Category Archives: ramblings

Facebook, fun, language sciences, play, playfulness, ramblings

Silly Minds Think Alike

8 Comments

One of the things I love about the ‘Net is that it makes you realize that just about anything you can think has been discussed by someone else before.

Case in point. Some of my friends have started playing Scrabble within Facebook using the Scrabulous.com application. So I eventually decided to play with one of those friends. This game is almost over (we take our turns whenever we’re on Facebook) and my friend is clearly winning, but playing Scrabble has made me think about quite a few things.

I used to love playing Scrabble (in French) when I was younger but pretty much didn’t play at all in the last seventeen years. I had never played in English before. After trying the Scrabulous version on Facebook, I tried a few games on the Scrabulous.com website itself, and started looking for different ways to play Scrabble on- or offline. Luckily enough, the Open Source Quackle does have support for French games. But I’m still nowhere as good as the computer player.

I don’t typically find fun in any kind of competition. I don’t want to be the best at anything. I just want to be happy.

Things I find fun can be quite silly.

And I do find Scrabble fun. As per an overly simplified version of Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory, things are fun when they’re doable yet challenging. Playing Scrabble against a bot which has access to the complete dictionary isn’t that much fun. Many of the words played by computer players (or highly competitive players) are extremely obscure. Now, it can be interesting to learn about all about qat and cwm, but this type of Scrabble becomes overbearing after a while.

So my favourite plays at Scrabble were with people who were not totally crazy at playing Scrabble. I remember one play where adding two letters made me score a rather amazing number of points because a high value tile was played on a high value square and was used for two different words. I don’t remember the exact score of any of this but it was quite high and satisfying for the mere rarity of the event. In fact, it’s quite possible that this play I remember so vividly was made by one of the other two player. Yet I only remember the glory of the moment.

Actually, it seems that players who are of a somewhat lower calibre than expert players may end up breaking records because they’re less competitive. But I digress even more than I should.

Point is, I find beauty in Scrabble when it’s not just about strategies for putting the largest number of obscure words on the board and blocking other players. In fact, I’d rather play something that I find neat even if it scores lower. For instance, I enjoyed adding “queen” to “ship” for the mere fact that “queenship” is a neat word (I wasn’t even sure it existed). Also, I like the ability to string two words together to make a new one. Call me crazy. Must come from my language science background.

So… I started thinking about variants. In one variant I had in mind, a player can invent one new word every game as long as s/he can provide a definition for it. This word would then be added to the working dictionary to be used in future games. In another variant, words from multiple languages could be used. In yet another variant, proper names could be used. In perhaps my favourite variant, words which relate to another word on the board would gain the points from that other word (all players would need to agree on the connection).

Possibilities are endless. And many of these variants would be rather easy to implement on a computer-based platform. For instance, all variants which relate to dictionaries could be implemented through the use of custom dictionaries. And alternative scoring rules could be added to a Scrabble program through the use of bonus points or some such.

One variant I thought about which could be quite interesting for language scientists would be IPA Scrabble or Scrabble using the International Phonetic Alphabet. Players could use IPA characters to “spell out” valid words using either narrow or broad phonetic transcription strategies. So, in some cases, ˈlɪtl̩ or ˈlɪtɫ̩ could be allowed. Personally, I’d be one to accept a rather broad range of even impressionistic variants, including “litl” and “lidl” even though they miss some transcription details.

Such a game could be quite fun for people who have working knowledge of IPA and it doesn’t sound so hard to implement. What’s more, it could help people get used to IPA transcription, which is often a good thing in language sciences.

Well, as it turns out, I’m not the only one who thought about IPA Scrabble. A simple Google search for these two turns returns several relevant hits including: a wishlist for fun language things in which IPA Scrabble is assumed to exist; a page for a linguistics club which lists IPA Scrabble as one of their activities; and a page citing Scrabble variants which lists the IPA magnets as a Scrabble-like game. As my wife happens to have these IPA magnets, I was thinking about the same exact thing.

What’s funny about this last page I mentioned as a result for my “IPA Scrabble” Google search is that author Jed Hartman spoke my mind, back in 1998:

I like playing word games for fun rather than competitively. So I like the general idea of Scrabble®, but I don’t much enjoy playing it with devotees of the game; they tend to score lots of points by playing dozens of two-letter words that nobody except The Official Scrabble Players Dictionary has ever used. vv is for vvariants

Three of the six variants he lists are quite close to what I had in mind

  • Multidirectional Scrabble
  • Wraparound Scrabble
  • Multi-Source Scrabble (similar to my multi-language version)
  • Stackable Scrabble
  • Plausible Scrabble (similar to my word-addition version)
  • IPA Crossword (similar to my IPA Scrabble)

So, I don’t score for originality on this one. Ah, well.

I do wonder if Hartman himself has played all of these variants. And I wonder how implementable they all are through computer versions. My hunch is that any competent program could easily implement most of them within certain limits. For instance, the multi-source variant would only need dictionary files to be implemented but such dictionary files may be hard to come by. Although, with initiatives like Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary, it may be relatively trivial to get wordlists for use in dictionary files.

One thing this all made me think of is the fact that there’s indeed a lot of data available out there and that uses of data may not be entirely predicted by the type of data used. Ok, sure, the leaps from online dictionaries to wordlists to dictionary files to multi-source Scrabble are rather obvious. But chances are that most contributors to Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary weren’t thinking of multi-source Scrabble when they added most of those entries. There’s a whole thing about human-readable vs. machine-readable data involved here. And it all makes me think about newish approaches to data management, such as Freebase (results for “Scrabble”) and Mahalo (results for “Scrabble”).

Alcohol, democracy, musings, ramblings, social change

Adulteen Category

Leave a comment

[Yet another old draft.]

Seems to me, there’s an age category that we could call “adulteen.” People who are technically both adults and teens. Ages 18 and 19. Not yet 20 but 18 and older. In many contexts (voting rights in most places I know), they are legally “of age” (what, in French, we call «majeurs»). Yet, the mere fact that the numbers “eighteen” and “nineteen” bear the “-teen” suffix, they are teenagers. If I got this right, this is the “barely legal” category some people seem to be talking about, especially in the adult industry.

Sexuality is certainly important in defining this category as sexual relationships with 18 year-olds is usually not considered paedophilia. In the U.S. especially, paedophilia tends to be rather high on the list of taboos. I have no idea what the numbers are but it seems to me that, within the larger category of rape victims, many people are women younger than 20 years of age.

In the U.S., adulteens are not yet allowed to drink alcohol. They can vote, bear arms, drive (since a much earlier age, actually) but they cannot consume alcohol outside of parental supervision. This, they share with 20 year-olds. But “20” seems to be more adult-sounding in many cases.

What’s striking, to me, is that 18 is already a bit old as defining adulthood. Not too long ago, people who had children at age 16 were quite common. Maybe I’m completely off but it seems to me that “it really wasn’t a big deal, back then.” Especially for young girls/women. Those women who had children at such a young age don’t seem particularly scarred from the experience, AFAICT. I don’t even think there were much of a social stigma about being a mother at age 16. And it seems to me that becoming a parent is as adult-like as can be.

Of course, people also entered the workforce at an earlier age, on average. These days, beginning a career at age 18 is somewhat uncommon. Much of this difference has to do with formal education. At least in North America and Europe, compulsory schooling tends to last until age 16 and it’s often very hard to find work leaving school before age 19. In Quebec, for instance, there are ways to do a professional degree at the end of high school but majority of people go to Cegep which brings them to age 19 or so.

At age 34 (and turning 35 in just a few days), I find it funny to think that, technically, I could have been a grand-father at this point in my life. That is, I technically could have had a child at age 16 who could have had her own child at age 16 so that I would have become a grand-father at age 32. I’m not even a father yet. And I’m not that far outside the norm, at least for academics.

Funny thing is, age does tend to matter to me. Not in terms of “feeling old,” really. More in terms of significance, symbolism, social roles.

There’s a whole thing I’ll need to blog about generation gaps. For now, I just want to let this entry stay as it is.

blogosphere, Concordia, librarians, new media, Radio Open Source, ramblings, United States

Blogged Librarians

4 Comments

Is it just me or is there an increased presence of librarians on the blogosphere, these days? Not just as authors but as subjects.

For instance:

I know the connection between libraries and blogging is pretty obvious and information scientists are as blogworthy as anyone can get. So it’s probably just that I notice librarian blogging more, these days. Thing is, on the Web, perception is worth a lot, however accurate it may be.

advice, Ethnography, groupthink, linkfest, new media, Old Media, opinions, participatory culture, podcasting, Radio Open Source, ramblings, shameless plug, speech recognition, Web 2.0, wishful thinking

What Radio Open Source Should Do

3 Comments

I probably think too much. In this case, about a podcast and radio show which has been with me for as long as I started listening to podcasts: Radio Open Source on Public Radio International. The show is hosted by Christopher Lydon and is produced in Cambridge, MA, in collaboration with WGBH Boston. The ROS staff is a full team working on not only the show and the podcast version but on a full-fledged blog (using a WordPress install, hosted by Contegix) with something of a listener community.

I recently decided not to listen to ROS anymore. Nothing personal, it just wasn’t doing it for me anymore. But I spent enough time listening to the show and thinking about it, I even have suggestions about what they should do.

At the risk of sounding opinionated, I’m posting these comments and suggestions. In my mind, honesty is always the best policy. Of course, nothing personal about the excellent work of the ROS team.

Executive summary of my suggestion: a weekly spinoff produced by the same team, as an actual podcast, possibly as a summary of highlights. Other shows do something similar on different radio stations and it fits the podcasting model. Because time-shifting is of the essence with podcasts, a rebroadcast version (instead of a live show) would make a lot of sense. Obviously, it would imply more work for the team as a whole but I sincerely think it would be worth it.

ROS has been one of the first podcasts to which I subscribed and it might be the one that I have maintained in my podcatcher for the longest time. The reason is that several episodes have inspired me in different ways. My perception is that the teamwork “behind the scenes” makes for a large part of the success of the show.

Now, I don’t know anything about the inner workings of the ROS team. But I do get the impression that some important changes are imminent. The two people who left in the last few months, the grant they received, their successful fundraiser, as well as some perceivable changes in the way the show is handled tell me that ROS may be looking for new directions. I’m just an ethnographer and not a media specialist but here are some of my (honest) critical observations.

First, some things which I find quite good about the show (or some reasons I was listening to the show).

  • In-depth discussions. As Siva Vaidhyanathan mentioned it on multiple occasions, ROS is one of few shows in the U.S . during which people can really spend an hour debating a single issue. While intriguing, Siva’s comparison with Canadian shows does seem appropriate according to my own experience with CBC and Radio-Canada. Things I’ve heard in Western Europe and West Africa would also fit this pattern. A show like ROS is somewhat more like The New Yorker than like The New York Times. (Not that these are innocent choices, of course.)
  • Research. A lot of care has been put in preparing for each show and, well, “it shows.” The “behind the scenes” team is obviously doing a great job. I include in this the capacity for the show to entice fascinating guests to come on the show. It takes diplomacy, care, and insight.
  • Podcasting. ROS was one of the first “public radio” shows to be available as a podcast and it’s possibly one of the radio shows for which the podcasting process is the most appropriate. Ease of subscribing, relatively few problems downloading shows, etc.
  • Show notes. Because the show uses a blog format for all of its episodes, it makes for excellent show notes, very convenient and easy to find. Easy to blog. Good trackback.
  • The “Community.” Though it can be troublesome at times, the fact that the show has a number of fans who act as regular commentators on the blog entries has been an intriguing feature of the show. On occasion, there is a sense that listeners can have some impact on the way the show is structured. Few shows on public radio do this and it’s a feature that makes the show, erm, let’s say “podworthy.” (Apologies to those who hate the “pod-” prefix. At least, you got my drift, right?)

On the other hand, there are things with ROS that have kept putting me off, especially as a podcast. A few of those “pet peeves.”

  • “Now the News.” While it’s perfectly natural for a radio show to have to break for news or ads, the disruption is quite annoying on a podcast. The pacing of the show as a whole becomes completely dominated by the breaks. What’s more, the podcast version makes very obvious the fact that discussions started before the break rarely if ever get any resolution after the break. A rebroadcast would allow for seamless editing. In fact, some television shows offer exclusive online content as a way to avoid this problem. Or, more accurately, some television shows use this concept as a way to entice watchers to visit their websites. Neat strategy, powerful concept.
  • Length. While the length of the show (a radio “hour”) allows for in-depth discussions, the usual pacing of the show often implies a rather high level of repetition. One gets the impression that the early part of the show contains most of the “good tidbits” one needs to understand what will be discussed later. I often listen to the first part of the show (before the first break) and end up skipping the rest of the show. This could be alleviated with a “best of ROS” podcast. In fact, it’s much less of an issue when the listener knows what to expect.
  • Host. Nothing personal. Chris Lydon is certainly a fabulous person and I would feel bad to say anything personal about him even though, to make a point, I have used a provocative title in the past which specifically criticised him. (My point was more about the show as a whole.) In fact, Lydon can be very good as a radio host, as I described in the past. Thing is, Lydon’s interviewing style seems to me more appropriate for a typical radio show than for a podcast. Obviously, he is quite knowledgeable of a wide array of subjects enabling him to relate to his guests. Also, he surely has a “good name” in U.S. journalistic milieus. But, to be perfectly honest, I sometimes feel that his respect for guests and other participants (blog commentators and callers when ROS still had them) is quite selective. In my observation, Lydon also tends to do what Larry King described on the Colbert Report as an “I-show” (host talking about her/his own experience, often preventing a guest to follow a thought). It can be endearing on some radio shows but it seems inappropriate for a podcast. What makes this interviewing style even more awkward is the fact that the show is frequently billed as a “conversation.” In conversation analysis, Lydon’s interviews would merit a lot of discussion.
  • Leading questions. While many questions asked on the show do help guests get into interesting issues, many questions sound like “leading” questions. Maybe not to the “how long have you been beating your wife?” extreme, but it does seem that the show is trying to get something specific out of each guest. Appropriate for journalism but awkward for what is billed as a “conversation.” In fact, many “questions” asked on the show are phrased as affirmative utterances instead of actual questions
  • Old School Journalism. It may sound like harsh criticism but what I hear from ROS often makes me think that they still believe that some sources are more worthy than others by mere virtue of being “a trusted source.” I’ve been quite critical of what I think of as “groupthink.” Often characterised by the fact that everybody listens, reads, or watches the same sources of information. In Quebec, it’s often Radio-Canada’s television shows. In the U.S., it typically implies that everyone reads the New York Times and thinks of it as their main “source of information.” IMHO, the ROS-NYT connection is a strong one. To me, critical thinking implies a mistrust of specific sources and an ability to process information regardless of the source. I do understand that the NYT is, to several people, the “paper of record” but the very notion of “paper of record” seems outdated in this so-called “Information Age.” In fact, as an outsider, I often find the NYT even more amenable to critical challenge than some other sources. This impression I got even before the scandals which have been plaguing the NYT. In other words, the NYT is the best example of Old School Journalism. Podcasting is going away from Old School Journalism so a podcast version of ROS should go away from NYT groupthink. Lydon’s NYT background is relevant here but what I describe goes much beyond that print newspaper.
  • The “Wolfpack.” The community around ROS is fascinating. If I had more time, I might want to spend more time “in” it. Every commentator on the show’s entries has interesting things to say and the comments are sometimes more insightful than the show itself. Yet, as contradictory as it may sound, the ROS “fanbase” makes the show less approachable to new listeners. This one is a common feature of open networks with something of a history but it’s heightened by the way the community is handled in the show. It sometimes seems as though some “frequent contributors” are appreciated more than others. The very fact that some people are mentioned as “frequent contributors to the show” makes the “community” sound more like a clique than like an open forum. While Brendan often brought in some questions from the real-time blog commentators, these questions rarely led to real two-way conversations. The overall effect is more like a typical radio talk show than like a community-oriented podcast.
  • Show suggestions. Perhaps because suggestions submitted to the show are quite numerous, very few of these suggestions have been discussed extensively. The “pitch a show idea of your own” concept is helpful but the end-result is that commentators will need to prepare a pitch which might be picked up by a member of the ROS team to be pitched during the team’s meeting. The process is thus convoluted, non-transparent, non-democratic, and cumbersome. To be perfectly honest, it sounds as if it were “lipservice” to the audience instead of being a way to have listeners be part of the show. As a semi-disclaimer, I did pitch several ideas. The one of my ideas which was picked up was completely transformed from my original idea. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn’t make the process feel transparent or open. While a digg-like system for voting on suggestions might be a bit too extreme for a show on public radio, I find myself dreaming for the ROS team working on shows pitched by listeners.
  • Time-sensitiveness. Because the show is broadcast and podcast four days a week, the production cycle is particularly tight. In this context, commentators need to post on an entry in a timely fashion to “get the chance to be heard.” Perfectly normal, but not that podfriendly. It seems that the most dedicated listeners are those who listen to the show live while posting comments on the episode’s blog entry. This alienates the actual podcasting audience. Time-shifting is at the very basis of podcasting and many shows had to adapt to this reality (say, for a contest or to get feedback). The time-sensitive nature of ROS strengthens the idea that it’s a radio show which happens to be podcast, contrary to their claims. A weekly podcast would alleviate this problem.
  • Gender bias. Though I didn’t really count, it seems to me that a much larger proportion of men than women are interviewed as guests on the show. It even seems that women are only interviewed when the show focuses specifically on gender. Women are then interviewed as women instead of being guests who happen to be females. This is especially flagrant when compared to podcasts and radio shows outside of the U.S. mainstream media. Maybe I’m too gender-conscious but a gender-balanced show often produces a dynamic which is, I would dare say, “friendlier.”
  • U.S. focus. While it makes sense that a show produced in Cambridge, MA should focus on the U.S., I naively thought that the ‘I’ in PRI implied a global reach. Many ROS episodes have discussed “international affairs” yet the focus is on “what does it mean for U.S.” This approach is quite far from what I have heard in West Africa, Western Europe, and Canada.

Phew!

Yes, that’s a lot.

Overall, I still enjoyed many things of the show while I was listening to it. I was often compelled to post a blog entry about something I heard on the show which, in itself, is a useful thing about a podcast. But the current format of the show is clearly not what I expect a podcast to be.

Now what? Well, my dream would be a podcast on disparate subjects with the team and clout of ROS but with podcasting in mind, from beginning to end. I imagine the schedule to be more of a weekly wrap-up than a live daily show. As a podcast listener, I tend to prefer weekly shows. In some cases, podcasts serve as a way to incite listeners to listen to the whole show. Makes a lot of sense.

That podcast could include a summary of what was said in the live comments. It could also have guest hosts. And exclusive content. And it could become an excellent place to get insight about a number of things. And I’d listen to it. Carefully.

Some “pie in the sky” wishes.

  • Full transcripts. Yes, it takes time and effort, but it brings audio to the blogosphere more than anything else could. Different transcribing services are available for podcasts and members of the team could make this more efficient.
  • Categorised feeds. The sadly missed DailySonic podcast had excellent customisation feature. If a mainstream radio station could do it, ROS would be a good candidate for categorised feeds.
  • Voting mechanism. Since Slashdot and Digg, voting has probably been the most common form of online participation by people who care about media. Voting on features would make the “pitching” process more than simply finding the right “hook” to make the show relevant. Results are always intriguing in those cases.
  • Community guests. People do want to get involved and the ROS community is fascinating. Bringing some members on the podcast could do a lot to give a voice to actual people. The only attempt I remember on ROS was with a kind of answering machine system. Nothing was played on the show. (What I left was arguably not that fascinating but I was surprised nothing came out of it.)
  • Guest hosts. Not to go too Bakhtin on y’all, but multiple voices in the same discussion makes for interesting stories. Being a guest host could prove how difficult it is be a host.
  • Field assignments. With a wide community of listeners, it could be interesting to have audio from people in other parts of the world, apart from phone interviews. Even an occasional one-minute segment would go a long way to give people exposure to realities outside the United States.
  • Social bookmarking. Someone recently posted an advice for a book club. With social bookmarking features, book recommendations could be part of a wider scheme.
  • Enhanced audio. While the MP3 version is really necessary, podcasts using enhanced features such as chapters and embedded images can be extremely useful, especially for owners of recent iPod/iPhone.
  • Links. ROS is not the only radio show and links are what makes podcasts alive, especially when one is linked to another. In a way, podcasts become an alternate universe through those links.

Ok, I’m getting too far astray from my original ideas about ROS. It must mean that I should leave it at that.

I do sincerely hope that ROS will take an interesting turn. I’ll be watching from my blog aggregator and I might join the ROS community again.

In the meantime, I’ll focus on other podcasts.

Beer, brewpubs, Montreal, Québec, ramblings

Bottling Laws

Leave a comment

Interesting piece in the  Hartford Advocate about bottling laws for brewpubs in Connecticut. (via BeerInfo)

It’d be very interesting to have this debate in Quebec. Quebec’s craft beer scene is very interesting and very unique, especially through Montreal’s brewpub and beerpub network. One issue is that brewpubs aren’t allowed to sell any beer for off-premises consumption. If brewpubs could sell beer off-premises, they could swap kegs from one brewpub to the next, to be served as guest beer. Because craft beer drinkers often care about diversity, this could be help the craft beer community as a whole.

aesthetics, linkfest, Montreal, participatory culture, podcasts, public domain, ramblings, Yulblog

Audio People of the World: "You, Knight!"

12 Comments

Much to be said about a recent ITConversations podcast episode. Ostensibly, this episode was about the LibriVox success story. (LibriVox is a community project producing public domain audiobooks from public domain books in diverse languages.) Yet, during this conversation, Web analyst (and Microsoft employee) Jon Udell along with LibriVox founder Hugh McGuire managed to share much insight on such varied issues as community-building, project management, grassroots movement, open source development, participatory culture, and aurality/orality.

After the chat, Udell and McGuire followed up, on their respective blogs. Udell developed a useful script to make all LibriVox books into RSS feeds for use in iTunes and other media players. Such a collaboration is an appropriate example of the power of “scratch your own itch” development, described during the podcast conversation. The conversation also prompted Librivox reader Sean McGaughey to describe LibriVox as a killer app. [Update: Blog version of the same description.]

I was led to this podcast episode through a visit to LibriVox reader Kara Shallenberg’s blog. Started listening to the LibriVox podcast after reading about LibriVox on fellow YulBlogger Patrick Tanguay’s own blog. Among other things, LibriVox helped me appreciate Canadian Literature and I’m quite glad that the project may contribute to Montreal’s widespread recognition at the cutting edge of technology and culture.

As an aural learner, I was quite taken by Udell and McGuire’s comments on auditory media. It seems that these two guys really grok what is so neat about sound. At least, their ideas about sound are quite compatible with my own ideas about music, language, and the cultural importance of sound.

We might be in a minority, North Americans who care about sound. Many people (including some online visionaries) seem to care more about visuality. In fact, given the large number of Web designers in the “Web 2.0” movement, it might be said that auditory media have often been considered a subset of “audiovisual content.” Yet there is something to be said about sound standing alone in digital life.

For instance, McGuire and Udell talk about the possibility for people to undertake other activities while listening to audiobooks and other auditory content. Commuting is probably the easiest one to grasp, for most people, and while it might be fun to watch a DVD on a plane or bus, audio podcasts are possibly the ideal “distraction” for (hearing) commuters. Listening to podcasts while moving around has led to very stimulating experiences.

Fans of McLuhan would probably think of “hot” and “cool” media. The difference between video and audio podcasts clearly relates to McLuhan’s ideas about participation.

There’s also the issue of rhythm. While moving images certainly can be rhythmic, speech and musical rhythm seem, to me, to be more readily associated with diverse human activities. No idea where to look for the cognitive side of this but it’s clearly worth investigating.

For lack of a better word, sound is more “abstract” than other sensory experiences. Acoustic signals do have a physical reality but the practise of listening has been used to elicit important ideas about abstract structures in Euro-American aesthetics.

Lots more to talk about but it will do for today.

confessions, diversité, Francophonie, intellectuels, intellos, joie de vivre, papillon social, Personnel, ramblings, social, social butterflies

Confessions d'un papillon social

8 Comments

Tiens, tiens! C’est pas mal, ça… Ça fait plusieurs fois que j’utilise la formule «Confessions d’un {désignation personnelle}», par référence détournée à Rousseau. Amusant de voir que, cette fois-ci, le lien entre «promeneur solitaire» et «papillon social» est même orthographique… 😉

C’est aussi la première fois que je fais un billet aussi personnel. Quasi-introspectif. Et même pseudo-catholique.

Fiou!

Oui, je l’avoue, l’admet, le confesse et le proclame: j’aime les gens. Tout simplement. Tout court.

Pas «j’aime les gens qui me ressemblent». Pas «j’aime les gens de qualité». J’aime les gens. Tous. Les êtres humains. Les membres de mon espèce. Sans raison spécifique.

Ils font de tout, les gens, du plus vil au plus beau, du plus laid au plus louable. Mais ils sont surtout très intéressants, les gens.

Me sens «humaniste» dans un sens très précis: amoureux de la nature humaine. Me fait surtout traiter de «papillon social», y compris par mes proches. Quelqu’un qui passe d’une personne à l’autre comme un papillon qui butine de fleur en fleur. C’est surtout utilisé en anglais, mais des Francophones parlent aussi de papillonnage dans un sens assez proche.

C’est assez réaliste, comme désignation. J’eus toutefois tendance à prendre ça comme un reproche. Surtout quand certains observent ma tendance à passer d’une personne à l’autre lors de rencontres publiques. Ça rend “self-unconscious”. Après tout, il y a cette idée que le papillon social est un être fat, qu’il est motivé par un désir de gloire, qu’il n’est pas loyal… «Papillonnage» est même plus connoté et me ressemble moins puisqu’il touche à la promiscuité, qui n’a jamais été mon truc.

Donc, «papillon social», c’est pas une étiquette facile à porter. Mais désormais, je m’assume en tant que papillon social. Oui, j’en suis fier.

D’après moi, les papillons sociaux ont la possibilité d’avoir des effets intéressants, sur les gens et sur la société. Pas exactement un pouvoir d’influence. Mais plutôt le pouvoir d’un grain de sable dans l’engrenage. Les choses changent, les papillons sociaux participent au changement. Simplement en étant eux-mêmes. Les papillons sociaux ont aussi la possibilité d’unir les gens. Je me sens donc très confortable dans mon rôle de papillon social. Je ne suis pas sélectif dans mes amitiés mais j’accorde beaucoup d’importance à mes amis. Certains sont très proches de moi. D’autres sont plutôt des connaissances. Mais tous ont de l’importance pour moi.

Va pour le côté «social» de mon caractère social. Il y a une part plus intime.

M’allonge sur un divan modèle psychanalytique, tendance Freud et non Jung. Presque Woody Allen comme scène. Et les mots résonnent avec la force du lieu commun: «ça date de mon enfance».

Si si! De ma plus tendre enfance. Mes parents avaient de nombreux amis. Ma mère, surtout. Et ils m’ont emmené avec eux dans toutes sortes de soirées. Souvent, j’étais le seul enfant entouré de nombreux adultes. Parfois, j’étais le centre de l’attention. Toujours, j’avais du plaisir. Du moins, si mon souvenir est bon.

Faut comprendre la chose. Notre vie familiale a toujours été basée sur l’amitié. La maison de ma mère a souvent été le lieu de rencontres impromptues. Nous avions une terrasse sur laquelle nous passions de longues heures à bavarder, avec des amis. Parfois, nous chantions, nous accompagnant à la guitare. Souvent, nous réinventions le monde. Nos références étaient souvent européennes et francophones, étant donné notre lien avec la Suisse Romande et avec la France. Nous mangions, buvions, savourions la vie.

Il y avait un côté européen à la chose. Et mondain. Et intello. Par contre, rien de très bourgeois. Pas de notion d’exclusion. Beaucoup de franchise. Bref, comme une version post-hippie des salons proustiens.

J’avais six ans quand mes parents se sont séparés. C’était donc avec un seul parent à la fois que je découvrais les délices sociales de la «soirée entre amis».

Mais ma famille a toujours été unie. Surtout l’unité familiale formée par ma mère et ses trois fils. Puisque je suis l’enfant unique du deuxième mariage de ma mère, il y a de grandes différences «objectives» entre mes frères et moi. De plus, par diverses circonstances, nous avons souvent été géographiquement distants, les uns des autres. Mais nous avons toujours été unis par des liens filiaux très forts. D’une certaine façon, mes «demi-frères» sont encore plus réellement mes vrais frères que si j’avais été né du même père qu’eux. Leurs amis sont parfois devenus mes amis. Tout ça grâce à ma mère, dont je parle peu parce qu’elle est quasi-sacrée, pour moi. C’est elle qui a soutenu cette cellule familiale. Quiconque parle de familles mono-parentales de façon condescendante n’a pas vécu ce que nous avons vécu.

D’ailleurs, nous avons créé pour nous-mêmes une identité propre. Nous sommes les Enforaks. «En-» pour «Enkerli», le nom de mon père et mon propre nom de famille. Et «-fo-» pour «Thiffault», le nom du premier mari de ma mère et le nom de famille de mes frères. Étant, à l’époque, fan du dessin animé Goldorak, j’ai ajouté le pseudo-suffixe «-rak» au nom d’un robot en blocs Lego que j’avais construit. Pour moi, rien de comparable au noyau familial formé par Marielle Gagnon et ses fils: Christian Thiffault, Pierre Thiffault et Alexandre Enkerli. Les Enforaks, ce fut aussi plusieurs personnes qui ont gravité autour de nous. Si je me rappelle bien, c’est même pour manifester l’acceptation de Catherine Lapierre, celle qui allait devenir ma première belle-sœur, que j’ai bâti et nommé ma construction Lego. Il y eu plusieurs autres Enforaks, y compris une autre Catherine: ma tendre épouse, Catherine Léger.

Oui, je suis nostalgique.

Quoique…

J’ai autant de plaisir maintenant qu’à l’époque, à rencontrer des gens. Et je suis très content d’avoir la chance de converser avec des gens de divers horizons sociaux, culturels, géographiques, idéologiques et professionnels. C’est d’ailleurs plus facile pour moi d’être un papillon social dans l’ère digitale que ça ne l’a jamais été dans mon enfance.

Ma vie familiale et sociale à travers ma famille était surtout heureuse par opposition à ma vie scolaire. J’avais de bonnes notes, les profs m’appréciaient, j’avais l’occasion de développer diverses aptitudes. Mais j’avais énormément de difficulté à me faire des amis. Retour sur le fauteuil: je me suis toujours senti rejeté par mes contemporains. Traité de «maudit Français» à cause de mon accent semi-européen. Mis à l’écart dans le contexte des «sacrements» religieux, puisque contrairement à la quasi-totalité des élèves de mon école primaire, je n’avais jamais été baptisé. Seul «enfant du divorce» à mon école, j’étais une curiosité pour plusieurs, y compris certains membres du personnel. Pacifiste au milieu de bagarreurs, j’avais de la difficulté à me faire respecter. Écrivant «aussi mal qu’un médecin», j’étais la cible d’une attention très particulière. Peu séduisant, je n’avais aucun succès auprès des filles. Bavard, je fatiguais mes congénères. Mes aptitudes scolaires étant bien plus grandes que mes aptitudes sportives, j’avais tout pour me faire détester.

Bref, j’étais seul avec mon moi-même à moi tout seul. Ça te me forme un gars, ça, madame!

Faut dire que, même à la maison, j’étais souvent seul. Entre autres parce que ma mère travaillait à temps plein. Dès l’âge de 9 ans, j’ai commencé à cuisiner et à manger seul, tous les midis de semaine. Puis la maison était vide quand j’y retournais après une journée d’école. Mon frère Christian (qui avait dix-huit ans lors de mon entrée à l’école) ayant quitté la maison familiale assez tôt et mon frère Pierre étant mon ainé de huit ans, je n’avais pas de compagnon de jeu à portée de main. Je passais donc de longues heures seul, dans une immense chambre à coucher, à jouer ou à lire tout en réfléchissant.

Oh, j’ai bien eu des amis. Y compris Frédéric Fortin, avec qui je maintiens de très forts liens d’amitié. Mais j’étais, malgré tout, seul.

«J’écris pas pour me plaindre, j’avais juste le goût de parler.»

D’ailleurs, ce dont je me rends le plus compte, c’est que j’ai pu bénéficier de tout ça. Non seulement ma solitude m’a «fait les pieds» et je suis désormais heureux d’être seul, mais ça a contribué à me faire vivre des moments fort agréables qui se répètent souvent.

Ce qui a probablement changé le plus, depuis mon enfance, c’est que je n’ai plus le désir d’être populaire. Je veux voir les gens, discuter avec eux. Mais je ne tiens pas à ce qu’ils soient admiratifs à mon égard. Oh, bien évidemment, je veux être apprécié, comme tout le monde. Mais j’aime tout le monde et j’aime simplement rendre le monde heureux.

Le plus mieux de l’affaire, c’est que ça marche assez souvent. Quand on est heureux soi-même, c’est facile de rendre les autres heureux. Et quand on se sent bien dans sa peau, c’est facile d’être heureux soi-même. Et quand on aime les gens, c’est facile de se sentir bien dans sa peau. Et quand on apprend à connaître les gens, c’est facile de les aimer.

constructivism, Education, eLearning, Facebook, informal learning, Learning, Moodle, quickies, ramblings, social networking, Universities

Social Networking and eLearning

Leave a comment

Oops! I did it again. Launched on one of my long-winded ramblings about the convergence between learning management systems (in this case, Moodle) and social networking sites (in this case, Facebook).

Executive summary:

Facebook’s power’s in fluid, organic networks. Moodle’s power’s in structured but flexible learning-based groups. I personally see a marriage made in heaven.

Lounge: Moodle as New Facebook

ethnocentrism, humanism, innovation, intellectuals, politics, ramblings, sociocentrism, wishful thinking

Humanistic Sociocentrism

13 Comments

There must be a common term for this and it is certainly well-known. A kind of wishful thinking of the trailblazer type. A combination of utopianism, humanism, naïveté, forward-thinking, and ethnocentrism. You wish for society to change in a given way, you predict that society will eventually switch to that direction, you wait patiently for social changes to happen, and you eventually notice that you’re in the minority.

Been thinking about “dreamers” («rêveurs», in Amélie), artists, idealists, intellectuals, marginals, elites, trend-setters. May even consider myself part of that group, somehow. A tiny minority. Running the gamut from hyper-specialist to Renaissance-type polymath. Getting jobs in different sectors but mostly in fields such as business, academia, expressive culture, or diplomacy.

Using the pattern of “ethnocentrism,” sociocentrism as social limits on thinking. Not necessarily thinking your social class to be better than others. But failing to notice that members of other social groups (in this case, the majority groups) may not think along the same lines as you do.

It might be what prevents some people to become successful politicians. Social life might be better that way.