______________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3 THE INTERPSYCH NEWSLETTER NOV, 1994 ______________________________________________________________ SECTION A: EDITORIAL KILL ME - I'M USEFUL! - RECONSTRUCTING THE REAL WORLD IN CYBERSPACE - Wherever we are, wherever we go, whatever we do - people build on past experience and attempt to impose old frames of reference to unstructured, novel situations, and high- uncertainty conditions. The information superhighway is no exception. Individuals naturally apply tactics which have proved to be successful in the "real world" to the "virtual world" as well. However, there are potential pitfalls to such an approach, which the following explanations and examples ought to make clear. Cyberspace started a tabula rasa, history-wise first colonized by technicians, hackers and eccentrics who probed its possibilities and challenged its boundaries. Today, to the extent that these boundaries exist, it is because we have imposed them on ourselves. The Internet has come to be seen as a "tool", a way to accelerate knowledge distribution, an instrument of information acquisition and, most controversially, a method of expansion and proliferation of standards and structure, regulation, mainstream beliefs. In essence, many people seem to think of the information super highway as a fancy multi-membered high-tech fax machine. Debates among InterPsych(TM) list members and coordinators are illustrative of the phenomenon. They include increasing mail volume, attending to all member questions, building new boards, dealing with junk mail, requiring credentials for list membership, and banishment from lists. All of these issues show potential of being dealt with in one of the long-standing ways of the physical world. The following discussion aims to prove that the real-world methods are clearly worth rethinking. Although examples may read challenging or - worse - antagonistic, consider them as constructive comments by stretching the arguments to the extremes. Also note: All quotes are authentic. Example no. 1: There has recently been a discussion on increasing the quality and utility, collegiality and user satisfaction, or increasing "mail traffic volume", which is low on some lists. There are no deus-ex-machina solutions to these problems. Still, there are honorable, promising and creative efforts to build and maintain group identity, serve the customer by compliantly answering questions, creatively organizing discussions, and approaching other areas of concern. One discussion item in this context has been "questions left unanswered" by frustrated list members posting to a forum. However, discussion forums are no Q-A vending machines. One proposal has been to require that each message sent be answered by members or by the listowner. However, in effect, one does not know what to get, after input, which seems disturbing to some individuals with a strong desire for clear input-output contingencies as in computer processing. This may urge them to impose mainstream beliefs and standard procedures, which have demonstrated utility in the "real world". But can you equate the "real world" with the "virtual world"? Yes, if you view the former as a mere extension to the latter. No, if you judge the Internet as a medium offering a whole array of new possibilities, possibly unknown and potentially unworkable in the "real world". Would you want to miss out on these possibilities? Example no. 2: Keyphrase "Trust the experts". A solution has been proposed for improved management of lists, namely building advisory boards in the background, and "review bodies of any disputes". If you are at a loss in any matter, just resort to those assemblies. Quote: "I believe that this discussion has likely gone as far as it will go here, and the issue will need to be taken up by the group W and board X". Or: "Group Y [is] working on fixing up InterPsych forums. " Or: "I am glad to hear group Z is working on the tension between lists [...]". The point in question: Boards function well in the hierarchically structured "real world". On the egalitarian net, they create potentials of censorship and, inversely, a deceptive comfort of always keeping the ball rolling by the leaders. We're also making concessions to democracy: Paradise lost in the only realm that was and still could be the only place where individuals talk to each other on equal terms - devoid of status, roles and official functions. Example no. 3: Keyphrase "junk mail". While, on one side, complaints arise about low mail traffic, we also know of the opposite phenomenon: Information overload and using the list for "getting it off the chest". So, should we break up lists into smaller sub-lists, eliminate "unsuccessful ones" or merge them into bigger lists? Employing the language of signal-to-noise ratios, think about what's noise. The signal of one may be noise to the other. So, even if threatened by statements like "without a reputation for high level scholarly discussion, the best minds will withdraw from InterPsych", who are we to judge, who the best minds are or will be or will be not or will be by virtue of regulation or owing to creating, tolerating and attending to so-called noise? And what's high-level discussion? While discussion of the Rorschach, MMPI, qualitative research methods or psychoanalysis maybe viewed as lowly by some, they may be judged entirely appropriate by others. So, "low-level" could lead to "public psycho-chat" and we don't want that, we, the InterPsych consortium, want to be "a professional service". Quote: "[Although all lists should have been open to] academics, clinicians, patients and relatives [...], this just isn't going to work because the networks get overloaded with trivia." Drawing on analogues, HAM folks have no problem with that: Tune in the channels you want, screen out the noise, switch as you please. (But don't ask about the acronym HAM; that's the "trivia"). Here's a real case: While there were already clinical- psychology-related lists in existence with high-quantity and lively discussion, they were judged as low-quality and non-scholarly by renown clinical psychologists. Now we have a separate list that aims to maintain that super-quality level; result: lowest mail traffic as compared to the existing lists, possibly striving for (quote) "journal-ready articulation of ideas". Quote: "The 'hard' truth is that if we don't enforce reasonable and well thought out exclusion rules there will be no groups!" We have living evidence of that in the here-and-now: A virtual no-list, officially sponsored, with highest quality. Well-intended solutions that worked in the real world do not necessarily work the same way on the net. Example no. 4: Another related controversy has revolved around exclusion-inclusion and the banishment of members by non-compliance to rules. Quote: "Banishment and control are natural properties of well-functioning groups. They happen naturally. Forcing them may screen out people who: a) would learn a lot from us; and b) would perhaps eventually teach us something. Forcing them may also toxify and deaden the group atmosphere." Another quote: "The real question is how to allow discourse, learning and community for all effected groups. That's the challenge here." If you have not been affected yet, be aware that membership restrictions have already been put into effect in some discussion forums. The apparent paradox is that only the ones with demonstrable credentials should participate, while also establishing rules for lots of exceptions - and one time, we may have more members-by-exception than regular ones... Quote: "If Inter[P]sych is to flourish it must serve the scholarly community, not the general public." Question: "Doesn't the scholarly community serve the general public?" Another quote: "I don't think that there is anything at all [...] censorial in InterPsych trying to meet the needs of any particular constituency". But which constituency do we address? Or as another member has put it: "The real study of the psyche of humanity occurs daily in the actions, interactions and reactions of that general public which Interpsych will not serve." Scholarship is not a matter of credentials. It is a matter of personal dispositions, enthusiasm, knowledge, experience and interest in a subject matter and we don't want to drain budding scholarship by rigid requirements for credentials, so-called high quality input or structures that don't fit the highly varying needs of groups and individuals. Of course, there is a definite need for requirements, but there are two sides of the coin. Internetting gives us the unique chance to keep the undesirable side-effects of requirements and regulations at minimum levels. Example no. 5: Keyword "list moderation". Of course, we also have scapegoats for list failure and membership dissatisfaction: List moderators and counterproductive or passive members. Sticking to the former: List moderators don't react to questions quickly enough, they don't restrict discussions carried on ad infitium and ad nauseum, they are too rigid or too tolerant, and they don't fill the void if discussion on the forum is sluggish. They are asked to indulge in activism by acknowledging each posting to the list, but they should take care of discouraging moderator-dependency. On the other hand, they should not condescend in attending to "low-level", "basic-text-book" questions, but serve as "facilitators" in list activation. Every moderator has his or her own style. Would we want look-alikes molded by regulation and by selective membership criticisms? It is the list coordinators that add spice to the forum and food-for-thought should not taste all the same. Why do we need guidelines? Why do we need to be "orderly"? The common denominator may be complying to ethical rules, disseminating information, defending democratic principles, and the almost-too-trite-to-state mission of simply helping. The Internet is full of possibilities and we are in danger of reducing those to a minimum or, more probably, causing more scatter, split-ups, new lists and heated, never-ending controversy. This is exactly the situation we face everyday in the "real world"; while it may work well for some, realize that it also stifles others. So, if you want to carry hierarchical real-world structures into the Internet, you might just as well exterminate its other potentials. Why not? After all, it's useful enough with its virtual-fax possibilities, and the "other possibilities" are nothing but noise - never signal. We wouldn't want to be puristically democratic and indulge in free-floating generation of ideas, brainstorming or naive inquiries from the not-know-it-alls. So: Do kill me - I'm still useful as is! [SK]