Anti-Google: the Future of Social Networking

When a group moves from a problem to a solution in a complex space,
it almost always involves divergent reasoning.
This is because problems are rarely one-dimensional, so an exploratory
process must take place that defines terms and rearranges the problem

From an article on neuroscience and fundamentalism: (substitute "best content" for "solution." The "problem" is that I want to find the best media to consume for today)

Convergent reasoning involves an assembly of known information and results in a solution within the realm of what is already known. Most problem solving occurs this way. It is instilled, for example, in medical school students. If a physician sees a person in the emergency room that has a fever and is comatose, they are taught that there are two possible disorders that might give these signs: an infection or a heat stroke. If this patient is found to have a stiff neck, the physician considers the possibility that the patient’s fever and unconsciousness are related to an infection of the central nervous system, such as meningitis. To obtain further converging evidence the resident doctor may perform a spinal tap; if the analyzed spinal fluid reveals certain indicators there is now sufficient converging evidence to make a diagnosis of meningitis and to start antibiotic therapy.

Divergent reasoning, on the other hand, enables a person to arrive at a previously unknown solution (at least unknown to the person who is doing the reasoning). When a person is confronted with a problem and decides that the existing information is insufficient to develop a satisfactory solution, he or she may diverge from the information and imagine,or reason about, new possibilities. William James, who first put forth the concept of divergent reasoning, stated:

Instead of thoughts of concrete things patiently following one another in a beaten track of habitual suggestion, we have the most abrupt cross-cuts and transitions from one idea to another … unheard of combinations of elements, the subtlest associations of analogy … we seem suddenly introduced into a seething cauldron of ideas … where partnerships can be joined or loosened … treadmill routine is unknown and the unexpected is the only law.

The human capability for divergent reasoning results in a nearly limitless range of creative outcomes, from entirely personal to world changing. Surely humanity’s earliest innovations were life altering, as were the many that followed. ... But even more mundane activities, like resolving an unacceptable marital situation by seeking conduct on the part of one of the partners that was previously not considered, discovering a treatment solution for a heretofore incurable disease,creating a work of distinctive art, finding an alternative to war in a tense geopolitical situation, a chef’s creation of a new recipe, carefully arranging flowers in vase, or making up a bedtime story, are examples of creative acts resulting from the ability to diverge from current circumstances and consider or enact new possibilities.

Certainly, both convergent and divergent reasoning serve to enhance our well being. But it is an individual’s ability to diverge from what is familiar and move beyond the known into a new understanding which is the essence of creativity, and that which gives rise to advancement. In the words of Frank Zappa, “Without deviation from the norm, ‘progress’ is not possible.” ...

James and Zappa, together at last
I think James does vocals

What kinds of programs are we building? As programmers and extremely analytical people, aren't we always trying to narrow the focus of the material we are presenting our users? One of the suggestions to solve the voting crises was to make narrower and narrower groups. This seems logical. After all, perhaps social systems simply do not scale.

But we may be trying to beat a human brain into a boolean box. People don't wake up in the morning with a clear, precise idea of what they want to consume. Instead, there is a bit of exploration that goes on. In the past, editors have done this exploring for us and presented us with material that we might like. Today, we are going to have to be each other's editors, like it or not. But this presents us with a paradox: if we only consume the material in a group that each of us recommends material for the others, we're in an echo chamber. If we expose ourselves to a large enough group to get the best material, we don't have the time to consume and the signal-to-noise ratio is too low.

It may be that the precise material that will give me the best experience is not discovered by a convergent reasoning process, even though that's the way programmers think of solving problems. If I am interested in aviation, I am probably not studying to build my own airplane. That is, I am not looking for more and more authoritative and precise information about aviation until I reach some "fullness". Or if I am, once that fullness is reached, I'm done with the subject. More likely, I am interested in the things that people that like aviation are interested in. I'll hang out at the airport and absorb all kinds of information, from what planes have the greatest wing loading to what kinds of sports cars I can rent in the Grand Caymans.

But I don't spend all my time at the airport. There might be several small cliques like this that I spend time in each week. The time I spend varies depending on my mood. Over a period of weeks or months, the cliques vary as well. Last year I was interested in aviation. This year diving. Next year it might be politics.

Mingling at a large conference
Would you go to a conference that required you to list each
mingling group that you liked and to go back to the registration table to switch?
Then why are our web applications like this?
And where's the value, in the random mingling or the presentations?

I look at the internet like a large conference. Everywhere little groups of people are gathered together, mingling and talking about various topics. I wander about through the conference, listening to that group or the other. One group has a clear leader who is engaging and funny. Another group has a lively discussion where all participants are expected to jump in and fight for their opinions. Still another is simply sharing programming tips with a little bit of light humor on the side.

In the past, we have made a conscious decision to be part of various groups and to change groups. I'm afraid those days of explicit choices are behind us, and the more we try to force the user to make explicit choices, the more unhappy everybody is going to be. Let's be honest about what we're asking of the users. They walk into our conference hall (web site) and immediately they're supposed to pick which groups or clubs they want to associate with. Now how in the heck is the user supposed to know what to choose? Just pick a bunch of random things they've been associated with in the past? Their school? Their community? As if simply because it's called "Sacramento User's Group" that somehow it's going to have all of those things associated with living in Sacramento that I like? It's a crazy notion, yet we persist in it simply because we have no better solution.

FaceBook is hot now. It's obvious I like my friends, so how much better tuned and convergent could a site be than to allow me to get information on my friends?. But heck, I don't want all that stuff! I mean geesh, when I was 20 maybe I wanted to still feel like I was in High School, knowing whether Mary was happy or not or whether Bob got a new nose-ring. But in reality? In the real world? Mary can write me an email which I'll read when I have time. Bob doesn't bother to write anyway. I don't want to know what 500 of my "closest" friends are doing, thank you very much.

Everybody wants to own the conference hall, or restrict or control which groups are available, or set up some self-policing stay-on-topic system. Everybody wants to run the show. If only we could converge more on the appropriate topics and appropriate people with the appropriate look-and-feel, we think, our content quality would go up. Google is the ultimate convergent tool. It tells us exactly the most authoritative page for our query. FaceBook, MySpace, Digg, reddit -- they are all running the conference halls, setting up the groups, and indicating what should be important to us. They're trying to be "little googles": give us a set of topics, and we'll rate what's good for you. But google and Digg has been done, and Digg isn't working out as well as Google did. What we need now is an anti-Google: a system to guide us through the best groups for information and commentary we would like in a divergent way.

We keep building sites expecting the users to act and think convergently, while the best, most rewarding experiences in life are often divergent. So what media do you want to consume today?