Phil 10.9.17

7:00 – 9:30, 5:00 – 7:00 ASRC MKT

  • Writing up review. I also stumbled across a good book on Complex Systems in Finance and Economics that is tangentially related to the paper. They have a chart on page 764 that shows the development trajectories of the multiple threads in the related fields.
  • Radiolab did a revisit to the trolley problem with respect to self-driving cars. In the end discussion, they state that the problem is a small edge condition. I think under normal conditions that’s true. Under catastrophic conditions like a post earthquake evacuation, every trip could be the trolley problem. With TaaS, who gets picked up first? who has priority on the road? Pinged Radiolab about that. Curious if they will respond.
  • Good chat with Cindy. She found a bunch of stuff, including this part about moral dilemmas. We also started thinking about the chat game design. And we found her comments! Seems like WordPress isn’t alerting me when they get submitted.
  • Nvivo for Mac

Phil 10.6.17

ASRC MKT 7:00 – 4:00

Phil 10.5.17

7:00 – 9:00, 10:00 – 5:00 ASRC MKT

  • Playing with getting LaTex to do the correct formatting without using the new template. Getting pretty far, and starting to think that maybe the way to do this is from scratch? Yeah, I know, this way leads to madness…
  • What I should be doing is looking into the way to build the game and save the data. Should this be a browser plugin? A standalone web page? Where does the back end live?
  • Possible platforms to use
  • Studies that used created chatrooms and gamification.
    • Designing for reportability: sustainable gamification, public engagement, and promoting environmental debate
      • There is a growing emphasis in many countries on matters such as participation in e-government, e-democracy, the provision of forums for online debate, and so on. A critical issue in all of these cases is one of encouraging engagement across a broad spectrum of potentially interested parties and stakeholders. In this paper, we use an ethnographic study of an online event, designed to encourage debate, to explore some critical issues in how the mechanisms productive of debate have shifted in company with the Web 2.0 phenomenon. By contrasting this with a prior study of how players managed their gameplay in a multiplayer pervasive game, we focus upon how different ways of constructing games and events can have serious implications for their ordinary everyday reportability in routine face-to-face interactions. We conclude that designing for reportability should be an active consideration when designing the resources for online debate and consider some ways in which that might be accomplished.
    • Bicker Manor: a cross-media environmental campaign using missions
      • In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a cross-media environmental campaign called Bicker Manor. We describe how the experience allowed players to participate using mobile phones by sending SMS and MMS messages, the web and interactive television. We describe how the experience used characters to playfully challenge players to complete missions with an environmental twist, before describing a generic, reusable mission framework and implementation with associated authoring and orchestration tools. Finally, we briefly describe the pilot of the experience and initial findings from an ongoing evaluation.
    • Analysing How People Orient to and Spread Rumours in Social Media by Looking at Conversational Threads
      • As breaking news unfolds people increasingly rely on social media to stay abreast of the latest updates. The use of social media in such situations comes with the caveat that new information being released piecemeal may encourage rumours, many of which remain unverified long after their point of release. Little is known, however, about the dynamics of the life cycle of a social media rumour. In this paper we present a methodology that has enabled us to collect, identify and annotate a dataset of 330 rumour threads (4,842 tweets) associated with 9 newsworthy events. We analyse this dataset to understand how users spread, support, or deny rumours that are later proven true or false, by distinguishing two levels of status in a rumour life cycle i.e., before and after its veracity status is resolved. The identification of rumours associated with each event, as well as the tweet that resolved each rumour as true or false, was performed by journalist members of the research team who tracked the events in real time. Our study shows that rumours that are ultimately proven true tend to be resolved faster than those that turn out to be false. Whilst one can readily see users denying rumours once they have been debunked, users appear to be less capable of distinguishing true from false rumours when their veracity remains in question. In fact, we show that the prevalent tendency for users is to support every unverified rumour. We also analyse the role of different types of users, finding that highly reputable users such as news organisations endeavour to post well-grounded statements, which appear to be certain and accompanied by evidence. Nevertheless, these often prove to be unverified pieces of information that give rise to false rumours. Our study reinforces the need for developing robust machine learning techniques that can provide assistance in real time for assessing the veracity of rumours. The findings of our study provide useful insights for achieving this aim.
    • Sarah-Kristin Thiel has a lot of work in this area
    • From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”
    • Gamification for Behavior Change: Lessons from Developing a Social, Multiuser, Web-Tablet Based Prevention Game for Youths
  • I think this may be a book with scenarios in it: Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. It comes up in the literature a lot. Ordered.
  • Here’s one of the studies that uses the above: Correlates of Risky Decision-Making. It identifies a risk-taking personality type. Is this an explorer? Can this test be used on individuals and groups?

Phil 10.4.17

7:00 – 3:00 ASRC MKT

Phil 10.3.17

Phil 7:00 – 5:00 ASRC MKT

Phil 10.2.17

8:00 – 5:00 ASRC MKT

  • The CHIIR paper is submitted! Incorporated all of Wayne’s points (that I could decipher)
  • Change the angle recording code so that it is WRT the average heading of the population. Might make a better figure 7. Started.
  • Security training – one hour – done
  • Do Charlestown things – done
  • Fika
    • Anita skimmed the paper and liked what she saw.
    • NVivo webinar
    • $120/year
  • Meeting with Wayne?
    • The CHI deadline is next week:
    • Extended Abstracts from CHI 17 (search for SESSION: Doctoral Consortium)
    • Some extended discussion about GLOBE. Might have the opportunity to look at the code with some guidance. Otherwise, it’s going up on GitHub soon. I’d like to see the code that finds similar remotely observed data on the globe as a way to find similar papers. In this scenario, that could be used to equate new GEOS data (soil, vegetation, lighting, etc) to use places that are burning to places that are at high risk for burning.

Phil 9.29.17

7:00 – 5:00 ASRC MKT

  • Sent out copies of the draft to academic/work management. Waiting for comments
  • Fix concepts
  • Fix Keywords – going to try the LMN on the lit review and see what pops up 2017-09-29
  • Get page numbers
  • Register for easychair, and make sure what the actual deadline is. Registered, but there is no date information WRT the submission. Going to submit Saturday night out of an abundance of caution.
  • I had some more thoughts about how behavior patterns emerge from the interplay between trust and awareness. I think the following may be true:
    • Healthy behaviors emerge when trust and awareness are equivalent.
    • Low trust and low awareness is reasonable. It’s like walking through a dark, unknown space. You go slow, bump into things, and adjust.
    • Low trust and high awareness is paralytic.
    • High trust and low awareness is reckless. Runaway conditions like echo chambers.
    • Diversity is a mechanism for extending awareness, but it depends on trusting those who are different. That may be the essence of the explore/exploit dilemma.
    • In a healthy group context, trust falls off as a function of awareness. That’s why we get flocking. That is the pattern that emerges when you trust more those who are close, while they in turn do the same, building a web of interaction. It’s kind of like interacting ripples?
    • This may work for any collection of entities that have varied states that undergo change in some predictable way. If they were completely random, then awareness of the state is impossible, and trust should be zero.
      1. Human agent trust chains might proceed from self to family to friends to community, etc.
      2. Machine agent trust chains might proceed from self to direct connections (thumb drives, etc) to LAN/WAN to WAN
      3. Genetic agent trust chain is short – self to species. Contact is only for reproduction. Interaction would reflect the very long sampling times.
      4. Note that (1) is evolved and is based on incremental and repeated interactions, while (2) is designed and is based on arbitrary rules that can change rapidly. Genetics are maybe dealing with different incentives? The only issue is persisting and spreading (which helps in the persisting)
    • Computer-mediated-communication disturbs this process (as does probably every form of mass communication) because the trust in the system is applied to the trust of the content. This can work in both ways. For example, lowering trust in the press allows for claims of Fake News. Raising the trust of social networks that channel anonymous online sources allows for conspiracy thinking.
    • An emerging risk is how this affects artificial intelligence, given that currently high trust in the algorithms and training sets is assumed by the builders
      • Low numbers of training sets mean low diversity/awareness,
      • Low numbers of algorithms (DNNs) also mean low diversity/awareness
      • Since training/learning is spread by update, the installed base is essentially multiple instances of the same individual. So no diversity and very high trust. That’s a recipe for a stampede of 10,000 self driving cars.

Phil 9.28.17

7:00 – 4:00 ASRC MKT

  • from ABC news. Artificially amplifying (both) poles and establishing norms
    • “They were taking both sides of the argument this past weekend, and pushing them out from their troll farms as much as they could to try to just raise the noise level in America and to make a big issue seem like an even bigger issue,” Lankford said at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
  • Got all the LaTex packages installed so that I can compile the paper at home
  • Adding in references – done
  • Fix concepts
  • Fix Keywords

Phil 9.27.17

8:00 – 4:30 ASRC MKT

  • Building an information stampede in Iowa
  • Rework scale sentence
  • Change ‘Runaway Echo Chambers’ to ‘Runaway Belief Bubbles’? No. Echo Chambers without the Runway, we’re thinking…
  • Done stuffing the paper into LaTex! Ten pages!

Phil 9.26.17

9:00 – 5:00 ASRC MKT

  • Cleaning up text
  • Generating figures
  • 4:00 Meeting with Wayne
    • Wayne feedback on last two sections (now-ish)
    • Anita reciprocal read for papers Wed/Thu/Fri?
    • Wayne edit Fri/Sat/Sun