Talk:Outside Context Problem

Usage

Has this term been used anywhere other than in "Excession"? If not, a more suitable category would seem to be "science fiction". --Christopher Thomas 02:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term is used fairly extensively on the web (Google - 3k hits, although wiki and mirrors of do form about half of it), and seems to be used as an example by many non-sf sites ( Story writing]), in some cases (Economics) even without mentioning Banks or mistakenly attributed the phrase to sb else ([1]). It has been used in at least one academic publication (Google Scholar found: 'Information assurance' by David Birchall, Jean-Noël Ezingeard, Elspeth McFadzean at PDF, in the context of risk and security in business). While the terms origin is definetly in sf, it does seem to have surpassed it an entered a wider language. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting this, a Google search that excludes Wikipedia finds 530 hits, of which almost all are quotations of the book or reviews of the book. Things that aren't just blog or chat quotes or reviews are:

• There was a 2006 art exhibition that borrowed the term, directly referencing the book as the source in its promotional literature (though apparently not on its main site) exhibition link.
• There was a Salon article about running out of oil that uses the quote (page link.
• There was an article discussing Sun's future that uses the quote (article link).

So, a case can be made for the term being occasionally used, but I don't know if that's enough for it to be notable enough for its own article. --Christopher Thomas 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Other uses include software engineering (in reference to unexpected changes of requirements) and another article on peak oil. This page is using the phrase with a different meaning (the problem of how to get outside context into a particular part of a software system). JulesH 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

James Howard Kunstler uses the term in this video in his discussion of peak oil. He contends that our society (especially in the USA) is predicated on the assumption of always-available and ever-increasing energy supplies. And therefore peak oil and peak energy are outside context problems for us right now. --Ansible (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples

While I like the Perry's Black Ships in Japan example, I don't think that Hurricane Katrina and flooding of New Orleans is a good OTC example: there have been many floodings in Earth's history, and if the preparations were not enough, the fact that there were some makes it definetly an 'In Context Problem' IMHO. I am also not sure about the meteorite striking Earth example: we are aware it is a possibility, we just think it is so remote it is not worth the effort. Like a plague, it is an extinction event, which is not the same as OCP (OCP does not have to result in exctinction of our species, it is just something almost completly unexpected with potential to make or break given culture). I wonder if 'society awarness' is a possible factor here - i.e. if we can imagine something, is it any longer the OCP? Would grey goo be a OCP or just an extinction event? Alien contact is a better example, although science fiction has paved some way in making most people aware it is a possibility. It would be an OCP a century ago (Well's broadcast of 'War of Worlds' seems to be a good example), but would it still be now? I'd say that if majority of society is not aware of an event with the potential to drastically affect it, it is an OCP. Otherwise, it is an extinction event or just a normal social change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"such as the scenario alluded to by Banks: the discovery of America"

America was not discovered with steamships.

I dare say it's futile to try to give an example of an OCP for us (that is, something that is outside our context), because any scenario one of us thinks of is either inside context, or will be as soon as it is explained clearly enough to use it as an example.—GraemeMcRae^talk 05:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely true, I think. Consider this: if several visionaries realise something is possible, but vast majority of the population is unaware of it, then I wager we can still call it an OTC for that society.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; also, with the aliens, for instance, it's not the mere fact of contact but its content that would constitute the OCP — whatever new knowledge, art, culture &c they were to give to or impose on us. --Sabik 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Both, I'd think: if most people don't think that aliens can exist that their very discovery would be shocking to them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It's obvious that this term, while it refers to a general and well recognised phenomenon, is a neologism coined by Iain M. Banks. If the term has been taken up widely by other commentators, particularly by professionals in cultural anthropology, that's a matter that would suggest that we should have an article on it, but if (as it seems from reading the article) it hasn't, then I suggest that we should merge the relevant content to Excession, the only signficant work of which I'm aware in which the term is used. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

35,700,000 ghits for Outside context problem -wikipedia . I'm not going to search the lot. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok, so I searched a bit, I found this clip from Apocalypto, literally depicting the start of a nice juicy OCP. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUx9Cemlexc ... Too bad some people are allergic to youtube. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, still 7540 ghits for "Outside context problem" -wikipedia. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you'll find it all over fan sites and in that rather appropriate Apocalypto hit. Fans like it. Perhaps we could have an article here that doesn't masquerade as a treatise on anthropology. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) From a quick runthrough the term now also appears in the legal profession, organization management, an art exhibition in hong kong, and many more. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add those references to the article, explaining context. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. At the moment the article does seem to be a little OR-ey for my taste. If there is a well-referenced article to be written here, I am all for that. Otherwise a redirect and merge might be best. --John (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, RS being what it is... I'll leave the sweating to someone else thanks. (And I'm likely not the first person to drive by and say that :-P) Anyway, since I refer to OCP type problems myself on a somewhat regular basis, losing the page from wikipedia would suck bigtime. I might have to start a new Kimpedia, just to ensure that people will still be able to look up terms and concepts I use, so that they can still understand what I'm saying :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) In fact, wtf is the POINT of an encyclopedia, if you can't look up concepts that people are using? The reason we've thrown out all our old encyclopedias is because they are so far behind the curve that they're essentially useless wastes of plank space. Pulling wikipedia too far behind would render it equally irrelevant.

Oh I don't propose to lose the useful content at all. If you look at the history you'll see that last night I quietly merged the article to Excession#OCP, but Piotrus disagreed and undid the redirect. Now we've got a reasonably illuminating description of OCP on Excession, and a similar one plus some original research on this article. It may be that we will want to keep the article, but I definitely aim to get rid of the essayish parts or at least sculpt it so that it cites reliable sources on usage. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. Well, I Was In The Neighborhood, Just Passing Through I guess, and became an Unwitting Accomplice to Piotrus in stating that it was "Fine Till You Came Along". It was A Momentary Lapse Of Sanity. Since I posses a Flexible Demeanour, I'll listen to your Appeal To Reason and take the Long View. Let's just see how your changes work out first. And now I'll make a Dramatic Exit, Or, Thank you And Goodnight! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Wow, you really can make coherent arguments using just that list!

To whoever created this, please, You'll Clean That Up Before You Leave. OK, seriously, the lead says:

An Outside Context Problem or OCP is a challenge utterly outside a given group's (organisation, society, culture or civilisation) set of experience. Because an OCP is something that has never happened before, the end result is unpredictable.

The thing is, we don't have any references for this (besides something from some work of fiction or other, which obviously doesn't count). Now, we might get away with having a separate article if it said something like:

In the fictional world of Iain M. Banks's The Culture, an Outside Context Problem or OCP is a challenge utterly outside a given group's (organisation, society, culture or civilisation) set of experience. A particular OCP forms the central plot point of his book Excession.

—Ashley Y 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mergining it into Excession is not a terrible idea, but the term is somewhat notable. Lots of examples were given above (don't forget the #Usage section at the top). Previously mentioned article by Birchall et al. was reprinted in a book and mentions the term and Banks ([2]: "In his novel Excession, Iain M. Banks coined the phrase "outside context problem" to describe an event that is completely outside an organisation's knowledge or experience, permitting only the application of theorised or general processes"). Here's a non-fiction book (2006) that uses this term in this context ("That process is sometimes referred to as an "outside context problem," something so far beyond the ordinary experience of those dwelling in a certain time and place that they cannot make sense of available information"), amusingly enough it does not mention Iain Banks as its author, making it an example of Mertonian "Obliteration by incorporation" :) There is also another scholarly paper mentioning Banks term: " Postcolonialism/s, Gender/s, Sexuality/ies and the Legacy of The Left Hand of Darkness: Gwyneth Jones's Aleutians Talk Back" in The Yearbook of English Studies, Volume 37, Number 2, 1 July 2007 , pp. 182-196(15) by Pearson, Wendy Gay.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This phenomenon, given a name by Ian M Banks, is strong enough to warrant separate inclusion. If the term was coined in a non-fiction book this would not be up for debate. Who first coined the term Byzantine Empire, or Celt, or Brythonic, or communism? The list goes on. Just because it appears in a Sci Fi book does not dilute its meaning or usefulness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.78.62 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I say merge. The term is non-notable, as shown by the lack of cites. The "examples" are original research, and must be removed.Yobmod (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article has been tagged as unreferenced for a year! It seems no-one seriously intends to improve it (beyond orignal researching new examples.Yobmod (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On my part, I think the Outside Context Problem works better as a separate article. There are several cites in this section, above, and the article Biological issues in Jurassic Park (which is an important part of our coverage of paleontology, despite what it seems like, but that's way off-topic) has progressed ridiculously over the last nine months, yet it's still tagged with refimprove.
As for OR, it's lately seemed that there are as many definitions of that as there are Wikipedians, but if I'm not in a condition to add the above cites to this article then I'm in no condition to debate original research. --Kizor 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Cites" on the talk page are not refernces, and prove nothing about notability. I don't think that OCP used in other contexts (:-)) even has the same meaning as the Banks' term. Does anyone really think that the examples added were not OR? If they are unoriginal, ADD the CITE for the publication you found it in (you can't, because you didn't, and it is) (that's a general you :-)).Yobmod (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of recent edits

I've drastically trimmed the "See also" section, leaving only the link to Extinction event, which is relevant whereas all or most of the others are not.

I've also removed the "In film and literature" section which contained such gems as Future Shock, a book on futurology published by Alvin Toffler when Iain M. Banks was sixteen years old, and Roadside Picnic, a classic SF novella published by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky the following year. Excession, in which the term "Outside Context Problem" is introduced, was published by Banks 25 years after the Russian story. Its relation to either work is unexplained and possibly even unexplainable.

For instance Future Shock, which I have in front of me as I write, is about the impact of swift technological change on societies and individuals. It is not about the impact of technological change on the civilization as a whole, much less is it about the impact of something external or "unknown". Toffler identifies and extrapolates, rather, from what he perceives (in 1970) to be existing trends.

The Strugatsky story is based on an analogy between humans witnessing a visitation by extraterrestrials of an advanced culture, and wild animals witnessing a roadside picnic (a similar theme is picked up by Arthur C. Clarke in Rendezvous with Rama). While that has obvious affinities with Excession, the term "OCP" is not used and the implications for the whole civilization are not explored in the Strugatasky work. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

With regards to film and literature, I'd think that this section shows examples; as such ones older than the book, which might have inspired Banks, are quite relevant (hence, I'd re-add the Roadside Picnic). While it is ORish, there are other similarities between Strugaccy's work and Banks' (ex. progressors).

Future Shock, however, is indeed not relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "ORish". It is OR. There is no link between these books, and the themes are not particularly similar imo. Find a cite, if it's true! (It's not, so you cannot).Yobmod (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Full stop

I think this revert is incorrect. Banks is clear on this, in the text actually quoted in the article: An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations would encounter just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop.

Banks meaning is that the OCP usually spells the end of the civilization--his example also makes it plain.

The Culture does survive its OCP, but that doesn't make Banks' statement about the usual result false.

The existing (reverted) wording is weak and almost meaningless. Lots of events are unpredictable. An OCP isn't just unpredictable, it represents a serious survival problem for the civilization. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ja, but it doesn't necessarily result in it's demise either. We cannot write that it does, as the ONLY 2 cases shown in the book are survived with no harm to society AT ALL.

Plus the OCP they encounter the second time is exactly the same as the first one, no?

The definition given in the book is also almost meaningless: "sort of thing" "most" "tended". Hence our definition must also be whooly and useless, to be true to it's origins.Yobmod (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the meanings of the words "most" and "tended" are clear enough.

Also I don't recognise the book as describing two encounters. The Excession only makes a single appearance, and maintains the same uniformly anomalous profile for the duration of the novel, at the end of which it vanishes of its own accord. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is the 2nd time the excession appeared, isn't it? It had appeared before, long before the start of the book. The special op guy is told all about it.

Hence the book is a poor example of it's own definition - the problem wasn't outside any context, procedures were in place to deal with it, and it wasn't even a Problem!

Agreed, most means more than 51% and tended means "went in that direction but didn't reach the destination".

Why not just quote Banks directely in the intro? Because to me it doesn't mean demise. I don't think American Indian's would agree they have no culture after meeting Columbus - things changed, but demise implies too much.

Or combining both version, like: "....results are unexpected, and could result in the societies demise" Yobmod (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

I think it's time once more to raise the question of merging/redirecting to Excession#Outside Context Problem. There seems to be absolutely nothing verifiable to say about OCP that isn't in the novel, and there doesn't seem to be much to say about it that's in the novel, that would merit a separate article. --Jenny 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with merge. It's not just that this term is a neologism with little (if any) thrid party use - it would be more easily understood and informative as a section in the book's article. This page can be a section redirect, so is just as easily found. I simply don't see any negative points to a merge, apart from annoying fanboys wanting to have as many individual pages relating to their favourite series.Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any further comment, I'll be bold and perform the merge. It can be reverted by anyone who wants to state an objection here. --Jenny 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)