1. IMPROVING CNPS EFFECTIVENESS
Through Structured Communication
Bruce Nappi
2nd Annual
Chappell Natural Philosophy Society Conference
July 20 – 23, 2016
Clarion Inn at Maryland University
College Park, MD
Bruce Nappi
A3 Research Institute
A3society *dot* org
Bnappi *at* A3RI *dot* org

2. Abstract
The internet is well accepted as a great technical milestone in human communication. When a human being becomes a component of the communication system, information handling performance is limited by the ability of human brains to manage the information. Modern science requires humans to analyze extremely complex information. Human brains have good capabilities to do that in quiet, undisturbed environments. Evolved basic human language skills, however, are adapted for person to person dialog and single person oration. It is not surprising, that the internet has captured these styles in formats like , post and commentary, articles, blogs, and discussion groups. These basic skills, however, are poor when faced with communicating complex issues that require deep logical reasoning and exploration of novel hidden meanings. This presentation explores some recently introduced discussion tools that structure discussions to address the shortcomings in existing internet formats.

3. ABSTRACT –
breakdown
The internet is well accepted as a great technical milestone in human communication.
When a human being becomes a component of the communication system, information handling performance is limited by the ability of human brains to manage the information. (Turing Test)(Stone Age Brains)
Modern science requires humans to analyze extremely COMPLEX information. (Complexity)
Human brains have good capabilities to do that in quiet, undisturbed environments.

4. ABSTRACT –
breakdown
Evolved basic human LANGUAGE skills, however, are adapted for person to person dialog and single person oration.
It is not surprising, that the internet has captured these styles in formats like , post and commentary, articles, blogs, and discussion groups.
These basic skills [and TOOLS] are poor when faced with communicating complex issues that require deep logical reasoning and exploration of novel hidden meanings.
This presentation explores some recently introduced discussion tools that structure discussions to address the shortcomings in existing internet formats.

5. Internet formats and tools
What internet tools do we have?
Articles in magazines and blogs
Articles with comments
Forums and bulletin boards
Forum and bulletin board structures:
Time sequencing
Topic breakdown
Subtopic threading

6. Topic Exploration Elements for Complex Topics
Many subtopics and details.
Subtopics and details often relate in complex, overlapping ways.
Discussions may include hundreds or thousands of comments. Impractical for most participants to review the entire discussion. It takes a lot of time to review all the details.
Understanding the details requires involved thinking.
Understanding and interpreting the details require specialized backgrounds.
Verifying the accuracy of details often requires references to external sources.

7. TOPIC EXPLORATION ELEMENTS FOR COMPLEX TOPICS – CONTINUED 2
Observing novel interrelationships of details requires creative skills.
Judging the logical interrelationships of details requires philosophical skills.
Recognizing hidden questions or mistakes requires critical thinking skills.
Tapping into broad knowledge involves many people.
Organizing a discussion method requires system skills.
Organizing the discussion process requires management skills.
Error handling
Supposition handling

8. Participants Each of these elements apply to both poster and reader.
Availability
Time for online commitment
Time for external research
Participation interruption
Point of entry into the discussion
2. Background
General knowledge– novice to expert
Topic specific knowledge– novice to expert
Technical skills – math, physics, modeling, writing

9. PARTICIPANTS – CONTINUED 2
3. Personal discussion style – overview
Broad thinkers:
Can understand and focus on the larger issue
Can visualize proposed concepts
Point and aim discussion to larger focus
Want discussion to focus the overall objective
Narrow thinkers:
Focus and perception on fine detail
Attention to current issue and last statements
Easily diverted to side issues
Comfortable leaving issues incomplete

10. PARTICIPANTS – CONTINUED 3
4. Preparation
Deep interest
Willing to review previous comments to understand the larger issue.
Willing to do extensive outside research.
Shallow interest
Won’t take time to review past information
Won’t do external reading.
5. Social style
Supportive. Try to contribute ideas to make another person’s view work.
Cooperative. Like to resolve debates.
Critical. Focused on finding holes in issues.
Disruptive. Like to stir up debates. Trolls.

11. PARTICIPANTS – CONTINUED 4
6. Writing style
Write long discussions covering many details
Do in-depth background preparation
Write briefly with sound bytes
Use minimal research and thought; over generalize
7. Purpose
Knowledge gathering
Believe statements should convey established knowledge
Impatient with repetition, generalization and superficial material
Exploration
Voice personal opinions to explore options and alternatives.
Enjoy random walk and stream of consciousness discussion

12. PARTICIPANTS – CONTINUED 5
8. Sense of time
The range of patience and tolerance varies widely.
9. Language and cultural background
Discussions that include people from different cultures introduce variations in word meanings and how topics are interpreted.

13. CURRENT Q&A EMAIL DISCUSSION
Participant
A;kjf alksh;g kja;skjfglk dgshjkhkja hweq iourc mx,zmn.dzxpuiejfdA;kjfalksh;gkja;skjf glkdgshjkhkja hweqiourc mx,zm n.dzx
puiejfd
A;kjfa lksh;gkja;skjfglkdgshjkhkjahweqiourcmx,zmn.dzxpuiejfd
Z.,mv.,cmvz xcn.m,nvc.mnqw[potiouq][potoiu woirutpioqw[ofgl;kdfsklj sfgkljer[poi fg
sdlkjbv[poirewopilkdfsj fgA;kjf alksh;g kja;skjfglk dgshjkhkja hweq iourc mx,zmn.dzxpuiejfdA;kjfalksh;g
kja;skjf glkdgshjkhkja hweqiourc mx,zm n.dzx puiejfd
A;kjfa lksh;gkja;skjfglkdgshjkhkjahw
eqiourcmx,zmn.dzxpuiejfd
Z.,mv.,cmvz xcn.m,nvc.mnqw[potiouq][potoiu woirutpioqw[ofgl;kdfsklj sfgkljer[poi fgsdlkjbv[poirewopilkdfsj fg
Participant
Participant
Participant
Participant
Participant

14. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
Most knowledge transferred ends up in the “internet landfill”. For internet discussions of complex issues, using existing methods, aimed at reaching new levels of understanding, very few are even marginally successful.
During the discussions, most started to answer specific questions, topics start with poor definition. Most already have answers that those starting and participating have failed to investigate.
Due to the wide range of personalities involved and high emotions, topics quickly drift. The result is a random walk that typically follows the interests of the least informed current participants. Topics frequently hop to issues completely unrelated to the starting point.
When misinformation is introduced, it often leads to topic introducers dropping out and a runaway discussion.

15. A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS A. Q&A
Q&A is efficient to briefly present new issues and collect wisdom for simple specific cases or new speculations. It is good for simple planning and coordinating action.
Action: Use existing internet approaches for simple issues. For complex issues, add auxiliary processes that coordinate what Q&A is used for. For example, have moderators to restrain wandering and leap-frogging, and continually break up discussions into more simple questions.

16. A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS B
A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS B. STATIC AND SEMI-STATIC REFERENCES - 1
Participants come into discussions at all levels of experience. To quickly bring novices up the learning curve, or act as refreshers for experts, a virtual “encyclopedia” of “agreed to” static references is needed. These are general reference sources that create a foundation for concepts and vocabulary. For example, if someone uses the term “Energy”, there should be a specific place to find the “agreed” reference.
Notice, the term “agreed” refers to the reference document, not the referenced principle. To be practical for a society of “critical thinkers”, the reference document must be inclusive of alternative principles and provide a vocabulary for their use.
A standardized process is needed that describes how to use the references.

17. A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS B
A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS B. STATIC AND SEMI-STATIC REFERENCES - 2
“Semi-static” references are documents where small changes are routinely expected, like a growing list of definitions.
Action: A process should be established for collecting, Indexing and referring to static and semi-static subject references. For example, a class of semi-static documents would be “guidebooks”. One of those would be a book that describes how CNPS works. This book would have sections like: new members, novices to the science, membership lists, how to participate in discussions etc. The content for much of this guidebook already exists. A new guidebook would be: Using the Forums.

18. A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS C. DYNAMIC TRACKING REFERENCES
“With discussion strings that can exceed 500 comments, and dozens of sub topics, we need a way to continuously bring new people into the discussions, update members who miss blocks of the discussion, and provide organization for the discussion.
Action: We need a coordinating process that:
a. coordinates the organization of the discussion
b. summarizes the status of ongoing discussions
c. tracks questions asked vs. answers provided
d. tracks problems posed and solutions found
e. coordinates sidetrack efforts
f. captures the outcome of the discussion for future investigators
{The MIT Deliberatorium might do this.}

19. A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS D. DYNAMIC COORDINATION REFERENCES
CNPS, like many societies, brings people with like interests together to gain value from having those members work together. What turns a group of people into a team, is information that turns individual efforts into a goal seeking SYSTEM.
Action: A “project and task planning” process is needed that sets out, tracks and coordinates objectives, goals, responsibilities, and results to date for all active efforts. The goals can vary from electing a board, to committee projects, to ad-hoc team research. ALL the efforts should be “findable” from a single “coordination” document.”

20. A NEW DISCUSSION STRUCTURE FOR CNPS E. LEARNING
To prevent the wisdom of the society from being lost, the lessons learned during discussions and projects needs to be identified and then saved in the appropriate semi-static references. The ideal approach is for the lessons learned to update the knowledge encyclopedia.
Action: A process is needed to summarize the results of discussions and projects and capture wisdom gained in the Semi-static documents of the society.
{MIT Deliberatorium example}

21. FOLLOW UP COMMENT SUMMARY - 1
Steven Bryant took notes on the discussion and provided a "high level" summary. I've added notations in [ ] brackets to capture other points. The discussion was in direct response to my explanation of how the Deliberatorium debate software worked.
Duncan S: Suggests have Debates where people could talk for a few hours on specific topics, facilitated by a moderator. [This comment wording was based on Duncan's "entrainment" within the frame of reference of the conference. If we project the idea of "debate" to a year long model, the idea of "talking for a few hours" wouldn't apply. So, my model allows for an synchronous approach that can span months. The other important observation related to this is the narrow use of the word "debate". Duncan and I discussed this. He was intrigued how his experience as a lawyer had interpreted the process of what "debate" meant and blocked other views of what it could be. ]
Cameron R: Suggests having a moderator so that things don't go off topic. [This is the best cases. I supported his idea and explained the pros and cons from previous applications. However, I also explained that it has been tried with direct control by the users. In short, it depends on the "professionalism" of the users, where "professionalism" implies both expertise in the subject matter to make good decisions creating the outline headings and emotional maturity to stay above confrontation. In general, self moderation has only worked in a small number of cases.]
Slobodan N: What happens when you go off in a different direction? The moderator has to take things out and place them properly.
Charles L: Commented about having more value from research appear rather than threads.  Bruce's reply was that we would have a place for "External References." [I discussed how the references made during a discussion could be captured right in the outline. However, to make this work, they would eventually have to be transferred to a single centralized reference document. In the remote discussion with Dr. Unzicker from Germany, he presented a concept he called a "World Scientific Heritage". This was clearly an outline to organize the knowledge captured for prospective research - ongoing or future. I asked him indirectly about creating a set of requirements to organize data and theory for scientific research retrospectively. This would form a basis to create the "encyclopedia" I discussed.]

22. FOLLOW UP COMMENT SUMMARY - 2
Cameron R: Can a member read the material in the CNPS blog.  David dH answered that yes, and the material / articles are indexed in Google (and other search engines).
David dH asked about who has rights to start maps.  Bruce mentioned that it depends on the community. It could be moderated, meaning that it would have to go to someone with rights.  That is a decision that will need to be made.