Compare : ConversationAsCommons

I'm a great believer that conversation and argument generate ideas more usefully than sitting down and working things through on your own.

As an example, two conversations with people I've only met online seem to have been remarkably productive this week. And both started about only semi-related things.

Firstly, criticism by ZbigniewLukasiak forced me to defend why I thought ClayShirky's SituatedSoftware essay was worthwhile. And in doing so I made explicit what seemed to be to be really interesting about the essay : that Shirky connected of a style of coding (WorseIsBetter) with a scale of social group (CreativeNetwork)

That led to Shirky pointing out that there was more than scale at stake. Some kind of internal structuration was significant.

Secondly, a flippant posting suggesting BillSeitz had got a Momus link from me, made me re-read his point that there were different structures available at different scales.

Between them, and thanks to connections already held and easily discoverable due to wiki-magic, I started thinking about ScaleAndStructureOfSocialGroups.

Update : Now Oli takes things in a fresh direction.

Maybe there's nothing much to it, but it feels like I've found something interesting.

In my opinion the strength of conversation comes from interactivity and feedback. On my wiki I have [http://zby.aster.net.pl/kwiki/?InterActivity a page for exploring those two ideas]. – ZbigniewLukasiak

See also :