Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« Anonymity as the default, and why digital ID should be a solution, not a platform || Back to Blog | Chilean interview with me »

August 17, 2006

Overclocked conversations

I'm not very happy with what I wrote yesterday about anonymity. I should have taken more time with it, but the conversation was moving so quickly that I felt I had to jump in.

There must be a mathematical way to express the Law of Conversational Overclocking: As the acceleration of conversation increases past the maximum speed of thought, the quality of conversation deteriorates.

In fact, isn't there a sweet spot, which varies by topic, medium, number of participants, and personality? Conversations improve as they approach a certain velocity, and then deteriorate rapidly, until they break the Unsound Barrier (where the laws of logic go through a singularity), at which point the conversation just is no more?

Posted by D. Weinberger at August 17, 2006 10:01 AM


Comments

Sometimes the converations move so fast you misspell a word in the title of your post.

Posted by: Britt Blaser | August 17, 2006 11:15 AM


It could have been much worse. I could have dropped the "l" from the first word.

(I fixed it. I'd written "converations." Thanks, Britt.)

Posted by: David Weinberger [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 17, 2006 11:35 AM


This is very pre-Cluetrainian of me and I apologize for the minor heresy, but not all interactivity and communication is conversational. Heck, not even all markets are conversations. (And I can defend that, but not now, not here - defense has to do with commodities...). Sometimes we have to attenuate our communication if we don't want to run into the unsound barrier.

I love your idea of a singularity at the Unsound Barrier: not a time when AI emerges, but rather a moment when everything becomes just as stupid as everything else. Forever.

Posted by: fp | August 17, 2006 12:20 PM


David,
I agree that this particular conversation got difficult. Comments-upon-comments-upon-responses-to-responses and all that--it starts feeling very strange and cluttered and incoherent. And then saying anything more becomes really difficult, as you're pointing out.
To which I'd add, just like in real life. We've all been in (sometimes incredibly interesting) conversations where staying in the flow first becomes difficult, then impossible.
In this case it's also relevant that we were all wrestling with a set of ideas around anonymity and pseudonymity that aren't fully formed for anyone. We are, roughly speaking, trying to map a tricky little discourse, and it don't come easy, as the song says.
And then there is what we might call the network effect, the online parameter of the conversation, as it were. For me it's the sense of calling into a large space and hearing echoes of your own and other voices coming back, delayed and distorted.
You know, we're just monkeys trying to work this shit. So thanks for hanging in there.

Posted by: Tom Maddox | August 19, 2006 01:04 PM


Tom, it's worse and better than in real life, and for just the same reason. Pre-Net I wouldn't have been able to hear what you, Eric, Kim, et al. think about anonymity, unless you got published. Now I can. But, as we agree, it's messy. I'm not complaining. What could be better?

Well, one thing could be better. It'd be nice if we had a way of visualizing these gnarled spider webs of conversation. But it's a tough challenge.

Posted by: David Weinberger [TypeKey Profile Page] | August 19, 2006 02:08 PM


Im not sure about that

Posted by: howdy | August 21, 2006 04:38 PM


I often add something to a conversation, a post, and then look at it after it's posted and realize I didn't really have anything to say; I just wanted to participate. See, just like this.

Posted by: Linda | August 25, 2006 08:35 PM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.