Publius' Query for February

[houseo...@gmail.com]

It is uncommon, we realize, for us to post anything. We have
attempted to guide discussions about broad topics such as the Bill of
Rights and things. This one is strictly a procedural query.

In the House of Junto we will receive requests to join the group. We
know from other experiences that often these requests are too often
from people identified as spammers or the like. Rather than allow
them into the group and then kick them out later, we choose to write
them at their email address and ask them to send in a short intro.

Of all of these, Scott is the only one who has ever gotten back with
us. So what we're wondering is if our approach is intimidating people
or chasing them away, or are they just robots ready to spam, so they
don't respond? Should something in our approach change?

We will appreciate your input.
Publius IV.

[Scott Nesler]

Publius,

I think spamming is the least of the worries. Check out the Global
Sensemaking Ning Site. The whole social networking scene has
created individuals wanting association with an intelligent forums
without providing dialog. For the past three months I have seen the
site turn into more of a dating forum than intelligent discussion.

I've come up with a new frame for the Do Good Gauge called, "Weapons
of Mass Comprehension". I could develop my own forum manager, but
would rather not. When possible, I plan on pushing intelligent
discussion for relevant topics to the House of Junto. Maybe this
will recruit additional members. I still like a screening process
for encourage respectful dialog with the goal of understanding.

http://www.dogoodgauge.com/site/DoGoodGauge/page_contents/display/81

As far as dialog, I sure hope Adam, Brett, Isabelle, Jake, and Thomas
continue to engage in the insightful dialog similar to the past year.

[Adam Webster]

I actually like the filtering method you've chosen.

[houseo...@gmail.com]

In that case, our next question to the group is what would encourage
more participation. We have seen some Juntos get together and one
after another, the members quit participating until the group dies.
This has been the most successful chapter of Junto. But the last few
months have been very quiet and we wonder what we could do to
encourage more participation.

One idea suggested to us was that the role of moderator has been
defined too narrowly, and it might be informative and challenging in
the moderator presented challenging arguments when the rest of the
group seems to have achieved concensus. What are your thoughts about
this?

> >> Publius IV.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scott Nesler]

I get about 3% response rates with letters about the DGG, so take my
comments lightly.

From Franklin's autobiography.

I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of
the preceding year, [1727]
I had form'd most of my ingenious acquaintance into a
club of mutual improvement,
which we called the Junto; we met on Friday evenings.
The rules that I drew up required
that every member, in his turn, should produce one or
more queries on any point of Morals,
Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss'd by
the company; and once in three months
produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any
subject he pleased.

Our debates were to be under the direction of a
president, and to be conducted in the sincere
spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for
dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth,
all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct
contradiction, were after some time made
contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary
penalties.

I interpret that each member gets the undivided attention of the group
during their weekly rotation. I would suggest a slight change in
the House of Junto's process Instead of each individual posting
their query at the beginning of the month, a single member post their
query at the beginning of the week. The weekly poster would also be
the moderator/facilitator. It will be this persons responsibility to
keep dialog interesting. Depending on the number of members, this
gives each member several weeks to research their own topics before
revealing it to the rest of the group.

I can't speak for the other members of the original Franklin Junto,
but I would suggest Franklin utilize the group in refining many of his
great accomplishments. I would suggest our members utilize the
House of Junto for the betterment of their community or even
humanity.

[Jake Patterson]

Let me also offer my approval of the screening process. I know you
encourage us to invite members and it is always interesting when
someone joins us. Of course we've been really dead lately. But I
would maintain that referrals are the best way to get new people to
join up. Don't sweat it if some random person exploring google groups
doesn't respond to you. Their last of response is probably an
indication of their lameness.

Scott, while I know that we are patterned after the original Junto
there are a lot of things we do differently. If all of us were
actively participating and engaging in interesting discussions we
might limit things. Even if we all were I'd say have rotations so we
get three or four new discussion topics a month because frankly the
variety is fun.

That's my two cents.

[SilenceDoGood]

Jake, I feel your sentiment that we need to worry about getting
activity before changing the existing House of Junto policies.

The desire to collaborate with a group which provides a measurable
difference to humanity eludes me. I apologize for placing this
burden on the group. In my small sphere of relationships, I find
it difficult to acquire the group dynamics to respectfully inquire
about political, social, and religious topics in the manner that this
group has for the past year. During the height of activity I saw
the potential for Adam, Brett, Jeff, Thomas, you, and me to develop
arguments worthy of publication. A little practice and some
additional research is all I felt was necessary.

Bringing on additional people, just to have additional people is
likely to keep the group at status quo. The House of Junto existed a
year before I started. I assume that Adam, Brett, and Jake were
friends before the foundation of the google group, so I can understand
the satisfaction with the current HOJ process. The sanity of
reason within our discussions is beyond the status quo of what the
media pushes upon us. With some polishing, the four of us could
develop arguments worthy of the masses. A few successes would provide
the visibility to recruit additional individuals with a desire to
collaboratively develop reasonable arguments.

Several months ago I submitted a query regarding Benjamin Franklin's
Junto being a historical anomaly. I'm not suggesting that we
attempt to mimic BF's group. I would suggest additional analysis of
what attributed to the success and longevity of his group.

[Adam Webster]

Actually, Scott, I think publication is something I'd love to work
toward. One thing I loved about the original Junto that I don't get
here is the ability to put ideas into practice. That, I believe, is due
to the distance between us physically. However, we could feasibly
collaborate on something that the masses could stand to read. I think
we should keep it in mind as we work to increase our activity. Then, we
should really look into it.

[Scott Nesler]

Adam, Franklin had longevity and proximity on his side when it came to
collaborative accomplishments. We will have to get around our
current participation issues. We also need a method to identify
topics which pushes the group to go the extra mile in polishing the
argument.

Finding a customer or a publicist for are paper is secondary in my
mind, first we need to determine if we can develop a quality
product. As for publication, I would suggesting thinking small to
start off. Say a local newspaper or tabloid. I would like to
attack editorials who polarize an issue. This does not require any
political leaning, just the fortitude to use the Socratic method. As
a group, we could keep each other in check and push external arguments
to a more sane dialog with the potential for amiable resolution.

Please keep me in check with this idea.

[houseo...@gmail.com]

Adam has touched on the strength and weakness of this collaborative
google group. The Internet allows us to touch each other from long
distances. Some of us would never have made each other's
acquaintances without the Internet. Our ideas could be shared across
a continent. Unfortunately it also eliminates the possibility of
forming a fire brigade or a library.

Out original intention was to develop a group of twelve members, and
after a few years instruct them each to form their own Junto of close
associates whom they could actually do some communal good with. This
possibility is not beyond accomplishment. But since Scott suggested
publication, it has seemed the best way for our spread-out Junto to do
any real good. Again, we fully support the notion of publication.

Getting the idea off the ground, however, will require both a change
in format and more participation from the members general. We have
adopted a book club aspect, which has not continued since Jake did the
Lord of the Flies. But we could do a simultaneous publication thread
that would first explore which of our prior arguments should be
explored and then go into how to frame the arguments. Meanwhile,
discussion would continue as usual so we can draw on them for the next
publication.

Please include your feedback on this idea. If we can get it rolling
it will be beneficial to us as a collaborative body and to our
audience.

[Scott Nesler]

Seeking out essay contests is a thought for motivation and where to
publish.

[Brett Kraus]

First we need a topic that all of us feel comfortable with and that we
could do a point/counterpoint thing with, along with research and
groundbreaking arguments. The question is where to publish.

I have a friend that has gotten some op-ed pieces published, so I
could talk to him about how he went about doing that.

I have concerns with this idea, but am still willing to at least look
further into it.