Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on July 06, 1999 at 21:35:35:

In Reply to: Re: DIK = Dangerous typology! posted by Mezei on July 06, 1999 at 10:34:29:

We seem to have been sidetracked into personal innuendo -- apparently driven by own personal interpretations of the bits and pixels on the screen. For a moment let us put the judgment of any person on hold and just look at this enchilada of ideas -- many of the ideas may often seem contradictory or of conflicting nature. However, it may need a long shot of deduction to personify those ideas and generalize them to the individual who may have shared that idea -- particularly when the idea's interpretation is based upon apparently different mental constructs. Let me elaborate with an example… it seems to relate to the KM stuff that all of us have been interested in…

This story relates to an ABC program titled 'Thinking Machines' that covered Gary Kasparov's first battle with Deep Blue. In the same video story, there was discussion on the world's largest database of "common sense" called Psyche that was being developed based on rule-based "logic." There was a discussion about the term "dangerous" -- how can a computer know when something is "dangerous." The narrator suggested that the associations were being built into [English] language based rules - and often the computer recognized that an act depicted in the picture was "dangerous" based on the textual description attached to the picture. For instance, the word "dangerous" was often associated with "chain saw" and with "rocky cliff" and so forth… The association may be drawn to include "water rapids," "hurricanes" and so forth.

Now about the notion of the word "dangerous" and the problems arising from considering it in isolation of the ambiguity of the intent of the "scenario," the focus of attention on the specific aspect of the "scenario," and one's own deduction based upon making sense of that scenario.

Where one sees danger in jagged cliff, a rock climber may see adventure and fun!! Where one may see danger in a "chain saw," a metal-cutter may see one's daily livelihood!! Where one may see "water rapids," others may see the perfect spot for corporate team building retreat!! Where one may see danger in hurricane, a storm-chaser may see another opportunity for calibrating one's learning and perhaps recording those scenes for possible sharing by others via TV broadcasts!! Where one sees the danger in skydiving, others may see unencumbered existence in the unbounded sky for the transient moment!!

In essence, different lenses result in different meanings of what is "dangerous" and what is "fun"? The intent of this message is not to suggest that personal aspersions are welcome, but to suggest that often probing the semantics of any phrase or word may often offer a much deeper understanding of others' constructs. And this is most necessary for deriving any meaningful conclusions… or making sense…

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: More on "Dangerous": Can "Dangerous" be "Fun"? John Tieso 09:05:40 7/07/99 (6)
  • Re: More on "Dangerous": Can "Dangerous" be "Fun"? Mezei 10:24:44 7/07/99 (5)
    • DIK Martyn R Jones 12:11:50 7/07/99 (4)
      • Re: DIK John Tieso 08:38:31 7/08/99 (3)
        • What makes a good CKO? Christina Cheng 02:43:15 7/11/99 (2)
          • Re: What makes a good CKO? John Tieso 11:09:15 7/14/99 (1)
            • Re: What makes a good CKO? CJSekhar 20:45:38 9/21/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: