Meta:

In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology means an individual’s knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it.

Thus here follows some “guidelines” about the tribal guidelines. Yes, there aren’t guidelines yet, other than those floating around in my head, but I’ll start sharing them this week.

Firstly, they are guidelines, not rules: I’m finding it very difficult to stick to them myself, but it’s the commitment to the principles that’s important to me.

Writing them out and explaining them will help me to stick to them, because they will be more clear in my mind when I’m done, but also because others can then hold me to my commitments. Anyone can point out to me where I fail, even if you’re not committed to the guidelines yourself. This will not be hypocritical precisely because it comes from my own commitments, not from you expecting of me what you’re not practicing yourself.

Furthermore, this “tribe” I’m now referring to is completely voluntary, by which I mean you’re still welcome to participate on this site even if you choose to shun the guidelines. In some ways, I’m defining a new tribe that is orthogonal to any tribe we already have.

In short, if the guidelines make sense to you, you can strive to keep them. Those that strive to keep them will be considered to be a part of the tribe of people that strive to keep the guidelines. Heh.

*Orthogonal: independent of, distinct. Just because you’re not in the guidelines-tribe, doesn’t mean you’re any less a part of this site’s tribe.

In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology means an individual’s knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it.

Thus here follows some “guidelines” about the community guidelines. Yes, there aren’t guidelines yet, other than those floating around in my head, but I’ll start sharing them this week.

Firstly, they are guidelines, not rules: I’m finding it very difficult to stick to them myself, but it’s the commitment to the principles that’s important to me.

Writing them out and explaining them will help me to stick to them, because they will be more clear in my mind when I’m done, but also because others can then hold me to my commitments. Anyone can point out to me where I fail, even if you’re not committed to the guidelines yourself. This will not be hypocritical precisely because it comes from my own commitments, not from you expecting of me what you’re not practicing yourself.

Furthermore, this “community” I’m now referring to is completely voluntary, by which I mean you’re still welcome to participate on this site even if you choose to shun the guidelines. In some ways, I’m defining a new community that is orthogonal to any community we already have.

In short, if the guidelines make sense to you, you can strive to keep them. Those that strive to keep them will be considered to be a part of the community of people that strive to keep the guidelines. Heh.

*Orthogonal: independent of, distinct. Just because you’re not in the guidelines-community, doesn’t mean you’re any less a part of this site’s community.

Usually I’m pretty good at ignoring the more violent comments, I’m thick-skinned enough. As are a number of my friends here. But with a target audience of people that have much softer “sensibilities”, often those that haven’t roughed it out on the internet or in e.g. academia, I find myself dragged into defending others too often. It could take as little as one reader becoming upset at a couple of rough comments to bring back my concern and remove my ability to ignore. One incident just over a month ago probably bears some blame for priming me to get embroiled in yet another epic battle. And I cannot afford to do battle like that, firstly because I have a full-time job now, but secondly because it doesn’t scale. And in my (conservative) dreams for the future, the interactions on this site need to scale up by at least… a factor of five to ten? (In my most optimistic – unrealistic – dreams, hundredfold!)

The longer-term solution I’m working on is “technological”, code to provide enough structure to the social interactions that they don’t always lead to a harsh battle between opposite extremes, between people that really don’t care about one another. But that will take some time, so in the meantime, I feel the need to jot down some guidelines.

Basic Commenting Principles

• At the moment, this website is first and foremost my website. I’m paying for hosting space with which to run this website. Currently, I’m the only one writing posts. Other people contribute comments. As commenter, you are just that: a contributor. I allow you to contribute to my posts, because I consider the contributions valuable in the context of my goals. That includes contributions which disagree with me. In my long term dreams: this site becomes the community’s website, where it is the community that is allowing people to contribute, because the community considers the contributions valuable in the context of the community’s goal.
• Every comment you write is communicating with other people. Other people. Bear in mind that every single person interacting with this blog, is a real human, with real emotions, real relationships in life, real struggles with all the things humans struggle with. You don’t walk up to a stranger in the street and suddenly attack him in debate, please don’t do that here. Try to get to know and understand people first. Naturally this site is a conversation already in progress, and newcomers joining in are, well, obviously joining in on that conversation. Do include them, but be friendly, and express your differences of opinion in a respectful manner, respectful of everything the person might be dealing with in real life.
• On the one hand, I refuse to bear responsibility for any comments below my posts: comments are contributed by readers, and really only represent the person making the comment. Judge not a community by a single commenter. This is the internet after all, freedom of speech, free flow of ideas, typically comes first. On the other hand, the first point above holds, and irrespective of whether I use it or not, I reserve the right to “unapprove” the most vitriolic comments from my website, which will shove them back in the moderation queue until the day I have a way to promote good comments above mean ones. That said, it currently remains more likely that I’ll add “editor’s notes” to the start or end of a comment instead of actually deleting it – I have enough curious readers that would like to read everything.

In short, I’d say the basic guiding principle is The Golden Rule, and that that ought to be enough, but people do need some reminding of the things they need to keep in mind. Appreciating other people’s context and needs, appreciating how best to help them personally, is certainly rather tough. How many years do psychologists typically study again?

Basic Goals of the Site

The aim of this site is not debate. The aim is not “reason and logic”. The aim is to relate. Actually, the title of this site refers to recovering from too much thinking at least as much as it refers to encouraging thinking. We certainly aim to encourage more thoughtfulness, to maybe spill over some of our excesses onto those in need, but the focus shouldn’t be on thought for thought’s sake: it should be thought for relationships’ sake.

I do believe relationships to be the only way things can scale, pay-it-forward style. Debate is between two people only, or maybe between a couple of people only: it turns the rest into spectators. Spectators do nothing but spectate (hyperbole). Sure, they may learn a thing or two, they might come out of it with some new insights, but they are not involved, their potential for making positive contributions is not fully utilised, they are not introduced to the power of their own voice, of their own creativity.

Debates remove power, destroy “energy”. Debates are too often about “knocking the other down”. We should aim to not create powerless people, rather aim to empower people. Why not harness “relational energy” and direct it towards good? (Blegh @ the “energy” word, but please understand what I’m referring to with it.)

Recommendations and Cooperation, defining “Trolls” in the context of this community

As mentioned above, I’d like the focus to be on developing some relationships. People that show no interest in being a valuable and cooperative member of the community, or no interest in understanding our interactions and raison d’être, are not contributors: I wouldn’t want to encourage them.

If at some point it becomes clear that certain topics of discussion go nowhere, with much frustration sowed all around, and many regulars in agreement: any person insisting on continuing the discussion could possibly be considered a troll. (Whether that is the case, is open to various interpretations.)

When you do come to the conclusion that someone is just trolling, always remember: Trolls should not be fed, they may become too comfortable around humans. If trolls learn they can get food from us, they will keep coming back, and become a danger to our embryonic community.

Can I encourage anyone with the inclination to do so, to cooperate in this effort? Please welcome newcomers, help them understand what this site is about, ask them to remain polite. Point them to this post. If they insist on remaining uncooperative, consider discouraging the existing community to not feed them, whether they’re technically trolling or not. In particular, also remind me, because I seem to be the worst transgressor. However, I do think I’ve burned my fingers enough times now that I will remember to not touch the stove in the future. Yay for mixing metaphors.

If anyone wants more speech-freedom than I provide on my site, go open a blog on WordPress.com. By linking to a post, a pingback should appear below my posts informing everyone of your post. I won’t delete pingbacks.

Some notes on my “trolling hypocrisy”

Yes, I certainly do troll with a number of my blog posts. I do hope to hook new eyes. But beyond that, I want things to turn into relationships, not debate. See the Goals above.

In the past, I had some intentional and pre-mediated “abuse-hurling” posts. In particular, I kinda attacked the one extreme. This is not because I’m against them, it was rather a deliberate act of trolling of some kind. I was trolling for vitriolic responses on the side of the “rationalists”, to gain some understanding of how future interactions might go. That was never meant to be the focus of this blog, but rather preparation for the future focus. I was trying to lay some foundations, learn to understand certain kinds of human interactions, in order to prepare for what likely lies ahead: I didn’t want to be side-tracked by unexpected chaos and derailments when the main drive of this blog starts running under full steam. If my “pre-mediated careful trolling” results in uncontrollable fights breaking out, there’s little hope for the Future Plans (TM), where things might be driven purely by emotion.

Was this foundation-laying “successful”? Well, it was primarily about learning, and I’ve learned a lot about what to expect: what can be done in certain interactions and what cannot be done. This knowledge and experience is invaluable. But beyond that, I’ve made a number of good friends, friends that come from that pole I was hurling some abuse at, but are nevertheless prepared to lend a helping hand, keen for friendly communication. I think we have all learned a lot.

Also do be aware that I’m also aware that many of the recommendations I put down in posts are directed at myself as well, not a case of directing them at other people to instruct everyone how to be more “like me”. This is very important, because if that weren’t the case, I would effectively be hypocritical around every second corner. Evidence of my flaws and transgressions of recommendations that appear in my own blog posts is littered all over this blog. It is in grappling with my own flaws that I come up with recommendations on a path forward, recommendations as much to myself as to others, which I then throw into a blog post and share with whoever feels like reading.

Sharing my ideals openly should also help keep me accountable. Call me on my flaws!

Coming Up

More suggestions on how to communicate in a friendly but open manner will be provided in an upcoming post. Depending on what you want to catch, you need different methods of trolling. Together, may we have many fruitful days of fishing! The goal: cross-cultural cooperation, open communication, mutual understanding, friendship, community.

Thoughts? Feedback? Questions? Recommendations? Agreements? Disagreements? After some discussion we could refine this post down to a more concise summary.

I’m going to let the abstract do most of the speaking:

Google Tech Talks, November 6, 2008

ABSTRACT

In the 1970s, essentially all of the educated population of Cambodia were murdered in the brutal regime of the Khmer Rouge. Cambodia today, despite its rich culture and stunning temples, remains a devastated country, suffering from poverty, lack of education, and corruption. The best hope for Cambodia lies in improved education and new leadership. To that end, Lightman and Smead have been working to empower a new generation of women leaders in Cambodia. (Studies by the U.N. and World Bank have repeatedly shown that the most effective method of helping third world countries is through education of its women.) The critical obstacle to higher education for women in Cambodia , remarkably enough, is housing. Universities in Cambodia do not provide housing for their students. Male students can live in the Buddhist temples but not females. Seizing upon this weak link in the chain, in 2006, Lightman and Smead’s nonprofit organization built the first dormitory for female college students in the country.

The Harpswell Foundation Dormitory and Leadership Center for College Women in Phnom Penh not only provides free room and board and medical coverage to its 36, carefully selected residents. The facility also gives them English and computer classes, leadership training, and critical discussions of national and international events. After two years of operations, these young women are at the tops of their classes at the 7 different universities they attend and are committed to leading their country into a new era of hope and transformation. In another two years, a new crop of 36 outstanding young women will enter the mentorship and cultivation of the Harpswell facility, and in ten years, we will have a powerful force of over a hundred women dedicated to revolutionizing their country. This is a story of how a small, highly-targeted nonprofit organization can potentially change an entire country.

In this illustrated lecture, Chenda Smead, who escaped Cambodia in 1979 at the age of 18, will describe her family’s experience living under the Khmer Rouge. Alan Lightman, founding director of the Harpswell Foundation, will discuss the work of the Foundation, the strategy of leadership training and maximum social impact for minimum investment, and the challenges facing modern Cambodia.

Speaker: Alan Lightman
A physicist and novelist, graduated from Princeton University and received a PhD in physics from the California Institute of Technology. Lightman has served on the faculties of Harvard and MIT, where he was the first person to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities. Lightmans novel Einsteins Dreams was an international bestseller, and his novel The Diagnosis was a finalist for the National Book Award. After a life-changing trip to Cambodia in 2003, Lightman founded the nonprofit organization The Harpswell Foundation, which has been working to empower a new generation of leaders in Cambodia.

Speaker: Chenda Smead
Chenda Smead is a Khmer Rouge genocide survivor who escaped Cambodia in 1979 as a refugee to the U.S. and later graduated from the University of Nebraska in Lincoln with degrees in computer science and mathematics.

She has helped build a school in Siem Reap and a Learning Center near Phnom Penh, as well as contributed significantly to the Harpswell Foundation Dormitory and Leadership Center for College Women in Phnom Penh. Ms. Smead is on the Board of Advisors of the Harpswell Foundation.

That “tech talk” is 50 minutes long — I have no illusions about how many people have time to watch all of it, so I thought I’d just highlight one thought.

17 minutes into the talk — to jump straight to the climax of his narrative of the horror:

There’s a long list of problems and sufferings that Cambodia has, and the last one I wanted to mention, after poverty, lack of education, landmines, no healthcare… is prostitution, which is a huge problem in Cambodia. 1 out of 40 girls is sold into prostitution, often sold by their parents to pay debts. The prostitution business is half a billion dollars, and you have to compare that to the total budget of the country, which is one billion. So the prostitution, which of course is all black market, is 50% of the total budget, and that’s why it’s very very hard to shut it down, because it’s too important to the economy. And I think that in the face of all of these terrible problems, that the only hope is education.

In a country, in a culture, where so much is in such a terrible state, making a maximal positive impact really does require in-depth research into the problem. After careful consideration and a thorough investigation, Alan Lightman identified an important link in the chain. It certainly requires a long term outlook, but there are no short term solutions.

With only $40,000 per year (I’m sure my notes are correct…), the Harpswell Foundation is housing, helping, and investing in 36 women at a time. If they study for four years (I’m not certain anymore, but this is the calculation I made that day), that’s on average 9 graduates per year, at less than $4500 per year. Now I’d be quite interested in somehow figuring out how many years it takes until that $4500 investment touches enough people’s lives to reach R10-per-head, but it can’t be quantified like that.

This is a real long-term investment that will make a real difference.

How to make that kind of difference?

A brief summary, the way I see it: make sure you really understand a problem. Connect with the people, walk the road with them, understand their greatest need. Identify the best place to invest. And then continue to walk a path with them, fostering beneficial relationships. Even if a government might be corrupt, it could be worthwhile staying in their good books and taking a cooperative angle, rather than fighting them directly, if the best possible contribution that can be made requires that you’re not constantly at war with authorities-with-too-much-power.

Much of human fighting and disconnectedness results from a lack of understanding of the Other’s perspectives. What one says, is not what the Other hears. Because we do not speak the same languages, even if we use the same vocabulary. What one word means to one group of people, is often something quite different from what it means to another. And this meaning? Is not always rational, is not dictionary definitions. Having the same definitions for words don’t lead to understanding. Because it isn’t words… It is feelings, it is emotional responses, it is the very sense of being. With a misunderstanding on that level, things can very quickly turn ugly.

Good communication requires empathy. It requires an understanding of the Other’s frame of reference, in order to understand what meaning the Other will attach to particular words or gestures. The meaning is found in the context of an entire Meh.

This post was not inspired by religion, it was inspired by something completely different, but it applies just as well: the meaning we attach to words, irrespective of our dictionary definitions, which we may agree on, can differ dramatically. In terms of “God”, what God means to the Believer, is not about the rational definitions, not about the words. So the battle is not about rational concepts, it is something touching deep inside. Abusing Tillich’s words, it touches your very Ground of Being.

Respect a person but disrespect their ideas? I’m sorry, sometimes people’s ideas are experienced as an essential part of them… I believe it shows a lack of understanding of humanity to think that disrespecting their ideas will not be experienced as a disrespect of their person. These things are too interwoven.

Through Elana Meyers foundation, JAG, www.songo.info is raising funds for the construction of a BMX track in the Stellenbosch Township through donors buying virtual kilometers of the 950 kilometers. These are to be ridden by current World Marathon Champion, Christoph Sauser and South Africa’s own golden boy, Burry Stander. The proposal includes the track, bikes, helmets, a storage container, clinics and maintenance.

The cost of one such kilometer is R1000.00 (currently just over $130)

• If you decide to make a donation of less than R1000.00, we would love to give you a write up on the blog (http://www.songo.info/)
• If you decide to by Kilometres, we would love to write on the blog about it as well as send you a virtual certificate showing the amount of kilometres you have purchased.
• If you donate R10 000.00 or more we will give you a limited edition, signed, UCI World Champion, Christoph Sauser riding top (Photographs attached-we only have a few).

Partner with songo.info and the JAG Foundation, in building the future, in building a world class BMX track for the children of the Kayamandi community.

Simply follow this link to the JAG Foundation website, fill in “Songo” in the reference block, and follow your track building contributions on the blog. Buy your kilometer now, buy your kilometer here.

Help us to virtually complete the 2008 route of the ABSA Cape Epic. For more information please visit www.songo.info

Regards
Ruth and Elana

Elana Meyer
elana@jagfoundation.com

Ruth Bird
songo.info@gmail.com

So now you have three courses of action to choose from: (a) go make a donation, (b) spread the word, especially to those that may be interested in this project, (c) discuss!

More photos of Kayamandi on flickr.

(Indicated on Google Maps below the fold.)

Video by Johan Swarts and Stephan. They say the stats are quite accurate, but are not based on outside research. “It is merely a projection”. Don’t quote them on it. (Slight squashing, 16:9 video displayed as 4:3 by YouTube.)

UPDATE: The Kayamandi stats are based on a report from a few years back, and adjusted for inflation. If Johan remembers correctly, that income is not per person, it is per “address”, per “house”. Now I wonder how many people live in each shack…

View Larger Map

Don’t pay any attention to this paragraph, unless you’re Johan, you run the risk of missing the point if you get too caught up in the irrelevant details. Johan: I’d guess it was a quick survey among students. Where did the Kayamandi stats come from? Who is included? Is it income per adult, or are children included?