PRODIGY(R) January 7, 1999 9:42 AM



Date: January 7, 1993 9:42 AM

To:     ALL

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM: Automated Writing Improves Thinking

Just wondering if anyone has experienced the "ah ha" feeling about writing on a computer v. conventional methods.

Automated writing is actually a process of discovering, growing and shaping what we "think" and "know" rather than simply a means to convey it to others.

Computers let us quickly try alternate forms and select the best one. Gifted writers may need less editing, but with a computer it is so easy to switch things around, that the mind has more time to select the best formulation.

We can then "debug" our understanding of events, by writing to see if our mental picture, can be explained to ourselves; and, where it cannot, we are alerted to investigate further.

Like poetry and songs, writing on a computer unlocks meaning and nuance that is otherwise difficult to grasp or remember.

My field is management. This entails lots of meetings, calls, inspections. For about 20 years or so of my career, I would just note important action items that arose. Then a few years ago I began keeping a diary to capture the context, including what was actually said about "important" matters. I discovered, I could attend a long meeting, and take NO notes, or maybe just a very few. But when I get back to the computer I remember a point here and another there, then another, then the detailed context starts to unfold that links the points together, and soon the whole thing is recreated.

This is not a verbatim dialog, but rather a "report" of important issues. There is a little more to it now that I have created a program to link up prior related events and docouments, so information can be retrieved quickly, but from a writer's perspective, my clients say, "Gee Rod, no one else can do that." I say, "Gosh, everyone can improve their ability to think, remember and communicate this way." I discovered it accidentally, but wonder if it's a well recognized thing among writers, or if anyone else has stumbled onto the idea?

This seems promissing to the management function, which emphasizes "good listening." Rather than trying to "be a good listener," try to write out what was said and seen, what you think about it, and connect it to formal correspondence, memos and notes. I call it "debugging understanding," to reduce mistakes, and as a by product, create a strategic resource of knowledge and ideas, that becomes a dynamic resource that helps understand future events using a continual process of planning, doing, and reporting.

So, what do you all think?

Rod.

(sorry this is so long)





Date: 01/07 1:44 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   L C NAGY (DDXP60B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

Have you ever tried to imagine what would have happened if Shakespeare had WordPerfect? (How many plays?....)

I've read that talking to oneself can speed up the problem-solving process. It stands to reason that writing it out in a form that is easily manipulated would extend the same principle. Computers enable us to intensify our brilliance!






Date: 01/07 7:00 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

I've been doing the digital brain dump for years but never really thought about it. Thanks. For me it doesn't take a computer. Any writing will do. Conversation (with moi or others) doesn't work because I get too wrapped up and can't review. This seems to be the unconscious stuff all the great writers talk about in the How To Books.

Bill





Date: 01/08 8:30 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   ERLENE STEWART (DHCT26A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

Only if the brilliance already exists, therefore, it follows that your idea wouldn't apply to everyone.

ES






Date: 01/08 9:07 AM

To:     DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Dave,

Re your point that people use only a small fraction of their intellect, I used to be very skeptical of such claims. Now my experience suggests that if we reconstruct the record of events in the near term we have a very good chance of learning more than was apparent during the event itself. We have to dig it out, but the effort significantly increases comprehension, improves personal recall and permits timely communication.

This new level of "intellect" is further enhanced if we overlay our writing with an "organic subject structure" that permits instant correlation to related events, people and documents. People seem to accomplish this inherently at the subconscious level. By emulating it consciously with automation, we give ourselves a chance to discover nuance that otherwise is overlooked, plus we create a structure that lets us step back to the portions of the record when needed.

For thousands of years this has not been possible. Professional writers wrote the local news and the history books which are very useful in a general way, but it has not been practical to conduct daily affairs, i.e. to rely on the record. It takes months and years of research to construct a bibliography showing support for contended facts which form the basis for conclusions, called "ideas."

Now, we can create the bibliography on the fly, and access only the part of the record that is needed for a particular thing. That seems to be the way the mind works, except it gets "confused". With automation, we eliminate most, but not all, of this confusion. That is a major step.

Rod.




Date: 01/08 9:07 AM

To:     BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM DISCOVERING AND UNDERSTANDING

Bill,

The difference between conversation and writing is interesting. People generally prefer to talk for a lot of reasons, but it tends to be discursive.

Talk is excellent to develop issues and paths to conclusions, but writing seems the better mode to test and finalize, actually what I call create, "understanding." My view is that if I cannot write it out, I don't understand it. Not that writing guarentees understanding, but rather it is more likely to disclose gaps, that mere pondering or talking overlook.

Rod





DATE: 01/08 2:32 PM

To:     DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Dave, re your question on "...capture the 'enterprise' work flow against the individual or team activities." The trick is to let each person perform their work with maximum information support from their prior work, while inherently making it possible to look at wider levels, as needed. Controlled visibility includes stepping up the hierarchy of an organic subject structure.

Rod.




TIME: 01/13/93 2:32 PM

To:     ERLENE STEWART (DHCT26A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Erlene,

I guess that is my main point: what is "brillance," i.e. intelligence?

Is it static, we have only so much, or can it be enhanced, so there is the potential to lift the level of everyone's (or at least a lot of people's) capability, similar to using a truck to carry the groceries home. Someone who is strong and fast can typically carry more groceries, but a truck helps everyone carry a lot more.

Does the computer when properly configured have a similar effect on the ability to analyse by drawing out of us an awareness of more implications and correlations (part of the "brilliance" issue), than we otherwise think of?

If I write down what I recall someone said, it makes me focus on it because it exists in my brain linked to a lot of other stuff. It resides in another's brain in an entirely different context, or experience matrix. Writing creates a synergy between mind, hands and eye, similar to a piano player's synergy between mind, hands and ear, that enhances what was otherwise there, absent the writing process. Perhaps using both hands in coordination on a keyboard, enhances the process relative to writing long hand.

Automated editing tools further enhance the process relative to using a type- writer. Suppose, then, if our writing environment is linked to prior related events and other writings with varying degrees of relatedness to our current topic, that prompt us about the context of our current considerations, would this by definition improve our "brilliance" --- would we be carrying more groceries faster, by virtue of a machine?


Rod





DATE: 01/13/93 5:37 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   TIMOTHY JOHNSON (JXRF80A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

The one aspect of your analogy to the truck carrying the groceries that also comes into play both for the driver of the truck and the operator of the computer,is skill level. (or new skill levels). Although technology has the same effect as the truck, the skill to maneuver the technology is greater than the individual negotiating a walk home with the groceries.

When the technology actually becomes useable by the unskilled, then we will have a quantum leap in individual performance. (something along the lines of true voice recognition with "hypertext")

For those who have mastered the skill level required today, the computer is a boon to repetative tasks but still is lacking in creativity. I, for one, would be back in the "dark (pre-computer) ages" if I could not use my trusty 386!

Tim





DATE: 01/13 9:02 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   J THUNDERWOOD (WFRD00D)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Dear Rod,

I really enjoy reading your viewpoints and would like to learn more about the program you have developed.

Since I write training courses for business, I was especially interested in your theory of how writing relates to management. And your comment about knowing that you don't truly understand something if you can't write about it reminded me of something I used to tell people a lot when I was in publishing-- the key to being a good writer isn't the ability to put words on paper. After all, most of us learn how to do that when we're in grade school.

The key to being a good writer is to be a good thinker, and that's a far more rare commodity. Talk to me about your program. I'd like to learn more. Take care and happy writing!

Janet





DATE: 01/13 9:02 AM

To:     TIMOTHY JOHNSON (JXRF80A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Tim,

A couple of points on skill level. Better voice recognition will definitely be handy. I wonder though if there is not some innate advantage about the interplay between using our hands to craft ideas via a keyboard, and, say an artist shaping a sculture, or a new melody emerging from a piano through reinforcement between mind and hand?

Next, if it turns out there is a very significant advantage to automated writing with present technology, then the cost/benefit equation augurs toward people making a slight improvement in skill, in order to gain a big benefit, like changing from using a tractor to plow the field instead of horses, which I am told my grandfather, along with many others of his day, refused to do. So, the skill level issue, seems more a matter of truly understanding the benefits, than waiting for further technological breakthroughs.

On, "hypertext," a much stronger capability is needed.


Rod



DATE: 01/15 8:07 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

Our minds use their paradigms to assimilate information. As they filter the incoming stream of information, the individual paradigms seem to reject what they deem to be extranious data in order to perform model fitting; ie, they like to agree with themselves. If this is true, it explains why it is often hard for a person to "see" inconsistancies that may be quite obvious to somebody else. This notion, if true, would seem to justify the value of the "outside" opinion - the consultant or facilitator. That "objective" person can "see" and point out issues that the "owners" cannot.

Paradigms seem to be built slowly as accumulations of layers of repeated experience. They are similarly resistant to change because you have to break through those layers. That usually requires a peeling away rather than an invasion by a blunt instrument. I don't really want to debate this ad nausium; it's only one way to look at it.

Dave




DATE: 01/15 8:07 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

Please define "organic subject structure".

Dave





DATE: 01/09 9:02 AM

To:     DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITING DEVELOPS ORGANIC SUBJECT STRUCTURE

Dave,

I agree with your point about the value of "outside consultants."

The "subjects" in Prodigy are moderately "organic" in enabling Users to step through a "structure" someone at Prodigy has figured out. This means there is a recognizable organization among all the parts, similar to the way life is organized by elements of succeeding detail from say the cell to organs, skin, arteries, hands, eyes, etc.

We can break the whole down in different ways depending upon our line of inquiry, so we can analyse our experiences according to where they fit in a structure, also, called "context." There is always a larger class, and we can always break things down if, and when, necessary.

This is the great strength of the human mind. It does this automatically, striving to roll up detail into summaries suitable for decision making. We call it "perspective", or looking at things at the right level of detail.

Unfortunately the mind commingles details over time. We call it getting "confused."

By emulating the process of creating and tracking organic subject structure, and hardwiring command of details, automation leverages these innate traits, so we can examine the perspective we decide is best suited for a particular situation, and then look at lower details, if we choose, because they do not fade or get "confused" with the passage of time. Like the mind, each detail has links to related "stuff," so we can step further and further into the details, as we deem necessary. When we can control the details in this way, rather than depend on emotional currents within the mind to unlock them, there is a better chance of making correct decision.

That is the notion of "organic subject structure."

Rod





DATE: 01/09 8:24 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

Continuing on the oral vs. written line ... perhaps that is why I see very little 'understanding' resulting from most radio and TV products. Even those that are sincere, quality efforts seem to fall flat or at least lose their umph.

Someone once told me that if you want to win a debate (probably Miss Funck my HS speech teacher), you have to develop your research and arguments in writing?

Remember all those 3x5 cards?

If I remember correctly, extemporaneous speaking was to be used for casual topics and entertainment. Writing seems to open up neural paths that I didn't know existed. Perhaps a bit like going through the Windows File Manager once a month and seeing what strange things have turned up in all of the sub-director- ies. It also reminds me of sitting and watching the Quicken utility unscramble my hard drives. For some reason I get hypnotized by the little blue and yellow boxes jumping around ... maybe there is a psytronic link???

Bill .. WA .. 1530 .. 1/9






DATE: 01/10/93 9:34 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   L C NAGY (DDXP60B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

This is one of the most interesting and elevated conversations I've seen on this board (or anywhere!)

There are a couple of things that come to mind that I want to hurry up and key in before I forget (or get confused...) Regarding the question of brilliance, which I'll assume basically means intelligence: One of the most interesting statements I ever ran across on that subject was from a speaker addressing a group of missionaries who were graduating from their training class and getting their assignments. He told them that intelligence is highly overrated. Good thinking ability is much more important and anybody can develop their thinking ability.

Secondly, regarding analyzing the written word versus the spoken word: For a couple of months I downloaded virtually everything from a couple of subject lines on the old board. I was intrigued by what I could figure out about the various writers by going back and reading some of their postings after several weeks had gone by. I guess it is the equivalent of a "freeze frame."

People tell things about themselves that they never realize. In spoken conversation, I'm not likely to catch much of the intuitive stuff. But, put it on the computer screen and let me "listen" to it again, later, and then see how I pay attention.

That reminds me of something amuzing that is almost totally unrelated. A friend of mine who speaks four languages (English being about the fourth) told me in her charming accent that her grandson said that her "Pay attention" isn't always working right these days.

It is obviously getting late.

Collette






DATE: 01/10/93 9:35 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   MORRIS JONES (TBDG68A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

I think different people learn in different ways. Some learn by writing, some by seeing, some by doing. Each of us is a little different. I agree that teaching causes us to emerse ourselves in a subject. Only by simplifying and organizing can we teach someone effectivly.

I think someone once said when you truely understand something if it becomes very simple indeed. Taking the time to let something become simple is different for each of us. For some, writing enforces the discipline. For others, pure mental meditation helps.

The bottom line is that focus and time spent reinforce an idea until it becomes "SIMPLE" to us.


Morris






DATE: 01/10 9:35 AM

To:     BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITING ORGANIZATION WITH 3 X 5 CARDS

Bill,

What do think the effect would be of automating the 3x5 card method of identifying and retrieving your knowledge and ideas, as you mentioned was used for debating. Do you ever recall starting out looking in the index for one idea, and being prompted by another card to investigate a different subject that turned to out to be very helpful.

Suppose you could add subjects and apply them to free form narrative at will, by merely pressing a button, instead of having to write out a new card and put it in the correct place. You didn't have to worry about ledgiblity, durability or mis-filing?

Since writing is inherently organic, comprised of small elements assembled in different ways to explain the whole of existence, being able to automate the 3x5 card practice that is the control mechanism for writing, should help people think, remember and communicate a little better.


Rod






DATE: 01/10 9:35 AM

To:     J THUNDERWOOD (WFRD00D)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Janet,

I tried to set out in the parent note how writing can help everyone, including managers, "discover" nuance and implications by capturing the record of their work. Automated writing, properly applied, lifts our ability to think, remember and communicate. Since managers are supposedly the "brains" of the outfit, then improving their ability to write more and retrieve it faster when needed, should improve their performance. They will make fewer mistakes and generate more useful ideas.

Another more subtle advantage of more writing in the work place is to overcome the reticence and fear endemic to hierarchies.

Most of us are bosses AND subordinates. Social pressure and hubris inhibit effective verbal exchange between management levels. Try as we might, when we give an order (suggestion, request, take your pick), there is a tendancy to carry it out rather than question its efficacy.

Of course there are exceptions. Good" managers encourage questions. This however is a conscious undertaking at war with both parties in an exchange involving hierarchy, which is the case for most critical decisions. Writing gives executives a chance to discover for themselves what was otherwise hidden by the ettiquete of organizational structure.

If you are the boss and write out after the fact a diary of important discussions, (which is about 90% of executive activity), you give yourself a chance to discover what your staff assumed you knew, or felt constrained not to point out. If we can devise an automated writing environment that lets us write more and connect it to related chronology, writing can significantly improve "management."

The whole point of this dialog is that writing is generally viewed as a means to tell others what we "know" or what to "do" and it may turn out that its more powerful function is to discover "understanding," and in the process to provide a resource that we and others can use again and again without wearing out. That is what professional writers do. Can computers help everyone do the same?

Rod






DATE: 01/10 2:32 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   DIANNE MARICLE (JRWX96B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Hi Rod,

My husband is jealous that I was e-mailed by you!

BTY, what does POIMS refer to?

In response to the "ah-ha" of writing with a computer, I think that realization came upon me gradually. I don't fancy myself a "writer" though I do write instructional materials and occasionally keep a diary. I don't write articles, short stories and poems anymore.

Naturally, the computer is a perfect learning tool. I've found the best way to learn a new software is to record the sequence of steps as I learn them, then present the written info in a logical way.

It's when I'm low on self-esteem or high on self-doubt that I write furiously in Wordperfect. It's more satisfying that using paper. In fact, my first marriage was in a great deal of trouble and I was afraid to face my husband with certain issues. So I wrote them in a diary and put it in a drawer. Of course, he found it and that was the beginning of the end. The power of the written word! Thank goodness.

I don't know about others, but I find that the best writing is very personal and very revealing. And I'm just a little afraid to put myself out there. I love it when others reveal themselves. It takes courage.

Dianne






DATE: 01/10 3:17 PM

To:     MORRIS JONES (TBDG68A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Morris,

Re learning by writing, seeing, and doing; what if we write about what we see, what we do, what we hear, what we think about it?

Is it possible that forcing the mind to construct a statement that we "understand" might enhance the learning process? Suppose then we make it possible to link up what we write about today with what we saw, heard, and did yesterday, and on previous occassions. Might not the process of just considering these associations and examining what we wrote previously, alert us to subtle possibilities that would be otherwise overlooked but for this additional process? Isn't there a natural and inevitable reinforcement of whatever the mind is doing otherwise?

Suppose these linkages, then let us instantly step back to the particular reasoning and facts that pertain to current endeavors and considerations. Why would this not be helpful to anyone, the same way everyone writes down a phone number to remember it? Just a thought.

Rod.





DATE: 01/10 9:54 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   ERLENE STEWART (DHCT26A)

SUBJECT: Writing to Remember, Avoding Having to Remember

Rod -

Have to get my 2 cents in here - People don't write phone numbers to remember them, they write phone numbers to be able to forget them. There is a difference. Phone #s are written in books, lists, etc. so that they don't HAVE to be remembered. They can be looked up when needed. Therefore, they're written to enable the writer to forget them without losing them. Right?

Conversely, I write grocery lists to REMEMBER them. Once I have a list written, doesn't matter how many items, 2 or 20, I can leave the list at home, go to the store, and buy everything on the list. However, if I don't write it down, I don't remember it - it just does not compute.

That's about 2 cents worth!

ES 1/10 8:15p CST






DATE: 01/12 8:39 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

SUBJECT: 3 x 5 Card System, Organization

Rod,

No argument from me about automating the 3x5 card system.

Sorting could be a problem, at least from my limited understanding of DB systems. I used a very simple alphabetized subject DB for work and school and plan to crank it back up for some new work. My problem is volume and getting sidetracked, like cleaning out a closet and finding old books, pictures etc. then wandering off in to mental never never land.

Old Marshal McLuhan would love this discussion.

Bill .. WA .. 2145pst .. 1/11






DATE: 01/12 8:39 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

It might be useful to the technical writer or manager but I think it could have a negative effect on the creative process associated with fiction. I realize you are referring to pragmatic management issues but still wanted to blow this by you.

Bill .. WA .. 2150 .. 1/11







DATE: 01/12 8:39 AM

To:     ERLENE STEWART (DHCT26A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Erlene,

In my experience, writing something like you set out explaining "remembering," will enable you to remember that idea better, than if you do not write it out.

The struggle to assemble the words according to the rules of grammar into a coherent statement that makes sense to you, helps you "remember" the thing in the near term. Once having written it out, if it thereafter exists in a data base that lets you get it back when you want it, or automatically bump into it when you consider related ideas, another form of remembering that uses automation, rather than personal recall. It then becomes a powerful resource you can draw on when the matter arises again.

Unlike personal recall, every time you ask for this narrative, it comes up exactly as you constructed it, where you can evaluate the reasoning and context in light of interceding events. As you point out, writing stuff down in this way relieves us of the burden to remember in the classical sense, even as it sharpens near term memory. But the biggest advantages are in freeing up our mind to concentrate on what it does best, to evaluate, compare and select the best choice, i.e. exercise judgement, and it enables us to recycle our know- ledge and ideas accurately and quickly.

For thousands of years, accuracy and speed have been antithetical. The faster we work, the more chance of making an error. Automation properly applied changes the equation, so we can work both quickly and accurately.


Rod.






DATE: 01/13 9:16 AM

To:     BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: Automated Subjects

Bill,

You could be right about the application of an automated subject identification system, to writing fiction. My initial sense is that if we emulate the mental process of combining hierachial with relational methods, it should be able to help a variety of information organization needs. Guess we would have to try it to find out.

Rod.






DATE: 01/16 8:04 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   ANDY JOHNSON (VVSG35B)

SUBJECT: WRITING IMPROVES DIALOG THAT WANDERS OFF SUBJECT

Rod

Your insight is common, in the old style of teaching. Instructors taught the student to flesh out their classroom notes shortly afterward. This writing expression fixes the understanding.

As you may have noticed, many people operate on the "How-do-I-Know-What-I-Mean, 'Til-I-Hear-What-I-Say" plan. That is: we actually do not know what we know until we express it. We have loose floating ideas and concepts that we are constantly associating with our past, plus our desires. When we write them down, they coalesce.

The other dynamic your meeting scenario presents is a common desire of one person to have the other shut-up so they can make their point. Much communica- tion is lost as one party has mis-heard, or anticipates the message in error and leaps to defense.

Your point about the computer's role is interesting, but I suspect that our ancestors kept daily diaries for the same reasons. The computer is mainly a tool that allows us to write endless streams of words without thought. Unfor- tunately!

I find most productive communication occurs when the parties have a clearly defined common goal. When the goal is not clear, communications become fuzzy and indistinct. I also note that some people fuzz things up as a method of keeping control over the group...

Regards,

...Andy






DATE: 01/17 2:43 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   JANET NEUREN (PVBC44A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

Just a note to say I've checked through the notes. I'm not quite certain that I understand the initial objective of the thread. I'll offer the following comments:

  1. The difference between dialogue and written communication lies in organization and in permance.

  2. We seem to be patterned by our vision in our need to organize data. No other animal organizes data which may be the whole basis of human memory.

  3. Fictional writing depends on a completely different system of organization than expository writing.

  4. The timing of events in a chain may NOT be critical.

  5. Part of organization is exclusion, not just inclusion.

  6. All writing depends on the ability to organize.

  7. Organization requires the ability to see differences and similarities, a talent which is tested on IQ tests and is accepted as higher order functioning.

  8. One might ask what is the effect in the broad movement of western civilization from a primarily oral society to a primarily literate society?

  9. Computers are programed to group according to programmed systems of similarities and differences. What happens when the input does fit?

    I think I'll stop for now.

Janet






DATE: 01/17 9:50 PM

To:     ALL

From:   SHEILA SAMSON (KBCW76C)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Greetings, all! I just came off of working on a 300+ page book, editing and designing, and am questioning my sanity by unwinding via MORE time on the computer. I guess I'm addicted.

I was picking up on some of the chatter amongst the group about the advantages of writing (or "sculpting," as some pharased it--how appropriate!) on the computer as opposed to more archaic methods (typewriter, notepad, etc.). The whole conversation took me back to a conversation with a former employer who thought, since I was a "keyboard" person, that I just wasn't as creative as he!

I explained to him that the advantage of working via computer was that the thoughts go on line almost as fast as the brain can put them out (I'm fairly fast with the key strokes), besides which, one isn't plagued with cross outs and looking back after a few days and trying to figure out what it was you wrote because you can't read your own writing. At which point, he commented that that was not an efficient way to be creative, because by progressing with pen and paper you could see where you started and how far you've come. Mind you, this man could find NOTHING in his office due to the mountains of paper and c--p that overwhelmed every square inch of the place (I gave him a "priority" project once, and after 3 months he still hadn't looked at it-- couldn't find it!). Anyway, I pointed out to the moronoid that I considered his method a total waste of time, energy, resources and trees. BTW, does it go without saying that I no longer work for him?

Ironic, isn't it, that I now earn my living, freelance, by being proficient on the cold, hard, hi-tech, unartistic keyboard? Does anyone else have similar war stories? I would appreciate hearing them, because in the time I worked for that individual I began to question whether I was competent or not! Or sane!

It's good to see posts from the Annes, et al. I've been away from the boards so much in the past couple of months I wasn't sure if anyone would still be around. BTW, does anyone know what happened to the indexing gang? They were a pretty lively bunch, too.

Incidentally, to Dave Helmold: I might actually have a bit of time for a life in the coming weeks; maybe we can meet and compare notes sometime? I know you're in the book, so we'll see ...

Keep on postin' and I'll keep readin', gang. I'm going to leaf through a few more notes on the BB here, and then catch up on that rare commodity--sleep!

Later!

Sheila in central Indy







DATE: 01/17/1993

To:     KBCW76C

From:   ROD WELCH

SUBJECT: Automted Integration to Manage Context

Sheila,

It is interesting how people who have never tried something and so have no experience with it are so sure it is less effective than the tools they have been using for 30 years.

There is so much more to automated thinking than mere wordprocessing. Thinking means connecting related context and drawing on it when needed. This means integrating DB with WP. Then we integrate this powerful writing tool, with Time (past, present and future ) and finally with Contacts and Documents to create an operating system for all knowledge and ideas. Imagine what DaVinchi could sculpt with such a tool?

Rod






DATE: 01/17 7:52 PM

To:     ANDY JOHNSON (VVSG35B)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: Context, New Methods Need Experience Alphabet Required 1000s of Years

Andy,

Thanks for your observations. Effective communication can occur that would otherwise be no more than fuz, when the content is written up with instant access to prior related events and formal documents, which together comprise "context." Though very limited in availability, when computers are used to link our knowledge and ideas to provide instant access, there seems to be a significant improvement in "understanding" seemingly disparate events and ideas. Of course absent experience with this power, it is difficult to accept its viability, in the same way those who were told thousands of years ago that they could think, remember and communicate better by using 26 strange looking symbols. Now we know the alphabet is a very powerful human tool. How many thousands of years did it take to become accepted through public education?

Rod






TIME: 01/18 8:58 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   ANDY JOHNSON (VVSG35B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod

The ancients were preserving information for the future. What you see has not been experienced by many, as they are all broadcasting and responding to situations as presented.

All too often, we see different things when reading memos of yester-years. Why, because at the time we were involved and had a very different perepective. Latterly we are no longer involved and can appreciate the wisdom that was offered.

Hard to do that at the time we are acting.

The problem is not with the information, but with controlling our interests, and being clear about our motives as well as those about us. The information usually conforms to the motives and agendas, although not always obvious at the time.

Regards, ...Andy







DATE: 01/18 8:58 AM

To:     JANET NEUREN (PVBC44A)

From:   DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Janet,

That human organization, to which you speak, is so complex that it almost defies defination in verbal (or written) terms. We can use adjectives to allude to the nature of paradigms but we have yet to describe them in the way that someone might define a "data base" using some form(s) of organization.

A very simple example of an organization that gets at the nature of what I'm trying to describe is the way many of us remember phone numbers. Since the proliferation of the "Touch-Tone" pad, we tend to 'remember/organize' a number by its pattern rather than forcing some rote memorization exercize. (The rotery dial did not help us reenforce a pattern.)

Were we to compare our paradigms of something like "love", I doubt that we would 'see' the same paradigm concept/organization in our respective minds if we could examine them under a microscope; however, we might write or describe it in similar terms.

When we go to add, change or delete a paradigm, we seem to nurture it relation- ally and in fact data bases so constructed allow us to examine data in a similar way. I haven't seen where we have defined the frequencey of repetition or the statistical weighting that individuals give to the process and I suspect that we each have our own, especially as we each have our own experiences that have gone into building them in the first place.

I find these things very interesting but I can't afford to dedicate myself to pure research so I read a little and I just spent my nickle on a weeks worth.


Indiana Dave






DATE: 01/18/1993

To:     David Helmold (MJFS95A)

From:   Rod Welch (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

David,

I am curious about the notion that we cannot define the organization of human activity. That seems to me the thrust of Western Civilization. It seems likely there is a supple organizing process underway in the sub-conscious, which we constantly struggle to apply in dealing with our awareness of the world.

This requires a view that is both hierarchical and relational, as well as supple automated tools to emulate what the mind does quickly, apply it, and decide on the most promising definition. Absent automated tools this is almost impossible, or at least is a very large effort. See for example Byte April 1991, p. 193 explaining the challenges of Subject Indexing for information retrieval. Christopher Locke points out the challenge of indentifying general information which has differrent meanings in different situations. This is another form of your point about the different meanings of a body of information over time.

In my experience, most of the time a body of information will arise in a different context from the perspective originally held in capturing the record. One day we are considering the adequacy of a design and the need to waive a requirement, in order to benefit from cheaper materials or more efficient production methods, that are claimed to produce a better result. Six weeks later, however the same body of information is needed in connection with evaluating a Schedule change. How do we know to look under "Design of Widgits" for information about "Schedule Delays?"

Experienced people are part of the answer, but even they encounter this difficulty. Another answer is a flexible tool to assign multiple subjects quickly to free form narrative, which might be called "electronic cross filing." That still requires prospective knowledge, but in many settings it is a major impromvement by empowering the knowledge worker, the executive, with the ability to "file" by mere volition. Another tool is an automated environment that assigns a variety of "hooks" that enable us to step into the subject through hierarchy and/or relations to other stuff, the way I found the cite to the Byte article through an organic subject structure.

Rod.





DATE: 01/18 8:58 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   CAROL STEPHENS (DWGW36C)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

I wonder if you're acquainted with

Writing to Learn William Zinsser Harper Row, 1988

The main premise of the book is that "Writing is how we think our way into a subject and make it our own. Writing enables us to find out what we know-and what we don't know-about whatever we're trying to learn".

He doesn't talk about taking bits of information from various sources, accessing previous discussions and building hierarchies as you have or about the use to which computers could be put, but it is an entertaining look at various forms of writing in different subject areas and also talks a little about how these ideas are being used in colleges.

Carol (from Rand Boards)






DATE: 01/18 5:59 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

You may have 'piqued' your curiousity in error "about the notion that we cannot define the organization of human activity." What I said was that it "ALMOST defies definition."

I would agree, at least at this point in time, that said 'organization' probably lies between structuring rules used for the Relational, the Hierarchical and anything else that works. [When hierarchies become cumbersome or break down, we tend to build secondary indices to resolve the inadaquacy of the original structure(s).]

As I said, I find the study of these things quite interesting but I am forced by economic necessity to find application of them without undue amounts of time devoted to personal exploration and additional definition. I tend to ride the pony I can travel with today; however, I allow for alteration room, to the extent I can, so I can switch horses tomorrow should that make sense. This helps me personally so that I don't get buried in analysis and fail to reach useful conclusions, or at a minimum - meaningful beginings...

Indiana Dave







DATE: 01/19 3:30 PM

To:     ANDY JOHNSON (VVSG35B)

From:   CARLOS LAVASTIDA (VPMJ14A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Andy and Rod,

One of the things I have found in many years of consulting, is that most business problems arise from confusion as a result of too much information that is irrelevant to the problem.

As a systems designer, I would estimate that more than 75% of my work consists of listening to users and discussing their perceptions of the work at hand. In most cases, the actual function under consideration becomes simplified - one of my goals in design - and my job becomes more of training management in under- standing the changes which will come about and formulating strategies to deal with the changes in the work habits of the firm. In my work, this is the key time requirement - sometimes it can be years before the organization implements the required changes, and that situation must be included in the design.

Again, I feel that most of my best work is one of re-educating users to see their work as highly rational, but out of synch with the technology required to succeed. In the last few years this has become more difficult since a lot of technical upgrades translate to staffing reductions; this requires an even greater awareness on the part of the organization managers who find themselves doing work that they expected their staffs to do. Over the last few years this tendency has accelerated and I expect it to continue for the future.

One interesting development is the present difficulty in integrating these new users into a team with clear objectives, they usually do not recognize the work required and have a tendency to become isolated in their own newly found com- puter expertise. Lately the move towards administrative centralization of data bases attempts to perform the integration by "virtual force"; as an environ- mental objective I firmly back this approach, but as a functional objective, it seems to diverge from the distributed processing strategy currently under way.

By the way, one of the problems with distributed processing is the explosion in information it creates. This is in some ways aggravating the confusion already existing. The user becomes by his use of information the defining element in what the business does, rather than follow a job description.

Carlos.







DATE: 01/20 9:09 AM

To:     CARLOS LAVASTIDA (VPMJ14A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Carlos,

Thanks for explaining DP development practices in supporting management. This dialog is on using automation to think, remember and communicate better through writing and linking our knowledge and ideas within a database so people can sharpen understanding and retrieve what they need instantly. It integrates Time, Information, Contacts and Document management. Thus, the idea is simple but the environment is complex, to embrace and leverage the complexity and suppleness of mental activity.

The explanation you gave of helping managers understand their craft in order to apply new methods, certainly applies to automated thinking. Becoming aware of mental tasks we perform inherently, if inconsistently, is daunting because it seems to challenge important personal perceptions. People believe they know what is going on because that is a primal precept of survival. To suggest they can do better, is seen by some as an attack on their ability or their dedication. Others simply cannot accept their innate capacity can be improved, or are fearful they will be unable to compete with new methods. Therefore, as with most seminal advances, improvement has to be experienced, and where the lead time is extended, the impatience of hubris becomes a controlling factor.

Rod







DATE: 01/19 9:17 PM

To:     DAVID HELMOLD (MJFS95A)

From:   TIMOTHY JOHNSON (JXRF80A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Dave, Rod, Andy, Janet,

I find that following this discussion has proven insightful and also tends to leave me with a new respect for the depths being plumbed by all observations. I feel as if I am standing off to the side of the water cooler wondering what was in the water to begin such ethereal romp through the analytical process. (crumpling my cup and back to work)

Tim







DATE: 01/19 6:04 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   CAROL STEPHENS (DWGW36C)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

I am an amateur in one area (education), a dilitante in another (writing) and illiterate in the other (computing). Can I be of any help?

Carol






DATE: 01/21 1:01 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   CARLOS LAVASTIDA (VPMJ14A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

I agree on the goal of integrating different information elements in descrip- tive or narrative mediums, writing being the most traditional. However, it seems to me that the advent of technology able to use multimedia puts an added burden of creativity on the user and the organization.

The most important element in the proper and productive use of these develop- ments in "writing" is the members of the organization. I know people whose job is to formulate policy that use inputs and reviews from many others on line in producing the actual documents outlining the policy (these are not writers and PR people, but line managers that have to communicate their sometimes very sophisticated points via an online data base - they may be dispersed over many locations in many countries). This necessity forces them to develop habits of information processing that addresses your issues.

It has been a steep learning curve for them, but it is the way they conduct business. One factor that could alleviate the initial inefficiency of communi- cating - and constructing - a team document (or whatever is the goal) is creating the environment in training classes for the products they use (whether Wordperfect, 1-2-3, Excell, or any mix of program products). For years train- ing workshops have included a hands on approach to learning; this approach must be expanded into the applications areas. I would expect that a lot of the classes offered by the technology companies have already incorporated this as a routine, however, we must continue to develop this approach to keep pace with the user jobs.

Carlos.







DATE: 01/22 6:21 PM

To:     CARLOS LAVASTIDA (VPMJ14A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Carlos,

You mentioned in a note on Jan 19, that most of your work consists of...

"...listening to users and discussing their perceptions of the work at hand. In most cases, the [work] becomes simplified... and my job becomes more of training management in understanding the changes..."

Can you share with us your experience in this regard where the "user" is an executive, like the say owner or CEO of a firm and he wishes to improve his work performance and that of his aids.

Just wondering now that the factory, accounting, design, and marketing departments have been automated, how many feel that management is now the weak link in the productivity chain, and that something meaningful can be done about it other than shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic through TQM, Quality Circles, getting angry, longer hours and other HMIs?

Rod






DATE: 01/23 2:26 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   CARLOS LAVASTIDA (VPMJ14A)

SUBJECT: Executive Management, CEOs

Rod,

There are of course many levels of CEO, corresponding to the size and type of the enterprise; my comments are geared towards the medium and large size company (in the small company the CEO must also be the senior information officer).

The incorporation of a technology or information officer is nothing new (I remember a discussion in the early 80s with McFarland on their need across industry - up to that point the conventional wisdom was that only financial firms and other information processing intensive firms. This development however (and the ubiquitous "information intensive" requirement for all modern firms) did not really address the CEO's individual need to be both a user of technology and a center of control; it was more like moving the information technology strategy from the accounting department to a wider company context.

When done correctly, the IO became the representative of the technical staff at the board level. This still leaves the CEO with mounds of information that must be translated, interpreted and assigned a value in terms of his own responsibility. I do not see how any person representing a constituency within the company can offer this service without jeopardizing the integrity of the CEO function.

It would be nice to say that there is a compelling force to distribute the CEO responsibility such that a more consensual environment obtains the integration, control, and focus that is the hallmark of the senior officer; this is wishful thinking and an obstacle to the matter at hand. I think that it is only by the redefinition of what constitues the CEO suite in functional terms that any organizational issue can be analysed and a solution implemented.

To me, the most critical issue is too much information (that includes the quality as well as the volume) reaching the senior excutive and little time to consolidate, weed out, discard and incorporate these data into a judgement. I believe that the inclusion of a professional dedicated to his information requirements can at least start the ball rolling and out of the experience a more critical solution can be formulated. Given the current requirement for CEOs to be senior PR men globetrotting, I doubt that they will seriously look into it.

Carlos.






DATE: 01/22 2:37 PM

To:     BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: Evolution of Alphabet Technology - Writing

Bill,

Not sure about your question "why?" In simplest terms people are a species who get by on their wits. Those of us only half prepared have to struggle along, but over time tools have evolved to help. Some of those tools include the alphabet, formal rules of grammar, writing skills and tools like pen and paper, printing press, and typwriter are advances in using our intellect through writing. Many feel the advance of civilization is primarily the result of these developments.

Now another development, automation, but more powerfully, personal automation (ask IBM), creates another opportunity to jump fundamental human potential to another level, at least that is the theme of this dialog. We are gathering and synthesizing diverse experiences to explore that idea. My sense is that integrating a range of tasks which the mind does automatically, with powerful writing/editing tools gets us there. If so, that seems helpful. What do you think?

Rod





DATE: 01/22 2:37 PM

To:     DARLENE BIESE (KMMX68E)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITING DEVELOPS USEFUL "INTELLIGENCE"

Darlene,

One of the central ideas of this dialog is doing a lot of writing. I realize this may be overboard, but each of us have a lot to write about, like: what to buy when shopping at the store? What are the criteria for purchasing? What did we see, Who did we meet; what did they say, what did we say? What do we think about it and how does it relate to prior events and understandings?

Again, I apologize for making a mechanistic response to a social query, but from the perspective of this dialog, I am just relating the experience that in doing this kind of writing, we tend to gather a lot of material that seems inoccuous, yet weeks or months later often turns out to yield interesting insights. We see patterns and directions which at the time were not apparent.

Of course it is helpful to use automated tools that aid the process of writing, identification and retrieval. But just the writing alone is a major step toward figuring out what to write about.

Rod.





DATE: 01/23 6:10 PM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   NEAL MCNAMARA (PSXG42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Andy, Rod, Carlos, et. al.,

Interesting discussion ... focusing by communicating rather than focussing to communicate.

The mention of a communication database struck me.

If I understand what you were discussing, it was in effect a bulletin board by which a discussion could be held. I am involved in two somewhat different communications data bases. One is a computer assisted software engineering tool, or CASE tool. With this program, a model is developed that details the design of the software being developed. Different people can be given permis- sions to change and develop different parts of the model, but everyone can see the whole model as it currently exists. The program also stores the previous versions, tracks who changed what when, and maintains a system-wide dictionary of terms.

The other "database" for communications is actually a markup language called SGML. Are any of you familiar with it? When a document is marked up, tags are applied to the various structural components of the text. Thus, a memo might contain tags for: TO, FROM, DATE, BODY, keywords within the body, etc. When properly applied, the language serves three functions: it allows the document to be read on different kinds of platforms (UNIX, Mac, PC) and into different applications on those programs;.... it can carry the corporate-wide "template" so that every memo writer uses a similar (or identical) structure;..... and it allows the resultant text (memos in this example) to be loaded into a database - you could ask for instance which memos did John Smith write to Joe Brown in 1992 that contained the keyword product X ?

As this type of program catches on, and becomes more transparent to the user, corporations will be able to use real writing in accessible archives. Today, most of the corporate archives I've seen have a very sharp division. There is "data" contained in traditional data base structures, and there is "informa- tion" buried in mountains of textual libraries.

I think that the past decade has glorified the "information analyst" at the cost of real communication. As we progress, the role of the writer, whose words remain accesible in the "system" should become pivotal to corporate sucess.

Any thoughts on this?

Regards,

Neal






DATE: 01/24 9:08 AM

To:     ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

From:   BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Rod,

I'm wondering whether your prized automated integration isn't going to create assembly line minds that are capable of little more than dribbling soup on their bibs. It's amazing how much more dog crap I find when my dog goes along for the walk. You are basically talking about rapid-comm and mega-library life. May be good but I'm skeptical.

Bill..WA







DATE: 01/25 9:03 AM

To:     BILL WOOD (GTFJ42B)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Bill,

Your skepticsm about the viability of automated integration of a range of personal management tasks is justified, given its lack of a track record.

I have worked with it in developing the ideas for about 10 years, and find it is the most promising of the many ways people try to improve upon manual systems. As with any new development, especially to fundamental capabilities, we have to experiment and test it to make a final judgement --- proof is in the pudding.

This dialog has considered one of the central practices that is automated and integrated, since it would seem that those who practice the craft, like you, are best positioned to review the practicality of the theory. I suspect that everyone is not well suited to the approach, yet the responses in this forum suggest many are.

Only experience will prove it, but short of that, we can explain the theory and see how it correlates with people who have experienced key parts without the integration. As well, many writers have good imaginations. They can reflect on a condition that does not exist, based on what they have experienced.

Professional writers seem ideally suited to consider the viability of a writing environment, say like this BB, in which each note could be linked to other notes, and subjects could be assigned so chronologies could be assembled at the touch of a key, and the user could step back to a related note with similar ease.

This could be described as integrating the writing of free form narrative with organizational tools like filing and citations, but which provide instantaneous access. Similarly we could cite any document outside the BB, and access it merely by pointing to it. Could this ability to create an automated network of related information, integrated with quick access, aid the process of writing and idea creation?

Rod.






DATE: 01/25 1:56 PM

To:     ALL

From:   DOROTHY HOFFMAN (HMGJ99A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Just a thought to stir the pot:

I thought that clarity, i.e., writing for understanding, was of prime importance. (The KISS principle in action.) After reading some of the notes under writers' forum, I wonder what happened to it??? The notes sound impressive, but what did they say???






DATE: 01/25 5:01 PM

To:     DOROTHY HOFFMAN (HMGJ99A)

From:   DONALD CARTER (JXNF55A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Don, Bothell, WA







DATE: 01/26 10:24 AM

To:     DOROTHY HOFFMAN (HMGJ99A)

From:   ROD WELCH (FJBH42A)

SUBJECT: WRITERS' FORUM

Dorothy,

Life is complex, so the human mind is inherently discriminatory, which means it roles up a lot of stuff into simple summaries so we can function routinely, and only give detailed consideration to situations that appear out of the ordinary. The KISS paradigm is great for getting a lot of people headed in one direction. In this forum we are talking to specialists about their specialty, and attempting to stretch the imagination of imaginative people, as explained in the dialog on Jan 7. Take a look, if you havn't already.


Headings

One of the things that has not been discussed so far is applying the practice used in journalism and legal briefing of telling the story with headings, so the reader can understand "what it is all about" without wading through miles of narrative. The narrative merely proves each major heading. This would help everyone on the BB, and in other settings, but it requires supple editing tools to create the headings which are not available on Prodigy. Most of the time the headings cannot be figured out until after the thing is completed. Prodigy is too cumbersome for that.


Subject Segmentation

This is another automated tool for making writing more useful. But it is not available in Prodigy, so we have not discussed it. However, it allows the user to pull portions of text pertaining to defined "subjects" in assembling a chronology, to see the pattern or evolution of events and idea development.

Alas, I feel troubled at having explained too much, in trying to share some developments on advancing the craft of writing, and eliciting the views of professionals on same. What do you think?

Rod






DATE: 01/26 2:07 PM

To:     DOROTHY HOFFMAN (HMGJ99A)

From:   ANNE RITCHEY (BSSD73A)

Subject:   WRITERS' FORUM

. . . Dot . . .

You've had the courage to ask what many of us have wondered privately: is the Emperor buck nekkid? If you'll notice, few of the professional writers who frequent WF have posted during this discussion.

In my case, it's because I couldn't figure out what it was about. I kept thinking maybe I should take the time to download the whole thing and really study it, but it did seem like the ultimate irony to have to puzzle over posts on the Writers' Forum.

I'm a fairly literal person, so maybe it's just a topic that I'll never "get." But thanks for letting me breathe a sigh of relief that I'm not the ONLY one who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

(Except I agree with the original observation that writing about something leads to better understanding of it.)

Anne