I did another reply in this thread about a data system that wouldn't leave out data, although i was very brief. We need to be able to look at where data came from, and have it weighted as we come across it. I think the ultimate version of this would be where each individual can have their own alorithms and weights for relating the data.
In such a system, some information could only be referenced for a fee... for example the original test data by researchers. There are tons of needed features, but I think a system like this would be useful in most fields of information, especially scientific.
There is something even scarier about your story. Children are required to use Microsoft products.
I devised a method of organizing and disseminating information based on references and algorithms. The end-all version would be where the relation of information is documented in a way that allows the client browser to weight the data based on about a dozen generic criteria. Most of it is XML and XML-RPC but we also need presentation methods, and that brings in the subsets of XML.
XML can be used to draw equations, do UML, and any number of other things (the SWIFT network for banking transactions is pure XML). A few of the clients have been written, but not unified or anywhere near compatible (Dia does UML with XML and Python)
Everyone (well almost) knows it is possible to lie with statistics, but nothing is being done to solve that problem. I propose that linking and weighting relevance of data is the only method to defeat modern "spin"
As noted by other people in this discussion... Powerpoint is very Spin-Positive.
Side note: Emacs doesn't have presentation software? It has everything else, a pretty feature rich operating system. All it needs now is a good text editor.
You're right obviously. I blame being awake at 6am and posting this shortly after waking up. If anyone wants more information on UML, there is a lot of data at www.rational.com. It is IBM, and I hold that against them but not very much. The people who created UML as a spec wrote Rational Rose, later purchased by IBM.
All of the replies I've read so far seem to miss the point of the article (that they may or may not have read). Briefly stated, by only allowing a mimimal amount of data with only one obvious conclusion, presentations are skipping the analytical process.
Let's say a presentation was done about shipping lanes in the pacific ocean. There are millions of combinations of potential routes, but all routes are essentially 'dumbed down' to either arrows or circles. The presenter's opinion is the only one that will fit on screen and the presentation must be tailored to whatever conclusion the presenter has made. PowerPoint is the method of getting an audience to agree with obvious solutions - because when you only have a single piece of data on the screen, that is the only conclusion you can make.
I don't think that the method of using a projector and presentations is to blame. I think the problem is we can't fit any real statistics, design or model schematics onto the presentation in a viewable format. What if the web was 320x 240 resolution, with a next button at the bottom of each page?
I think we need to start using UML in presentations. Universal Markup Language is able to model any data or action flow in a way that is readily apparent to most people. There are some specific features that take a bit of training (inheritance or reference) when discussing code, but it is always more comprehensible than one arrow pointing to a box. I may get flamed for the last comment, but realize that I actually mean "you comprehend the data" instead of you "saw a box and remembered it"
I agree. PowerPoint makes us dumb because it disallows independent evaluation, thought, logical processes and retention of information or assessment related data.
Slashdot Mirror
I did another reply in this thread about a data system that wouldn't leave out data, although i was very brief. We need to be able to look at where data came from, and have it weighted as we come across it. I think the ultimate version of this would be where each individual can have their own alorithms and weights for relating the data.
In such a system, some information could only be referenced for a fee... for example the original test data by researchers. There are tons of needed features, but I think a system like this would be useful in most fields of information, especially scientific.
There is something even scarier about your story. Children are required to use Microsoft products.
I devised a method of organizing and disseminating information based on references and algorithms. The end-all version would be where the relation of information is documented in a way that allows the client browser to weight the data based on about a dozen generic criteria. Most of it is XML and XML-RPC but we also need presentation methods, and that brings in the subsets of XML.
XML can be used to draw equations, do UML, and any number of other things (the SWIFT network for banking transactions is pure XML). A few of the clients have been written, but not unified or anywhere near compatible (Dia does UML with XML and Python)
Everyone (well almost) knows it is possible to lie with statistics, but nothing is being done to solve that problem. I propose that linking and weighting relevance of data is the only method to defeat modern "spin"
As noted by other people in this discussion... Powerpoint is very Spin-Positive.
Side note: Emacs doesn't have presentation software? It has everything else, a pretty feature rich operating system. All it needs now is a good text editor.
You're right obviously. I blame being awake at 6am and posting this shortly after waking up. If anyone wants more information on UML, there is a lot of data at www.rational.com. It is IBM, and I hold that against them but not very much. The people who created UML as a spec wrote Rational Rose, later purchased by IBM.
All of the replies I've read so far seem to miss the point of the article (that they may or may not have read). Briefly stated, by only allowing a mimimal amount of data with only one obvious conclusion, presentations are skipping the analytical process.
Let's say a presentation was done about shipping lanes in the pacific ocean. There are millions of combinations of potential routes, but all routes are essentially 'dumbed down' to either arrows or circles. The presenter's opinion is the only one that will fit on screen and the presentation must be tailored to whatever conclusion the presenter has made. PowerPoint is the method of getting an audience to agree with obvious solutions - because when you only have a single piece of data on the screen, that is the only conclusion you can make.
I don't think that the method of using a projector and presentations is to blame. I think the problem is we can't fit any real statistics, design or model schematics onto the presentation in a viewable format. What if the web was 320x 240 resolution, with a next button at the bottom of each page?
I think we need to start using UML in presentations. Universal Markup Language is able to model any data or action flow in a way that is readily apparent to most people. There are some specific features that take a bit of training (inheritance or reference) when discussing code, but it is always more comprehensible than one arrow pointing to a box. I may get flamed for the last comment, but realize that I actually mean "you comprehend the data" instead of you "saw a box and remembered it"
I agree. PowerPoint makes us dumb because it disallows independent evaluation, thought, logical processes and retention of information or assessment related data.