In our course E-Learning 3.0 (#el30) facilitator Stephen Downes asked us to create an identity graph. We should not use a node “me”, “myself” or similar. I made a mind map using Mindmaster, but I dislike the fact that the format seems to impose a central node. I put buddhism/humanism central, since that are core values and practices which permeate my life. Part of it, of course, is aspirational. Actually it would be nice to see the nodes moving, changing positions all the time. Stephen also asks some questions about the graph:

  • What is the basis for the links in your graph: are they conceptual, physical, causal, historical, aspirational? Answer: Well, all that.
  • Is your graph unique to you? What would make it unique? What would guarantee uniqueness? Answer: The combination of interests, passions maybe rather specific, but is it unique? Why should it be unique? And if there is such a thing as ‘typically me’, I guess it somehow eludes whatever description or graph.
  • How (if at all) could your graph be physically instantiated? Is there a way for you to share your graph? To link and/or intermingle your graph with other graphs? Answer: The graph is shared here, Mindmeister gives tools to share and mix. I could have embedded the graph, but I avoid that for security reasons.
  • What’s the ‘source of truth’ for your graph? Answer: Introspection, which is always dubious.

Picture of the mind map, click to enlarge, link above.

7 thoughts on “#el30 task: identity graph

    • Very interesting idea yes. while there are maybe some people on this planet sharing exactly the same values and interests, chances are very slim they have the same relationships with significant others.

  1. Is it more than just relationships with significant others? Is it the relationships of the whole in their entirety. Could anyone else have exactly the same combination of relationships in the same configuration, even if they have similar interests and connections? I agree that ideally we would need the nodes changing positions all the time, which would also change the relationships.

    • Hi Jenny. No, I don’t think the exact same combination would occur. All kinds of questions here: how does one describe the exact nature and weight of a relation in a network?

  2. I enjoyed your post and really like your answer for the ‘source of truth’ question. I thought along those lines, but doubted it could be an answer, so didn’t get that far in my post. Introspection as a source of truth? Yes, and it is my truth. (even if dubious!)

Mentions

  • jennymackness

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *