Already a member? Log in

Sign up with your...

or

Sign Up with your email address

Add Tags

Duplicate Tags

Rename Tags

Share It With Others!

Save Link

Sign in

Sign Up with your email address

Sign up

By clicking the button, you agree to the Terms & Conditions.

Forgot Password?

Please enter your username below and press the send button.
A password reset link will be sent to you.

If you are unable to access the email address originally associated with your Delicious account, we recommend creating a new account.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Links 1 through 7 of 7 by Shaun Green tagged dialogue

You know how it is.  You’re enjoying yourself, kicking back and relaxing at the pub or maybe at the library; or maybe you’re in class or just casually surfing the internet, indulging in a little conversation. The topic of the conversation is about a pertinent contemporary issue, probably something to do with a group of people who fall outside your realm of experience and identity. They’re also probably fairly heavily discriminated against - or so they claim. 
The thing is, you’re having a good time, sharing your knowledge about these people and their issues. This knowledge is incontrovertible - it’s been backed up in media representation, books, research and lots and lots of historical events, also your own unassailable sense of being right. 

Yet all of a sudden something happens to put a dampener on your sharing of your enviable intellect and incomparable capacity to fully perceive and understand All Things. It’s someone who belongs to the group of people you’re discussing and they’re Not Very Happy with you. Apparently, they claim, you’ve got it all wrong and they’re offended about that.  They might be a person of colour, or a queer person. Maybe they’re a woman, or a person with disability. They could even be a trans person or a sex worker. The point is they’re trying to tell you they know better than you about their issues and you know that’s just plain wrong. How could you be wrong?

Don’t worry though! There IS something you can do to nip this potentially awkward and embarrassing situation in the bud. By simply derailing the conversation, dismissing their opinion as false and ridiculing their experience you can be sure that they continue to be marginalised and unheard and you can continue to look like the expert you know you really are, deep down inside!

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE PRIVILEGE!

Share It With Others!

In light of my recent thoughts on developing a new approach to dialogue systems (or, more accurately, thanks to a recommendation from the designer I'm working with on a nursing simulation side project) I was approached recently to produce a short interactive dialogue demo for a middleware firm based on some of those ideas.

Their core system, though, is a traditional dialogue tree, and it got me to thinking - if we're limited to the usual tools and can't factor in any procedural elements then what practical guidelines can we follow to avoid the usual problems around motivation, depth of simulation and reward?

Share It With Others!

The situation in 2012 is different, but no one should be any doubt that, unless some groups exercise restraint and common sense, there is going to be another war in the Labour Party. The early skirmishes have already begun, forces are being mobilised and battle plans are being drawn. Like Europe on the eve of The Great War, the momentum towards a hugely destructive and essentially pointless conflict is growing and to stop it, if that is possible, is going to require extraordinary effort on all sides.

Once again there exists in the Labour Party a group who have been accustomed to having power, who believe the exercise of that power is their right and who have been stung by their rejection by both the Party and the country. There is a group who believe that they have unique access to the right answers to any question based upon a set of policies from previous decades. They are mobilising against a Labour leader they believe is weak and who they condemn for compromising the “true faith”.

Share It With Others!

Mockery and derisive laughter are the natural responses of people who feel powerless and pushed around; if there's nothing else we can do but register our discontent, we should register it. And if we can make the whole ordeal less painful with a few jokes, we should do that, too. But we shouldn't mistake the relief it gives us for actual power.

Share It With Others!

In an example of what can only be called postmodern irony, one of the recurring themes of the discussions I have over Twitter is the near-impossibility of online discussion.  Sure enough, the internet is filled with bloggers, reviewers, commentators and critics all furiously opining on one issue or another but conversation implies give-and-take or call-and-response whereas most blog posts tend to be lengthy monologues bellowed into a storm of utter indifference.  We write about the arts but we seldom actually converse, ‘the conversation’ is not something that people have, it is an abstract entity that exists half-formed between dozens of blog posts, reviews and articles.  Like the world, it is everywhere and yet impossible to locate.

As a result, I thought I would make a few announcements and post a few links that have recently helped my thinking about online discussion.

Share It With Others!

"Here's a list of 22 things, not in any particular order, that I'd insist upon if I ran a news organization." Bugger me, if only even half of these were applied.

Share It With Others!

Share It With Others!

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT