FW: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Title: RE: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

Per Rex's request to forward the URL. 

 

len

 

Here ya go, Rex.  U of M and the football team took a whack at it.

Now how can this be done with HumanML for the kinds of training

we envision?   Note that the use of the playbook diagrams is a kind

of semiotic sign system for creating the simulation.

 

len

 

Some interesting stuff I just came accross from:

http://www-vrl.engin.umich.edu/

(Virtual Reality Laboratory (VRL), Univ.Michigan)

* Detroit Midfield Terminal:

http://www-vrl.engin.umich.edu/NewMidfield/index.html

has VRML models

* Virtual Football Trainer: (for american football)

http://www-vrl.engin.umich.edu/project/football/index.html

has VRML models and some videos too

interesting is the skeleton stuff for the animations, see "Creation of Three-Dimensional Play Animation" paragraph in that text and also follow the link it has to:

http://www-vrl.engin.umich.edu/project/football/skeleton.html

cheers,

George

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 2:16 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: RE: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

This is terrific stuff, Len. Sorry I can't spend more time on it this afternoon, but you know how that is. You have touched off a lot of mental fireworks here. I have a real love/hate relationship to that in the sense that I hate when that happens, but I really love it more because it makes me think harder and in new ways. I think the gaming strategy is a winner, but getting the correct people to understand that it needs to be done as you say, and needs to be applied to cultural as well as conflict scenarios rather than as they have already decided they want it, and as they have already funded it.

Of course, they bought proprietary solutions, and they will have structured it in ways that won't work in the field where the enemy doesn't play by their rules. But yeah, we can crack that egg without too much problem because their approach will pretty quickly reveal itself as just not working. Getting them to understand that their base, or starting point, assumptions are flawed is going to be tricky. We need to prevent them from concluding that no game will work because their game doesn't.

I will get back to this, you can count on it.

Ciao,

Rex

And how does one manage polarities?  What are the relative

strengths among the polarities?  In other words, given a polar

relationship such as love and hate, how much force holds a

human in one position or the other?  Is this balanced, that is,

does it take more energy to go from hate to love, or from love

to hate?  What is the opposite of fear?  Same set of questions. 

Is anger an emotion or the expression of some other combination?

 

The problem of HumanML at this time is that we don't have any

real models except the model of the model to work with.  We

don't have any models that go from the emotional polar definitions

to the renderable behaviors?   This is why I've been more than

reticent to go to the State Department or other groups with

HumanML as a solution to their problems.  It is a technology

that is good as a classification system for observable aspects

of human communicative behavior, but not as a controller per se.

As a modeling system, yes.  That is why the VRML aspect.

 

You hit the payload:  emotions are polar fields in concept, but behavioral

in rendering.   How does HumanML describe or does it describe the active

relationships among signs and behaviors?   Can one use HumanML to

plan a strategy for changing emotional behaviors?

 

You have the right ideas:  observation, recording, and analysis in a framework

of well-understood cultural constraints.   This works in the long term but the short

term will be violent and emotional.  One cannot always be rational and reasonable

and calm in the face of violent emotions.   Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein understood

that and apply terror because fear is a more powerful emotion and actively supresses

other emotions, but more succintly, it suppresses thought or intellect as a selector

of symbol sets.  

 

Power, water, the necessities yes, these help but groups of these people are also

being paid to destroy those facilities as they come on line.   And we will hunt those

people down, arrest and interrogate some, and kill others.   And we will create even

more hostility doing that and by the random acts where innocents are killed.  And

this will make there rage grow because they do not fear us enough to stop plotting

desperate acts of destruction which were unthinkable when Saddam was in power.

And because they will believe those to be better days, they yearn for Saddam. And

after we leave, and we will leave, they will replace him with a modfied version of

him.  A theocratic dictatorship leads to similar ends; the wealth concentrates in a

few more hands, but concentrate it does.

 

Amazing how that works.  Only after we left Vietnam did the nationals yearn for

us.  It took twenty five years for that to combine with their economic problems

to begin a new and different relationship.   The cost was almost breaking our

own economy and 55,000 American lives.

 

So you think maybe that Bubba Dubya is an idiot?  No kidding.  America never

has been, as I said last year, a first strike country until now.  By going from protector

to predator, we bought ourselves a helluva bad mess.  But that is the next

election issue, not a HumanML problem.  

 

What HumanML needs is an example where all or most of the HumanML categories

are used to assemble a database for simulating situations composed of characters

whose individual sign systems and behaviors can be worked.  Back to X3D.  This

should be done as a funded prototype project.   It must not use exotic or proprietary

technologies.  My guess is that the DARPA, US Navy or other folks might have

more to spend on such a prototype; one domain is 'distance learning'.  Teach

troops behavioral strategies for dealing with foreign cultures by simulating

behaviors.  The State Department might be a source of information for creating

such games.

 

Hint:  you don't have to create a semiotic engine.   An XML processor IS a semiotic

engine when coupled with renderable behaviors.   The key is in the use of XSLT

parameterized scripts to select behaviors.    Rather than attempting to persuade

people to change, they should be empowered to play games that enable them

to discover outcomes.  It is a fairly traditional training means in State Department

circles.  If they could play such games online globally, they might learn much

about each other.  Such knowledge is the beginning of understanding and that

is the only means to reduce conflict WHERE CONFLICT REDUCTION IS WANTED.

 

You can lead the horse to water. 

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:56 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: 'Rex Brooks'
Subject: RE: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

I was actually writing somewhat on Ranjeeth's behalf, since he is looking for someone to take over the chair of the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee, which hasn't actually been inaugurated officially yet.

OASIS is recovering from a hack attack, which happened at the same time I was requesting for the second time that the HPCDML SC (which I chair and whose mission charter we have officially approved) be established with its own webpage, mailing list and tools, so all the processes involved are all backed up.

I took advantage of that to start this thread, or restart it. The State Dept Use Cases go back to a request from Ranjeeth in spring after a trip to DC where he came to the conclusion after a series of visits to contacts there that the State Dept was the most likely venue to approach with proposals for funding in the short term. Obviously the short term has turned rather longer than anticipated, but I wanted to bring it up again.

I just thought I would refresh everyone on the background of where these Use Cases came from in the first place. They do belong to the Conflict Resolution effort specifically, which is not my own main interest, but since I have the time and the tools, I am trying to get the effort going.

I don't think emotion has an opposite per se. At least my dictionary doesn't list an antonym. There are polarities amongst the emotions, which illustrate the point I would make in response which is that pairs of opposites are usually polar endpoints on spectra rather than discrete either/or choices.

In any event, I think what you are suggeststing is that calm rationality and reasonableness is what we should be seeking to encourage to start moving toward solutions for conflicts such as we find most intractably embodied in the middle east.  Regardless, what I am looking for are the arguments for and against creating an effort to begin assigning observers in addition to translators for troops in the field with the purpose of listening to and recording the interactions between troops and populace, with an eye toward building better cultural sensitivity in the immediate situation, and building better cultural understanding in the longer term.

As for helping change the emotional temperature on the ground in Iraq specifically, I think getting power and water services operating reliably along with doing whatever can be done to deliver medical treatment and jobs is the only thing that we can do to help. Secondarily we need to engage the religious factions as thoroughly as we can to keep them busy arranging for the needs of their people rather than fomenting rebellion calling for another Iranian style Theocracy, and the three-sided civil war between and amongst the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites that would cause.

I don't have any suggestions for the Isaeli-Palestinian conflict. At least not while this administration is running the US efforts in that arena.

Ciao,

Rex

At 10:17 AM -0500 8/12/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

The problem here is that what is wanted in the Middle East is not to change

their minds but to change their emotions.  T.E. Lawrence understood that,

Bin Laden understands that, and George Dubya sort of understands that.

He just doesn't know how to do it.

 

So you want to work this in terms of conflict resolution.  Share

this question with Ranjeeth and see if you and he have the

same answer:

 

What is the opposite of emotion?

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:16 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: RE: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

Boy, this is weird. I'll try again, but I will also just forward the original to you as well.

Here it is:

---

I have to agree with everything you said. That the chances are not good is the primary reason why I wrote this message this way in the first place. And your comments lead to some good points we can make in an article, if we settle on this topic.

What I am really aiming toward is the notion that many governmental agencies, not just the State Dept, should take a look at adopting a slightly different attitude. A very great deal of communications are not working well, and it might be a good idea to look at ways to improve it. That's us. Actually, that's the realm of applications using HumanML, but that is still us in a nutshell. Someone capable of taking on Conflict Resolution would be very welcome indeed.

Prescribing or predicting is something an article should clearly say is not possible now. Learning is possible. Improving clarity is possible. Maybe we should start down those roads in earnest. And that should take the approach of semiotic analysis.

I'm saying this in obviously simplistic terms. The article will reach a higher level, hopefully, but I want to start with bedrock. There's no prayer of fixing something if we can't agree when it's broken. Way back in the days of Vietnam there was credibility gap that just got wider and wider. That is the only parallel I'm drawing, not about guerilla warfare or other factors at present.

And, boy, are you ever right about the orders of magnitude of consequences inherent in the current dearth of cultural analysis! Since we are not hearing whatever that might be, I have to be concerned. We have heard little other than Powell down in Crawford saying, "We're all together on the same team working at our jobs here."

All I am inching my own way toward is saying, "Maybe we should start setting down our assumptions and testing those assumptions against results, and in the meantime, why don't we start a more formal study of cultures amd communications within the State Dept?  (And elsewhere, even at home in DHS and DOJ.)

Just to make my Use Cases a bit more clear, which I haven't yet, let me say that I don't think HumanML Interpreters should be used in any way except as observers, while linguistic translators with some knowledge of both the Iraqi cultural milieu and of at least the aims of HumanMLto clarify communications, should be used just to attempt to get those translations more correctly transmitted in both directions.

HumanML has no place in suggesting policy or making decisions at present. We need to learn how to get a better idea of what is 'normal' for these cultures without the biases you mention. I happen to personally think that genuine interest in a culture gets transmitted when it occurs and those who see that are much more likely to be forthcoming with providing descriptions of their cultures, even if we are paying for the privilege of studying those cultures. I suspect we can afford a lot more that than we can of bullets and bombs. At least in the long run, if we want to have a long run worth running.

Ciao,

Rex

At 1:29 PM -0500 8/11/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

Not good.

 

1.  HumanML can't be applied to the live events or people.  Only to data

or observations about them.   Thus it can be used as a basis for annotating

reports, literature, even live video feed, but can't be applied to people.

 

2.  It gathers data but leaves interpretations to others.   To build up the

interpretations, one needs a large body of evidentiary work such as can

be found in the literature of a culture.

 

3.  A body of evidence as such must account for expected and anomalous

results.  For example, it has been asserted that some of the terrorist behavior

in the Middle East is not a traditional or 'normal' behavior for this culture.  It

has aspects of Western tainting, specifically, the European train of thought

that took form in this century with the writings of Heidegger, Nietzche, etc.

and imported into the Middle East during the early part of the century when

the British and French held these territories.   Regardless of the position

one takes on this argument, it opens the possibility that the analysis of

currernt events based on cultural inheritance may be orders of magnitude

more complex and less predictive than your case studies assert.

 

The problem of detecting noise is in the definition of what is noise,

what is signal, and which signals if any are pertinent to the analysis

from which the prediction is made.   The problem of purely logical

systems or ontologies is ignoring that human though and communication

begin with abductive then inductive and only then, deductive tools. 

This makes history a dicey source of event prediction. 

 

For HumanML to make a difference, the tools must limit analysis and

predictions to relatively local and short temporal regimes.   They will

not of necessity help state department policy analysis unless they

can provide a very large body of evidence.   HumanML translators can

be helpful, but in the time it takes to read the screen, the soldier or

diplomat is already dead.   So, even local and short regimes are

difficult to achieve.  

 

I believe you are taking on a task which even it it has high visibility

will not result in funding without apriori results being demonstrated.

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:57 AM
To: huml@lists.oasis-open.org; humanorg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

Hi Everyone,

I'm posting this to the humanorg list as well as the OASIS TC list because I can't be sure that the TC list will work with the rest of the OASIS web infrastructure down from the hack attacks Karl notified us about Friday.

Russell and I finished up work on the article aimed at involving the largest software tech companies in using HumanML and he has suggested we carry on with an article aimed at government. He and I have only begun feeling our way toward a focus for this and I have had it on my back burner over the weekend.

Basically I have concentrated lately on the State Department Use Cases I promised Ranjeeth, in response to his suggestion months ago that this was the most likely target to produce funding, which our non-profit needs. I also suspect that what Ranjeeth really needs and wants, almost more than funding, is to attract someone capable of taking on the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee tasks that, like any such subcommittee tasks when combined with chairing the TC,  or any other TC or subcommittee, tends to stretch anyone to their limits.

I happen to know this quite well, and face a similar situation. However, I have to put that concern even farther into the background when I start trying to focus on a topic to write on with respect to practical and beneficial applications of HumanML.

I mention all this because it illustrates the problems inherent in simply getting down to work on something, not just HumanML, Conflict Resolution, or writing an article. It always becomes a matter of priorities. Somehow, this train of thought, with the spur of frustration from the complete lack of any response to those State Dept Use Cases on which I spun my wheels a bit in the last couple of weeks, led to a surprising conclusion.

No one is interested.

Duh? I'm a wee bit slow sometimes, but I eventually get it.

Okay, well the obvious thing is, as the Doctor says when told it hurts to do something, "Don't DO that!"

But what happens when one is simply not put together to accept this obvious conclusion? If you're me, you put it on the back burner and let it cook some more.

It did that and it came back with another surprise, "Duh?"

Why am I saying that so much today, I thought. Like I said, I'm a little slow sometimes. It occurred to me that I had something in common with the very policies I find chafing in my Iraq-based Use Cases. I was only offering pat solutions:

"Hang in there, it takes time, just do what I say and everything will be all right. "

In my case, I was saying, "... just add HumanML interpreters and translators, and it will get better, eventually."

And what is there to say to that?

Okay. So ... ?

Like I said, "Duh?"

Well, hopefully, I'll get it someday. In the meantime what I think is that, we don't have HumanML Interpreters and Translators, and, in fact, we don't have a set of secondary vocabularies to use in such work. 

In fact, we don't have people interested in building those secondary vocabularies who have the time and energy and resources to do that, let alone specialize in Iraqi-specific subcultures of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia tribal communities within the larger culture of the "Islamic" world, a nation-state artifact of WWI called Iraq and handed a Monarchy of all the various kinds of governmental options back in THAT day, and today's  "Arab Street." And that doesn't even start to account for little recent events like a war to remove the Hussein Bathyist Regime, with or without WMD.

Okay. So ... ?

How about this:

"Can we turn this thing on its head, and start using the situation as it is as an opportunity to begin building that Iraqi-specific subcultural profile/module?

Can we use THAT as the model for attempting to illicit the active participation of Iraqis and our own cultural anthropologists, linguists and social welfare specialists to help gather relevant information and help build that information base?

Can we make the case that to make this come about we happen to able to PAY hard currency that we will be spending regardless, (perhaps uselessly?) which may actually HELP their economy (and maybe some infinitesimal part of ours) get moving again?"

Is it possible to set aside our arrogance for a while, stop handing out top-down, take it or leave it, solutions from our own molds? (Which happens to go for me, too, gosh darn it!)

What do you think the chances are?

Ciao for Niao,

Rex

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request

---

Was there a reply to my comment?  I don't see it here.

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:14 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: RE: [huml] Gov Artcle, State Dept Use Case Thoughts

Here you go, Len,

I copied the whole thread just in case someone pops in on a later message and hasn't read what went before, but after your reply, I will probably start deleting from the bottom per usual practice, but with the behavior of the net being kinda weird today, I thought I should be a little careful.

I do that deleting trick all the time--comes from my practice of just deleting spam as it comes in. I found that filters ended up causing me more trouble than they were worth.

Ciao,

Rex

Rex, I accidentaly deleted your respones.   Please resend.

 

len

 

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth

W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request

--

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request

-- 

Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com

Tel: 510-849-2309

Fax: By Request