns of dilemma". Here are four classic Catch-22's to keep in mind as we explore this third pattern of failed connections:

I can't endure this job and I can't endure unemployment
I can't live with him/her/it and I can't live without him/her/it
I can't learn from sitting in classrooms and I can't learn on my own
I can't get along with those people and I can't get along by myself

Each half of any dilemma is functioning a a collective, not a connective. Both horns are internally collusive while rejecting the outside network. The differences appear irreconcilable because they are both negating an opposite possibility. No viable connections can form between these antagonistic positions.

When we're caught up in a dilemma, the situation cannot be resolved by taking one side at the expense of the other. We will discover that "opposing the opposition" only perpetuates our misery. The opposite position will flare up and bring our inner torment to the forefront of our experience. There is no solution at the level of these irreconcilable positions. The connection can only occur at a different level from these insular nodes. Each isolated network remains the same regardless of what occurs in its context. Each fails to learn, change, adapt or evolve. It's mind is made up. Each plays by rules which have been long established. Each relies on its history to define its future. Each regards new opportunities as the same old foregone conclusions.

The solution can be found in a process network that contains these isolated networks. The introduction of changing, learning, adapting and evolving puts the isolated networks into a different context. Both become starting points for ongoing processes. Both entertain new questions to explore and interpretations to consider. Both may discover the error of their ways, their opportunities overlooked and their intentions gone awry. Both may find they are two sides of the same coin or a winning combination that prevents going to either extreme. The dilemma may be reformulated as a paradox where they are both right in a different sense provided by the inclusive, process network.

The transition from isolated networks to an inclusive process network involves some unlearning within each isolated network. Here's some of what typically gets unlearned when dilemmas get resolved and robust connections form between the reformulated positions.

• There's nothing to be learned from untried alternatives.
• There's nothing that's changed since valid conclusions were reached.
• There's no justification for revising what is known to be proven facts.
• There's every reason to rely on past history to predict the future.
• There's nothing to question in reliable perceptions and attributions.
• There's the danger of deluding oneself to expect something different.
• There's no reconciliation possible between these positions.

That's a lot to unlearn, disconnect from and leave behind. I suspect the process networks that let go of past learning easily have accumulated an inventory of successful experiences with dropping connections and revising meaning.

CCK09 - What a far out idea!

Continuing with what I explored yesterday, another reason connections may fail to form can be explained by distance from the new idea to our conceptual networks. Vygotskians would say the new idea is outside our zone of proximal development. The new idea is lacking in closeness, centrality and/or betweenness to speak in SNA (social network analysis) parlance. The idea is too many hops away from our small world network of closely knit understandings.  We cannot make those hops because the intermediate nodes to "go there" or to "get its significance" are missing. The new idea is literally too far out.

When we're lacking intermediate nodes, it's likely we don't know what we're missing. We don't know what we don't know. It seems paradoxical and defiant of logical progressions to figure what to do to connect to the new idea. Perhaps that's why Stephen Downes is suggesting we rely entirely on association, in lieu of using deduction and inference. We can make spontaneous  connections that we cannot explain or formulate methodically. They happen by two nodes being proximate. "Those close by form a tie".

One way to implement "connection by association" with a "far out idea" is to reverse engineer the bridge from our close knit comprehension. By starting with the new idea, it may be possible to connect back to the small world network where starting from known ideas won't get there. We can probably make some associations to the new idea in isolation. We can make up a story about it or elongate it into a scenario of incidents. We may deepen our appreciation of it by using varied metaphors to characterize it or different criteria to discern its value.

Here's an example of working backwards from the far out idea to connect with a current, complex understanding:

Imagine you have a deep understanding of the necessity of telling others what to think. In your experience people do not think for themselves. They need to be told and wait to be told by you whenever you give them a chance to think for themselves. It's a short hop in your conceptual network between what you think of yourself, of the people need to be told and of what they are not thinking for themselves.  You find the labels "pushy", "domineering" or "impatient" do not fit you in your context. Your actions and comprehension of others seems justified, accurate and consistent with your experiences.

Next you encounter a far out idea: people can think for themselves (when they are not consistently pushed or constantly expected to need to be told). There is no connection between that approach and your experience-based, closely knit understanding of the complete opposite necessity. If you don't dismiss the idea as a lie, deception or mistake, you will experience cognitive dissonance.

To reverse engineer a connection back to your comprehension, begin with the far out idea where it might make sense:

• 
  
  1. In what context might people consistently think for themselves?
  2. How could be those who think for themselves be supported, encouraged and validated for that initiative?
  3. What's different about people that think for themselves and solve problems without waiting to be told?
  4. How much of that difference in people is the result of how they are framed, categorized or defined by managers?
  5. How could the expectation that "people usually think for themselves" influence their admirable conduct?
  6. What effect would it have on those people to tell them what to think?
  7. What reputation might you earn among those people if you always told them what to think?
• 
  

The answers to these questions form new nodes and connections. The last two questions make connections back to the small world that necessitates telling people what to think. Those questions function as high betweenness nodes that span across two clusters. The bridge gets built by starting at the far out idea.

CCK09 - When connections fail to form

I've been following the online course CCK09 - Connectivism and Connective Knowledge  for the past few weeks. I've encountered lots of sticking points while I sought to integrate these new ideas into what I already comprehend about learning, knowledge, networks, chaos and cognitive neuroscience. I'm thrilled whenever this happens. Getting stuck in the process of cultivating a new comprehension immediately gives me things to question, explore, challenge and rethink. Often it pays off more than adding "new nodes to my conceptual network" - like changing new links and adding more links to previous knowledge.

This morning I was picturing the problem of a new idea failing to associate with a current understanding. When a connection is not forming, I usually feel confused and lost. I may experience becoming suspicious of the new idea or defensive about my existing understanding. In Connectivism: Learning as Network-Creation (2005), George Siemens suggests the new idea might function as a rogue node with only weak links to it. He proposes that this pattern occurs to avoid cognitive dissonance within the current strongly linked nodes.

Framing the problem as "expecting two nodes to associate and form a link" also brings to mind Hebbian Learning that Stephen Downes values highly. While looking up Hebbian Theory on Wikipedia, I found that it explains dendrites forming and strengthening connections. At the bottom of the page, I discovered a link to Anti-Hebbian learning which explains neural connections weakening when they prove to be redundant. This associates in my mind with "unlearning" an oversimplified or naive understanding to grasp a more comprehensive and valid explanation.

I then came up with this diagram showing the new idea with a high level of centrality. I'm proposing that a new idea spawns an array of queries when the intended node does not associate and form a link. There is a potential for strong ties to form with other nodes which are shown elongated to suggest they embody sequential processes. Here are the four queries /processes that occur in my own conceptual network routinely:

I may associate the new idea

• with lies, deceptions and mistakes which leads me to refute and dismiss it.
• with exaggeration, grandiosity and fluff which has me getting a better perspective, putting the new idea in a larger context or disputing it's overstatements
• with extreme positions, one-sided arguments or half-truths which leads to me framing it's claim along a gradient or in a four quadrant diagram with the missing halves
• with useless, ineffectual or purely abstract ideas which alerts me to the dangers of collusion, lip service, propaganda or academic requirements 

It's very possible that a strong tie could be formed with any one of these alternative nodes. Any of these connections would maintain the new idea as a "rogue node". My current comprehension would be further justified and protected from cognitive dissonance.  The consideration of these queries is an essential part of my critical thinking and reflective practice.