On categories (Marsay)

I had a comment on the post “Friends, acquaintances, and Facebook” from a colleague, Dave Marsay, that I thought worth its own post.

Mark: As a fan of Lewis Carroll, I not only wonder if the categories may not have changed and if (whatever) constrains the richness of human relationships, but if the notion of category as a means of viewing (whatever) has outlived its usefulness and constrains human relationships - maybe even in a 'bad' way. At the same time, tools like SNA are clearly essential. The problem, then (as with much else) is to develop theories of use that can provide the context for routine use. One argument against categories, adapted to this case, is a follows. Categories make sense in the context of stable systems, e.g. stable societies. But social networking is transforming social affairs. In math-speak, categories are the invariants of 'the system' - but 'the system' is changing. The use of the tools subverts their assumptions. Another (controversial) argument is that it would be inhuman to deal with our fellow humans as instances of categories, rather than as individuals. Arguably, then, any theory based on categories would be a part of the anti-social sciences. Of course, in many cultures reliance on categorisation is endemic, and until a few weeks ago it was commonly argued that the economic and military strength of such cultures proved the merit of this approach. If this consensus were to change it would radically affect 'who we would ask for a favour', and SNA, for example, would not be of much help in understanding what was going on. Social Networking tools, on the other hand, could be very useful, and could help drive any change. You will appreciate that I have difficulty in saying anything about the universality of human experience, beyond yes and no - and don't know. I'll maybe ponder. Regards.

I'll leave it to stand for a while, and comment in a post sometime in the next few days.

Comments

[RDHS]

First let me start of by saying that I agree with Dave in everything he says regarding categories. The development of any area of investigation is characterised by the development of increasingly abstract representations. This abstraction is in the main part of simplification since to abstract we need to remove (what we see as) irrelevant information.

A little jump of intuition here; to really, truly understand any system one must move beyond the confines of the abstract categories we assign to things as a result of our culture, experience, or our cognitive processes. In short abandoning categories is probably a key step towards getting at true nature of the thing (whatever that may be).

Here is the big however; However, practically it will be enormously difficult get away from categories as a way of thinking. I see this as being for two reasons. First and foremost; 'language and communication' which are in themselves exercises in the use of categories. The words of a sentence are in and of themselves categories each of which fit within a predefined schema with huge cultural and individual meaning. So while one might attain the knowledge and expertise to be able to transcend categories in a particular field the communication of this transcendental understanding would be 'problematic' since communication of this information to another would require the application of categorisation.

Second, research shows that the development of abstract categories provides a short cut for cognition. Children who learn with simple objects are able to generalize according to shape similarity, better than those who learned with complex objects. Americans (I'm not picking on Americans, it's only because they've just had an election) often pick their candidate based on his party affiliations and pay little attention to the details of their position. To pay attention to each individual and their position would require immense effort and time. So in order to reduce their loading they align to the category; Democrat or Republican. Transcendence of categories therefore will require immense and concerted effort over time (that's why it too so long for Budda to attain enlightenment ;-).

To put it another way; the creation of categories is a product of human abstract learning; using simplified already abstracted instances to facilitate rapid understanding of a situation (which will in turn let you understand that that Tiger doesn't look happy and you should probably run).

So, given the above how can SNA tool help us transcend categories in an effective communicable way?

[Dave Marsay]

R: I agree that we have to lean heavily on categories for rapid understanding, particularly to cue more deliberative consideration. The same goes for tools like SNA. If we think that social networks evolve, for instance under the influence of social networking tools, or tools used by credit scorers or the police, then we have to accept that the usefulness of our categories and tools will be dependent on time and circumstance, so that they will have to be continually adapted to suit.

For both social networking and social network analysis tools, the key thing is that they provide cues and links into richer realities – as social networking tools already do. As social networks develop, it will be worth developing the tools to keep up.

Obama provides an example: he may be a democrat, but he may also transform the democratic party. So, considering the particulars, a few old style democrats may not have voted for him.

[Mark Round]

Ended up writing such a long comment, I've turned it into a post instead! [dated today]