[Xmca-l] Re: Slow | Experimental Swimlanes

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

Huw, Helena, all, 

I think these are great ideas! Signalling an intended tempo may be very useful for those of us who want to follow xmca conversations, but need to manage the time we have. 
But the (tempo) dimension does not come without challenges. For example, it should not be only about how long time is expected between the first and the next turn, but also about how long each post is expected to be. For example, if a conversation is expected to move along quickly, then we need posts that are quick to read, and which do not require the kind of reflection that Henry was wisely recommending in a recent post. 

The other challenge is that, as any conversation, the list is a turn-taking unfolding structure in which every next turn is a function not only of the (intentions) of the previous one, but opens up in an unforeseeable way. Helena rightly wonders, what we do about a quick response to a Slow thread? Dana in the gender thread is surprised by the fact that the thread was being sustained rather than just dropped, another example of conversations' unforeseeable (indeed *productive*) character.

I am a bit skeptical about having very clearly defined rules for each tempo modifier, specially because in doing so we may loose lots of the positive qualities that natural conversations have that for good and for bad are now present in xmca. I was therefore wondering what else we could learn from the analysis of natural conversation. And we follow  the basics of what years of conversation analysis have shown is that the minimal unit in any exchange is the turn-pair. This is so because it is only as a pair that any aspect of a conversation becomes recognisable (and general) as a cultural practice. As an example, rather than slow versus quick, we may have  a *request* modifier, where everyone knows is the first turn in a *request | response* pair, and where everyone understands that a request demands a quicker response rather than a long reflection (unless, of course, the request has such a long reflection as object). We may then come up with other categories, all of which pertain cultural units (e.g., invitation to reflect | reflection; job post or conference announcement (no response is expected but still may emerge), etc...) rather than elements such as slow or quick, which in natural conversation are part of a larger whole. 

How does this sound?

Alfredo

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 November 2016 20:32
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Slow | Experimental Swimlanes

I like this. In addition, I like talking about HOW to have a conversation. I like Richard's description of a "passing theory." I seem to remember that there was a lot of work done on that a dozen or more years ago. Does anyone have more background on this?

I note that I've responded quickly (10 minutes) in a "slow" lane.  How should I handle that?

Helena

Helena Worthen
helenaworthen@gmail.com
Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com

On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> For emails marked slow, we might have an expectancy of a "wait time" (kudos
> to Peter) of say 2 hours between emails, i.e. only reply after at least a
> two hour wait, with maybe up to a maximum of 5 emails a day.  I am
> obviously making this up -- so those with this preference can perhaps
> indicate the tempo.
>
> And good?
>
> Best,
> Huw