[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Icons for IBIS

Wholehearted endorsement of Jeff's posting, especially the statement: "I
also think that a lot of skill and practice goes into wording arguments so
that they are semantically clear and unambiguous. "    (01)

This is one of many skills that have been underrated/overlooked in this
area (like getting link semantics right, which is difficult for most peope
in practice).    (02)

To get this stuff to work right for groups of people, good listening, good
interpretation, good writing, good chunking, clear
structures/representations, etc. are all key -- and none can be determined
a priori (i.e. outside of the context of use). None of these are easy or
come for free or can be done through software in and of itself. That
doesn't lessen their value though, though it sure makes them harder to
teach and to transfer the skills quickly. They aren't things that can be
picked up in a couple of days, which violates what most people expect with
software tools.    (03)

Jeff Conklin <jeff.conklin@verizon.net>@bootstrap.org on 04/11/2002
04:02:00 PM    (04)

Please respond to ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org    (05)

Sent by:    owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org    (06)

To:    ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
cc:    (07)

Subject:    Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Icons for IBIS    (08)

Ten or 15 years ago I was really into capturing subtleties of argument
structure -- different weights, constraint relationships, etc.  Then I
tried to teach that stuff to business people who were trying to solve
complex problems -- even the ones who really understood the logic got it
mixed up (e.g. incorrect link semantics) in the press of sorting out a real
problem.  So I have a great appreciation for structures and interfaces that
are simple and intuitive -- the test being: can my clients use them while
making real decisions without getting all balled up in the logic.    (09)

One of the issues that has come up recently is about the structure of
rebuttal to arguments.  An awful lot of problem solving discussion centers
on groups evaluating the validity and relevance of arguments, which means
that there's a whole "sub-grammar" for debate about argument validity (as
opposed to pros and cons about options/alternatives/ideas).  My experience
with clients suggests that anything that is logically adequate will be
overkill in practice.    (010)

Anyway, I think that generally the sense of an argument (whether it's a pro
or con) is best treated as link semantics, with the node graphically
amplifying that semantics wherever it is unambiguous (as QuestMap
does).  However, I also think that a lot of skill and practice goes into
wording arguments so that they are semantically clear and unambiguous.  My
first impulse about transcluding arguments is not to do it -- restate the
argument in each context to be clear and compelling in that
context.  What's an example where you really need to transclude just the
argument, without the Question and Idea that it's a part of?    (011)

Jeff    (012)