The Junto Matrix. Vision Protocol and Interview with community developers GABRIEL SHALOM and ISHAN SHAPIRO by PlanetShifter.com Magazine

Axis:Image: 

The Junto Matrix. Vision Protocol and Interview with community developers GABRIEL SHALOM and ISHAN SHAPIRO by PlanetShifter.com Magazine

Introduction by Emergent Design

Guidelines for Engaging in Generative Dialogue
(a.k.a. The Conversation) -

Believe you can make a change

We often believe that our experience or capabilities are not enough to make a change. The truth is that we don’t need to be academic luminary or have super powers to make an impact in the world. What we need to do is set the example and take action. If you read the Heath brother’s last book Switch (here’s a review from Chris Brogan) you can see some examples of people that make change without political power or extra developed brains. In order to make a change we just need a couple of things, the firm believe we can make it happen and the energy to work towards it.

Build Trust

A interaction where everyone is comfortable sharing their opinions or construction a solution for a problem can’t be achieved instantly. The process of creating trust takes different amounts of time for every person and we need to be patient and interact until it’s built. When new members join our conversation we should welcome them, introduce ourselves and let her integrate at her own pace.

To create trust there needs to be a fair amount of interaction between the parties or group. This interaction will provide many social events where the parties involved can demonstrate their honesty and fairness and be granted access to further information.

Building trust means that there needs to be a shared belief in the honesty and fairness of the other party. This is why sometimes seeing each other’s faces is required. The Internet allows for this to happen and the trust building process never ends, as a minor misstep can bring down all the trust we’ve built through years of interaction.

Always have a goal

If we are gathered together we should have a clear perspective of what we want to achieve with the conversation we are having. Setting up a goal is good even if we don’t know what to achieve yet. Maybe what we are trying to do is to find out what questions to ask so that could be the goal. An example could be, “find out what points we need to figure out to fix the economic inequality” which is basically finding out set of questions on how to challenge the current free market model. That should start other conversations that will make an impact.

Never Assume

The biggest misunderstandings come from assumptions. The best practice is to ask people to clarify their point. Chances are they really meant another thing. Many of the great problems that rise within communication are because one party assumed something about the other, instead of asking.

The main problem with assumptions is that we assume according to our background, thoughts, believes and context. Usually, and specially on the internet, comments are made in totally different backgrounds and from people with diverse experiences which mold their believes in a different way. For this not to be a problem we need to sit and try to understand every point of view and from where it comes from. Empathy is a key social skill to stop assuming and understanding that your community is very diverse.

Just ask. A simple “Can you explain me that idea in more detail?” can make a huge difference.

Never stay “Not Sure”

Many times when we have conversations we end up “not sure of what he/she said”. Never stay like that. In order to understand and enrich your experience it’s key that you get all the message as it was intended. This could help prevent future misunderstandings. When you feel you’re not sure about something just ask for the clarification of that point.
Rather than slowing the conversation this will help make it go in the right direction quicker and without needing to go back if the misunderstandings develop more.

Create a No Judgment Zone

Sometimes even if we understand someone else’s context we may disagree or have diametrically opposite opinions on one subject. The Conversation environment needs to be 100% non judgmental. For this it’s imperative that we understand that there is a myriad of faiths, religions, philosophies and ways of living. For us to understand each other and get to the point where we can answer the questions we’ve asked we need to incorporate all the possible point of views and encourage people to share them.

In order for all the point of views to be shared we need to create a space of tolerance where no point of view will be diminished or mocked so that the person sharing feels safe to express herself.

Remember always accept there’s more point of views than ours. We should embrace the idea that there is the possibility for two views to live together without colliding. Why does it has to be one way or the other? Can it be both?

People that seem confused or to not be getting it need some patience. Remember this is a no judgment zone so don’t rush on making conclusions and rather than that try to understand the point of view and find points of agreement.
Being tolerant will lead to more openness and to a better understanding on foreign points of view.

Know yourself

Knowing ourselves, our points of view and goals in the world is key to stating where we are now and what limitations do we have in our areas of interest. Knowing what we belief in implies giving a test run to what we believe. For example, Jason Fried has a different approach to making business and he tests it within his company 37 signals. After testing it he writes about his experience and looks for feedback, he then adjusts his way of doing business according to what it works and the feedback he gets.

Knowing exactly why we do something is a key point to be prepared to accept criticism and make points clear. If we know the reasons why we do it we can give a clear explanation and set the context properly to avoid unproductive criticism of our point of view.

Part of knowing yourself is know where you stand in many of the points of the conversation. What your opinions are and how they relate to the current state of things in what you want to make an impact. Remember it’s fine to be the one that doesn’t fits in.

Be an example of what you say

If you endorse or support a way of living that you think could have an impact in changing the world and making it a better place be sure to live by what you say. It’s very common to find people that preach certain point of view but live by other. Being an example is a better way to lead as you can inspire other people, share the results and assess what is not working. Part of our contribution to the conversation needs to be our experience and for that to happen we need to experiment what we think it’s right.

Solve yourself first

When trying to help other people figure out the answer to a question or help them in the search of their higher purpose make sure you’ve solved this questions for you first. This by no means intends you to have definitive conclusions, but at least have a clear approach to what you think and what steps are you going to follow. If you find out that some minor arrangements could be made to your plan, do them, but the core needs to be defined so you can also help others find their own path. If you’re joining the conversation to seek more information or broad your perspective make sure to enter informing people of your goals. Knowing each other’s purpose and intent is key to letting other people know how to help.

Be a guide – Help People Get there

When having a conversation we usually try to convince people to accept our proposals, goals and points of view. Instead we should try to help each person to figure out by themselves what their answer is to the question they’re asking. Whether it is their goals, objectives or purpose everyone needs to find this by themselves. What we can do is provide guidance.

Being a guide requires that we don’t try to push our point of view, but rather take into consideration the initial mindset of the other parties and put out our point of view so the others can gather from it.

Don’t give advice. Give the tools so people can figure the answers for themselves.

When solving a problem, find the bright spots

Usually when we see a problem we focus on what’s making it wrong instead of on the small isolated cases where things are working fine. These are the bright spots. For example, what’s working so well in cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai that is making them work so well compared to rest of China. The answer to that question is the rise of charter cities. Focus on the things that are working well and try to replicate them. And as the Heath brothers say on Switch, finding the origins of the problem is a waste of time because it’s information that it’s true but useless.

Challenge the status quo

As part of the conversation we need to be able to challenge what’s established in order to change it. Questioning every single process that is blocking our efforts in making a change is key to understand what new approaches we need. Questioning the set of fundamentals by which our societies are driven is also a good thing, because it’s the only way we can develop. Take Umair Haque’s Betterness Manifesto which is a call to change the fundamentals of life and economy in order to achieve the a higher goal of improving life quality. No matter what the main purpose of the conversation is we should not be afraid to question the status quo in order to succeed in making an impact.

Make a Call to action

When closing a chapter of the conversation make sure to leave a clear call to action so the participants can engage and spread what’s being said. Whether it’s a invitation for the next stage of the conversation or a specific action that they can perform in the online or offline world. The conversation will be useless if it didn’t inspire action so make sure you have a call to it that is designed so that people can go there and get feedback on what they do. Let’s make sure you get people moving. An idea that we fail to execute won’t help us make a change in the world.

When it’s time, move on

The conversation can’t last forever. When you’ve reached a point where you have found your path and can’t go any further either at finding your answer (or question) or helping others find theirs, move on.

Move on to new conversations where you can gain deeper understanding of new fields and move on to act on what you’ve been discussing. Let’s say you found your purpose in life, go and live it.

* * * * * * *

Interview with Junto by Willi Paul

So, boil this down. Are you advocating tools first or values first?

@notthisbody - #Junto is not a platform. Junto is an intention of collaboration and the modeling of cooperation. I'd like the community using Junto to be flexible and agile, and change between different tools for different purposes. The technology will evolve - it's the process and interaction that's important.

@gabrielshalom - Junto is a process but the platform that supports a Junto is a form; Junto is not necessarily software. The open video platform that could be built to support a Junto could also support numerous other open video business models.

Give us 5 principles that generate connections between member / participants at Junto?

This is a rough sketch of some of our principles. There are probably more than five ;)

1. telepresence. emotions, sound, faces, gesture and energy. these interactions will become more sophisticated as technology progresses (especially with advancements to wearable computing).

2. shared language . defining terms, agreeing on equivalencies, visualizing interaction, removing basic barriers for communication by rendering motivations explicit.

3. shared interests . coming together around our passions and enthusiasm

4. mapping & archiving . documenting conversations, social patterns and workflows to make them a resource for the community and each other

5. mutual respect . giving each other the floor. being tolerant of diverse opinions. opening the dialogue to the world and listening to the response with compassion.

Do you belong to other online communities? Which ones and why?

@notthisbody - I mostly stick to twitter, because i love the flow and salience of the information flowing around me. I’m not an avid facebook user, perhaps because I prefer a more serendipitous network for discovery. For me the controversy about privacy is more to do with the commoditization of our personal data. I want tools that enable me to find the patterns in my own personal data.

Services like Quora and Kreeo are interesting as knowledge repositories. I was a large fan of Twine in its early days because of the social dynamics of linking information and perspectives, and the ability that has to strengthen a group of collaborators, and was sad to see it go.

@gabrielshalom - Aside from regular use of Facebook, Twitter and Vimeo, I also dabble in Flickr and SoundCloud. I gravitate towards communities which enable me to do what I want with my data and which have members that I feel will be responsive to my contributions. I have recently been posting less and less personal information to Facebook in light of recent privacy controversy. I also am active in several group blogging efforts, including Augmentology 1[L]0[L]1, Emergence Collective, and Space Collective. Incidentally, many of the members of the first generation of Junto enthusiasts met via Space Collective, as well as via Venessa Miemis' blog Emergent by Design.

@notthisbody - I’d second the use of Vimeo for video posting. We also use flickr for sharing of photos, delicio.us for bookmarks, as well as using the Freesound Project and Archive.org for sound and media. I blog at Metamaps and contribute to Emergence Collective, and my cyber residency is with Space Collective - an online think tank and collective blog which has been developing a conceptual philosophy for the evolution of mind and consciousness with technology. I think it's less about the platform that's important but the manner in which that allows you to interact with a network.

Is voice more important than face in generating trust? Why or why not?

@notthisbody - Each have their different qualities. It’s the medium of interaction that changes the dynamics, and there are qualities to both, and preference changes person to person. What I see as the crux of interaction online is the ability to identify conscious or subconscious intention of interaction and becoming literate and aware of our intentions and those of others'.

Trust itself is something that I am still defining. Are we talking about a trust based on reliability, authority, integrity, dependability, and confidence in cooperation? does that differ from a respect that includes an etiquette, constancy, and coherency - solid narratives?

We're heading towards empathic, telesynaesthetic, emotional agreements with one another. Mirror neurons in the brain also address the empathic interconnection we have with the world around us.

@gabrielshalom - It’s important not to split the senses apart from one another. The ears and eyes both pick up critical subtle cues which help determine whether we can trust somebody. One issue which will need to be resolved in the future is the fact that current webcam designs do not enable genuine eye contact, but rather the feeling of observing your conversation partner. In a multichannel video experience, this sousveillance phenomenon is exacerbated, as our eyes flick around from frame to frame follow the conversation. What actually builds trust is long-term engagement, shared values, and confirmations/recommendations from people in our existing circles. Some members of the Junto community have written more extensively on trust issues.

What is a “trust-based profile structure?”

@notthisbody - You might want to ask @openworld more about that.

Can you tell us more about the pending “emotional/intuitive symbol language?”

@notthisbody - The Metacodes project is an effort to collect, create and discuss an sort of folks-ontology of interaction, taking the form of annotations and tags to attach to ideas, thoughts and information. It's inspired by Ebon Fisher's work on visualizing network ethics and I'm looking at the correlations that can be made between the project and Pierre Levy's IEML (Information Economy Meta-langauge).

In collaboration with @gavinkeech, Metacodes have manifested so far into metaicons for synchronous collaborative concept mapping - examples of which can be found here and here. We plan to implement these in conjunction with twitter annotations.

Is Junto a collective, a movement, a revolution? A fun thing to explore on the weekend? Help!

@gabrielshalom - Junto is a discussion format originated by Benjamin Franklin which we have generously remixed into a contemporary meme for collaborative telepresent dialogue. At the same time, you can have a Junto in physical space, or over Skype. Junto is platform independent.

The open video infrastructure our community envisions, however, would be revolutionary! Imagine a global, live video conversation as diverse as the Twittersphere! You could theoretically just dive into any of literally millions of parallel conversations, interacting with fellow enthusiasts on shared topics of interest. What's truly radical is the potential of such a platform to enable us to create entirely novel business models based on telepresence.

@notthisbody - "junto" in spanish means "together", and for me that's its essential meaning of the Junto initiative - the desire to cooperate, share wisdom and collaborate towards common aspirations, hopes, intentions and actions.

How does “Twitter backchannel” work there?

@gabrielshalom - The intention of the Twitter backchannel is to enable people to participate in a conversation via tweets without streaming their video signal into the mix. We think it’s interesting to enable participants the ability to engage with a given conversation on multiple levels; video, audio only, just listening/watching, tweeting occasionally, or just investigating the maps/documents/recordings afterwards.

We've even had some people report that they left a Junto open in their browser and listened to the participants like it was a talk radio program. There is no limit to how creatively people can use the various channels of the system.

Ultimately we'd like to see tighter integration in the platform so that each conversation space is tied to specific Twitter hashtags, enabling more refined text-based searches for conversations.

Is your project open source?

@gabrielshalom - The short answer is that Adobe's SDK is open source but the server setup requires a paid license. The long anwer can be found here.

Sharepoint, Basecamp? Please compare and contrast with Junto.

@notthisbody - Basecamp's looking to enable people to collaborate and manage projects together. We have a vision for Junto in which different collaborative, social networking, and knowledge management extensions/plugins can be chosen and tailored towards specific idea/discussion/project/action frameworks. I do see the Junto project going in this direction, but being much more flexible and modular in its creation.

@gabrielshalom - I am not too familiar with either of these services but the major obvious differences are that we're trying to promote a process of collaborative knowledge exchange and a platform for live open video. It's pretty clear both Sharepoint and Boot camp have other objectives. While they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, these are some other platforms that have elements of functionality we'd like to see in Junto. Ultimately all of them fall short in some way or another of the ideals we envision for a platform:

• Apple Facetime for iPhone 4
  
• Kinect for Microsoft Xbox
  
• Skype Beta Group Video Chat
  
• Cisco Telepresence
  
• Supercool School
  
• Dimdim
  
• WebEx
  
• Tiny Chat
  
• Tokbox
  
• Evo

Of course, it may be possible to attempt a Junto using any of the above systems, but the architecture and intentions behind these platforms may dilute/constrict the experience towards a more corporate or business objective.

* * * * * * *

BIOGRAPHIES and Connections -

GABRIEL SHALOM (@gabrielshalom) is a videomusician, director and creative producer living and working in Berlin, Germany. He is the co-founder, together with Patrizia Kommerell, of KS12, a creative agency which produces original transmedia narratives. He is a regular contributor to opinion-leading blogs on the future of cinema and augmented reality. His signature work takes the form of rhythmically edited audiovisual compositions. He has been an artist in residence at the ZKM | Karlsruhe. He has been a guest speaker on audiovisual trends in London, Berlin and São Paulo, and since Spring 2009 he is adjunct faculty at the Berliner Technische Kunsthochschule where he lectures on analog motion graphics.

ISHAN SHAPIRO (@notthisbody) is a technographer, transmedia producer, filmmaker, consultant and conceptual theorist based in Los Angeles. During several years spent in Paris and other parts of Europe shooting films, I founded NotThisBody with Marija Coneva, an evolving entity researching and working with the future of media at the intersection of storytelling and technology. I map concepts, networks, actions and narratives in the context of the ongoing sophistication of our senses and interactions using technology and am actively involved in the development of transmedia narratives, collaborative software platforms and philosophy, through my involvement with the Polytopia Project at SpaceCollective.

--
We are NotThisBody.

notthisbody.com
cargo.notthisbody.com