Where do trees come from? Graphs!

TREES & GRAPHS

Trees start from a root node and might connect to other nodes, which means that could contain subtrees within them. Trees are defined by a certain set of rules: one root node may or may not connect to others, but ultimately, it all stems from one specific place. The tree follows one direction and cannot have loops or cyclical links.

Graphs are non linear structures: their data doesn’t follow an order. Trees will always be graphs, but not all graphs will be trees. Graphs do not have a concept of a root node. They can have a direction or not or they could have some links that have direction and others that don’t. Every graph must have at least one single node. (a graph with one node is called singleton).

Edges (sometimes referred to as links) can connect nodes in any way possible. Edges are what differentiates graphs. There are two types of edges: a edge that has a direction or flow, and an edge that has no direction or flow. We refer to these as directed and undirected edges, respectfully. In a directed edge, we can only travel from the origin to the destination, and never the other way around (digraph). However, it’s an entirely different story with undirected edges. In an undirected edge, the path that we can travel goes both ways. That is to say, the path between the two nodes is bidirectional, meaning that the origin and destination nodes are not fixed.

In mathematics, graphs are a way to formally represent a network, which is basically just a collection of objects that are all interconnected. For example, in mathematical terms, we describe graphs as ordered pairs. Remember high school algebra, when we learned about (x,y) ordered pair coordinates? Similar deal here, with one difference: instead of x and y, the parts of a graph instead are: v, for vertices, and e, for its edges. If our graph has more than one node and more than one edge that ordered pair — (V, E) — is actually made up of two objects: a set of vertices, and a set of edges. The “unordered” part is really important here, because remember, unlike trees, there is no hierarchy of nodes.

Facebook, a massive social network, is a type of graph. Twitter, on the other hand, works very differently from Facebook. I can follow you, but you might not follow me back.

References+Image

Vaidehi Joshi, A Gentle Introduction To Graph Theory. In Medium, Retrieved from here

Learning Record Store (Downes-Shelly Blake-Plock conversation) E-Learning 3.0

tin-can-api

xAPIThe Experience API (or xAPI) is a new specification for learning technology that makes it possible to collect data about the wide range of experiences a person has (online and offline). This API captures data in a consistent format about a person or group’s activities from many technologies. Very different systems are able to securely communicate by capturing and sharing this stream of activities using xAPI’s simple vocabular

Learning Record Store

There are three things that it does as a server site abstraction for xAPI: it provides validation for any of the data that is attempting to go into that store/ it has strict and stringent standards/ it’s not just a Dropbox repository/ if the data doesn’t meet those standards it is rejected. So, LRS:

  1. provides the means to validate the confidence that one can have of that data into the learning ecosystem/ it is a great open source measure to know we are dealing with valid data
  2. stores that data in an immutable format/ we are tracking activity over time and that time of activity is stored in immutable chronology/ at any point in time we can go back and recreate that activity
  3. stores all the data on a machine readable format/ that allows other data consumers to use that data in machine driven ways defined by functions to produce all kinds of automated things (automated audio visualizations etc)

***important notes

  • Standardization regards technical standards only not content/ schema
  • Blockchain can serve create certifiable record of activity that specifically leads to competencies and credentials 
  • activity data can be success data show either that you’ve done something but also that you’ve succeeded in doing something

Privacy and Data Governance

  • anyone who types a URL into their browser should be aware on what is happening about data governance/ how we relate to any web based technology
  • any technology that’s being used in learning space needs trade-offs about privacy, one should be aware

Data to project trends

xAPI profile that maps against certain business processes / alignment between their business processes and learning processes/ mission control visualizations/

Distribution of LRSs

That is policy question than technology question/xAPI is basically inter operable. Identity management is a bigger issue, however.

Who owns LRS data?

LRSs Identities

  • easy: xAPI statement requires a unique identifier for the person who is doing sth/ people us e-mail addresses to do that
  • difficult: when the e-mail is a work e-mail.

Experience with a digital footprint is a form of media. 

Networks as predictive tools

BARABASI.png

Networks play a key role when there is no objective way to determine performance, claims Barabasi in his new book called: “The Formula: The Universal Laws of Success.” Barabasi examined the career paths of scientists and artists both successful and less successful ones by tracing their networks.  While performance is about each individual, their success is about the people they connect to, therefore for Barabasi, success is a collective measure.

However appealing this research may be I resist the predictive character the author implies. I’d love to read the book eventually, but still, this bothers me. Networks are the very representation of complexity and it is inconsistent to consider them as normative tools where quantitative/statistical data can lead to predetermined results. Networks are all about emergence; thus the inability to predict how and when they will evolve. Sure, sometimes it could be that some patterns reappear, but just like the author says, networks are bigger than us or our ability to control them.

I also fail to see the relevance of the term success in this context. It looks so arbitrary and shallow. As much as I would love to see some professionals’ networks and the way they penetrate society, I’d rather the research focused on their ability to change the world for the better. If success is a collective measure, then it should be evaluated in regard to α collective benefit.

 

For more on this book and image, click here

History/Theory

1273544_Jenks

  • 1970’s: critical theory focused on labor (or the social)/ this theory did not transition well into neoliberalism
  • theory that involved  Derrida, Heidegger, Deleuze, and Foucault tried to replace the theory that came out of modernist intellectual formations as the intellectual energy spent on mastering a difficult literature—mostly in translation—would enrich architectural discourse and trickle its way down into practice (…) It was hoped that architecture could be taken out of the deadening nexus of modernism and professionalism and be given a “thicker” disciplinary identity (…) The trouble was that the epistemology of delayed gratification could find its resonance in advanced history/theory work (i.e. PhD work), but not in the normative world of the studio (…)  with the arrival of computation, “intellectually-oriented” classes became increasingly impossible to justify in the curriculum (…) Furthermore, and importantly, with the arrival of the globalized student population in American universities, it became increasingly unclear how this Eurocentric reading list dealing with issues from a pre-globalization era could related to the wide range of issues coming from the global realities.
  • the semiotic approach evaporated away. Like the intellectualist stand, it proved to be too difficult to teach
  • Theory, if we think of it at the level of phenomenology, promised to enliven the inner spirit of the designer (…)  it promised a disguised spirituality residing not in humans alone but in materials, or even, more importantly, in joinery, in that proverbial tectonic
  • Theory tried to open up an awareness that history and its critical role in defining the “consciousness of the young student.” (…) Today, out of the around 120 or so architecture schools in the US, one half—if they teach history at all—still teach the old curriculum from pyramids onward
  • Theory—in whatever formation—could only barely deal with the problem of global warming (…) an alternative disciplinary horizon allied, correctly or not, with ethics, management theory, and building technology.
  • Theory—in whatever formation—failed to address the rise of nationalism in the post-colonial context (…) In a complex, global world, is it really a victory when Eurocentrism is replaced by nation-centrism?
  • Theory—in whatever formation—could not cope well in the expanded field of “historical architecture.” (…) no one knows how to teach architectural history, and there were few “theoretical” takes, especially since most of the effort at “theory” now tries to address issues in the contemporary world, a world often conveniently stripped of historical and cultural backgrounds. We have moved from modern architecture to environmental architecture, which serves to bring modern architecture towards its teleological end.
  • Theory—in whatever formation—passively, though in some cases actively promoted the emergence of Modernist Majoritarianism. Most schools of architecture came to emphasize the history of modernism as part of its core epistemological project (…) theory failed to critique the important institutional changes within the world of history/theory, the most important being the split between Modernism and Tradition, and now, more recently, Modernism and Pre-modernism
  • Theory—in whatever formation— failed to adequately address the digital until it was too late.
  • Theory—in whatever formation— failed to deal with the humanitarian crisis of the twenty-first century and still struggles with issues of violence and trauma (…) e need to recognize that normative theoretical systems do exist, they are just not called history/theory.2 They go by other names such as preservation, digital architecture, modern architecture, sustainability, pre-modernism, etc (…)  the very success of the last decades is now coming to haunt the system, creating immobile boundaries that mitigate against interdisciplinarity. Advanced scholars who now work in the domain of “history/theory” do indeed often bridge into the realm of political science, anthropology, colonial studies, philosophy, geography, and other disciplines in the humanities. But whereas these other fields have made strong and important inroads into developing critical positions, architecture as an educational platform has in the last decades moved in the opposite direction, cleaning out its curriculum from disciplinary entanglements, placing the entire weight of that operation on the narrow ledge of “history/theory.” (…) To make matters worse, many elite schools decided to follow the neoliberal model of labor by tenuring only a few people and farming out the rest of its curriculum to hired guns who had little vested interest in—and no power to—transform the curriculum

Excerpts from: The School of Architectural Scandals, written by Mark Jarzombek, full article available here

Image available here

Existential Intelligence

9-types-of-intelligence-infographic

Existential intelligence is the ability to use intuition, thought and meta-cognition to ask (and answer) deep questions about human existence (…) An element of existential intelligence, is recognizing and understand our interconnectedness with the world around us and the universe at large (…) being able to perceive the bigger picture or in other words, to conceive our lives and every-day actions in the context of the grand cosmic arena (…) It involves acknowledging our place in the cosmos and stepping back and contemplating our purpose in the grand scheme of things (…)

One of the most important components of effective 21st-century teaching, is recognizing the different forms of intelligences and catering to the unique abilities of all students. Howard Gardner, a pioneer of this perspective, differentiates intelligence into distinct ‘modalities’, as opposed to a single general ability. These include: musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Based on two decades of brain research, the theory suggests that we all have all these intelligences in varying degrees (…) not many students are empowered to realize that their above-average athletic (bodily-kinesthetic) or social abilities (interpersonal), are an extension of their intelligence. In recent years, Gardner has introduced a ninth, and possibly most significant, form of “smarts” referred to as “existential” intelligence. It is also referred to by others as “cosmic” or “spiritual” intelligence.

when we demonstrate that we can have an influence on the world by observing it, what are the implications of it on our “objective” reality?

 

Full article available here / Image available here

Bruno Latour

portrait_-_bruno_latour

  • His early work had done more than that of any other living thinker to unsettle the traditional understanding of how we acquire knowledge of what’s real
  • In a series of controversial books in the 1970s and 1980s, he argued that scientific facts should instead be seen as a product of scientific inquiry. Facts, Latour said, were “networked”;  they stood or fell not on the strength of their inherent veracity but on the strength of the institutions and practices that produced them and made them intelligible. If this network broke down, the facts would go with them.
  • Founder of the new academic discipline of science and technology studies
  • The mid-1990s were the years of the so-called science wars, a series of heated public debates between “realists,” who held that facts were objective and free-standing, and “social constructionists,” like Latour. If scientific knowledge was socially produced — and thus partial, fallible, contingent — how could that not weaken its claims on reality?  Lately, however, these debates have begun to look more like a prelude to the post-truth era in which society as a whole is presently condemned to live.
  • By showing that scientific facts are the product of all-too-human procedures, these critics charge, Latour — whether he intended to or not — gave license to a pernicious anything-goes relativism that cynical conservatives were only too happy to appropriate for their own ends (…) But Latour believes that if the climate skeptics and other junk scientists have made anything clear, it’s that the traditional image of facts was never sustainable to begin with.
  • With the rise of alternative facts, it has become clear that whether or not a statement is believed depends far less on its veracity than on the conditions of its “construction” — that is, who is making it, to whom it’s being addressed and from which institutions it emerges and is made visible. 
  • In Abidjan, Latour began to wonder what it would look like to study scientific knowledge not as a cognitive process but as an embodied cultural practice enabled by instruments, machinery and specific historical conditions.
  • Day-to-day research — what he termed science in the making — appeared not so much as a stepwise progression toward rational truth as a disorderly mass of stray observations, inconclusive results and fledgling explanations (…) During the process of arguing over uncertain data, scientists foregrounded the reality that they were, in some essential sense, always speaking for the facts; and yet, as soon as their propositions were turned into indisputable statements and peer-reviewed papers — what Latour called ready-made science — they claimed that such facts had always spoken for themselves.
  • In the 1980s, Latour helped to develop and advocate for a new approach to sociological research called Actor-Network Theory (…) Latour had seen how an apparently weak and isolated item — a scientific instrument, a scrap of paper, a photograph, a bacterial culture — could acquire enormous power because of the complicated network of other items, known as actors, that were mobilized around it. The more socially “networked” a fact was (the more people and things involved in its production), the more effectively it could refute its less-plausible alternatives.
  • Latour believes that if scientists were transparent about how science really functions — as a process in which people, politics, institutions, peer review and so forth all play their parts — they would be in a stronger position to convince people of their claims
  • Whether they are conscious of this epistemological shift, it is becoming increasingly common to hear scientists characterize their discipline as a “social enterprise” and to point to the strength of their scientific track record, their labors of consensus building and the credible reputations of their researchers.

Excerpts from: Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science, By Ava Kofman published in New York Times, full article available here

Image available here