Posts tagged generations
travels of reading part 1
Sep 7th
So.
This is part a rant about people who don’t take advantage of reading and part simply a plea for people to read as often as they can.
Let me begin with the traveling ‘thing’ I mention upfront.
I have been extremely fortunate in my life to have had the opportunity to travel the globe. And experience lots of things. And see a lot of different things.
But even with that.
I tend to believe books and reading have offered the best travels I have ever experienced. Yeah. I do love reading and I believe reading books really is like traveling.
Traveling to places. To thoughts. To others minds. To other types of thinking. To fresh ideas.
It is an absolute fact that everyone has the opportunity to see so many things through reading.
And imagine things with limitless boundaries.
And experience thinking and ideas and combinations of words that energize the mind and the heart and the soul.
Reading just gets you … well … thinking. Just thinking about things.
We all have found those moments in books when reading.
There are those moments when you actually traveled through a slice of someone ‘else’s life living it word by word.
As I typed that I remember I was fortunate to be given a proofers copy of The Horse Whisperer and asked my opinion. I know I gave it a great review.
And I believe it made me cry in the first 50 pages (which may be one of the most heart wrenching tangled emotional ‘stepping into a moment’ sections of a book I have ever encountered).
That is an example of traveling through someone else’s life experience.
You travel through their experience and feel it. In your gut. You live it. You get so close to the moment through the words you feel like you have traveled there.
I find the same (but different) feeling when I read The Economist.
Anyway.
Anyone who reads knows about the moments when you come across a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things that you’d thought and it was lurking in your own mind and it appears on a page articulated by by someone else, someone you’ve never met, maybe even someone long passed.
It’s as if someone has heard your thought and knew you couldn’t figure out a way to put it in words and has traveled to say “here it is, worry no more, for now you know what it is.”
And, of course, (because I am consistent on this issue and I am who I am) reading an easy path to knowledge.
Of course you can gain knowledge through experience, or discussion, or other paths … but reading is so freely available and simple that it can only be deemed a great failure to anyone who doesn’t encourage it as a core activity … if not privilege.
I do know I would like to see America become a place that’s proud of intellectual curiosity. But I fear too often intellectual curiosity is belittled by people whose idea of culture is determined by television or People-type magazines or internet blogs.
You would like to think that knowledge should be a lifelong goal and not something satisfied by high school mandatory reading lists or four years of college … but rather a lifetime of reading.
Here is the issue (ok. some issues).
Okay. Some statistics.
From bookstatistics.com:
- 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
- 42% of college graduates never read another book.
- 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
- 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
Ok.
Did you know that there are approximately 30 million adults in the U.S. who can’t read?
Yikes.
THAT last one sends a shiver down my spine.
While I would like to think most people would like to read (like I do) but I guess I also assume they can actually read.
But.
Look at number 2 on the list. 80% of families did not buy or read a book. 80 frickin’ percent.
Whew.
What happens to us (from childhood where we seem to have endless supplies of books to read)?
I do know that one of my favorite childhood memories is “reading” The Hobbit.
Ok. I didn’t read it. Our teacher read it to us in installments in elementary school in ‘reading time.’
Afterwards? I couldn’t wait to get my own hands on it.
Since then I have read it and the entire Lord of the Rings maybe 10 times. I have no idea at what age was my first time but it has to be very young. I remember being fascinated, excited and impatient waiting for the next chapter to unfold. I created pictures in my mind at each reading and the next day another picture would be drawn.
So.
I am not suggesting everyone love reading as much as I do.
But understanding what reading has to offer is important.
Not everyone can physically travel and books not only give someone an opportunity to travel anywhere in the ‘now’ but they give you an opportunity to travel through time … and see ideas past, present and future.
Look. I know reading books certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on becoming “smart.”
I’ve read some amazing stuff online, and I’ve read amazingly thought provoking newspaper articles (not in local papers but the NY Times or The Guardian). And I do think staying open to new media is a key sign of intellectual curiosity.
I don’t know.
In any case, I don’t know if people who don’t read lack intellectual curiosity. I think there can be other ways to satisfy intellectual curiosity (particularly in today’s web crazy world).
But I do think if you don’t read you can find yourself with a lack of ability to think in the abstract and the potential.
You may have heard the term “lifelong learning.”
Though learning begins when we are children education is truly a never ending process (and reading can play an important part of learning for everyone). Reading not only keeps us informed about the world around us but also provides intellectual stimulation and helps keep us mentally sharp.
Reading offers benefits not found in more “passive” media.
It gives the brain a much better workout than does watching television. When we watch TV, we take in the information in a passive way. But reading allows the mind to:
- pause, reflect, think
- operate more actively
- use intellect and emotion together
- develop a longer attention span.
Oh.
And on that last bullet point. To those of you who may say “I don’t have the attention span to read.” Well. There ain’t anyone out there who has a shorter attention span than I do. I have the attention span of a gnat. And still a book can suck me in to a place where it doesn’t become about ‘attention’ any more but rather ‘involvement.’
Ok.
Regardless of all my own personal ramblings on the greatness of reading there are some actual studies (if you doubt that this whole reading is traveling thing is really for you).
- Carnegie Mellon scientists discovered that the volume of brain white matter in the language area of the brain increased after study participants followed a six-month daily reading program. The Carnegie Mellon study proved that the brain structure can be improved by training poor readers to become better readers.
- In 2009, Mayo Clinic conducted a Study of Aging that offered some good news for middle-aged and senior adults. Reading a book and other cognitive activities could decrease the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
This says we should assume the brain is like a muscle. Studies prove that exercising it and stimulating it makes it stronger. Reading stimulates brain activity. Reading a variety of “things” (blogs, books, newspapers, etc.) challenges the brain to think in new directions and absorb new concepts and information.
And children?
Children benefit from reading on many levels. Parents actively stimulate their child’s brain by sharing a reading time with them. Interactive reading time creates a shared bond between parent and child along with provoking a child’s natural curiosity about the world and environment.
Giving a child a chance to ask questions, express an interest in a particular topic, and hear new vocabulary and ideas forms a positive impression on a child that lasts a lifetime. Children with poor reading skills have a tendency to feel more anxious and sad (that comes from a study but I lost the source).
Reading also means we are in more control of how we learn and absorb different ideas. We can skim over portions that interest us less, move backwards and forwards, reread and, as in my case, make notes or write spectacularly articulated things down.
Reading helps keep us oriented and engaged.
Science, history, biographies, self help, religion, philosophy … the list is really endless … all make our ‘world’ a little more ‘full’ (but it is a glass that can never actually be completely filled) with each book we read.
I left this to the end because people who haven’t really figured out how to enjoy reading don’t “get” this. But there is an amazing pleasure to sitting down with a good book. It’s kind of like traveling to anywhere in the world (imagined or real) without leaving the comfort of our own chair. We can visit a fantasy realm with JRR Tolkien, or the American West with Louis L’Amour, or solve a mystery with Sherlock Holmes or see the intricacies of war with Tom Clancy. (that list could truly go on and on)
So.
In the end.
Some people will never ever be interested in learning unless dragged, kicking and screaming.
My biggest hope is that we adults (the ones who don’t like reading) don’t hinder our kids natural curiosity about the world and still encourage them to read (it is unfortunate that kids typically do as they see … so … if you don’t read they don’t feel compelled to do so).
I do know that I will never quit trying to give everyone the opportunity to love reading and knowledge and encouraging curiosity.
Why?
Because not all of us have the privilege to travel.
And books give everyone the privilege to travel.
Doesn’t get much simpler than that.
travels of reading part 2
Sep 7th
“You get a little moody sometimes but I think that’s because you like to read. People that like to read
are always a little fucked up.” Pat Conroy
This is a follow up to my reading part 1 (which was serious about the importance of reading).
This is more a rant (and a warning) on how people who love to read abuse their joy of reading.
This possibly provides a counterbalance to my disdain for people who waste the opportunity to permit their minds to travel through reading … which is a luxury everyone can afford and has access to regardless of budget.
So.
Readers can take things to absurd levels (simply because they read).
Pretentious.
Pompous.
Treating people who don’t read (or are not “well read”) as lesser beings (and they can do it overtly or in sneaky but still pompous ways).
Oh.
And the perpetual idiotic rephrasing or quoting of literature (rather than seek their own words).
Using quotes can be lazy.
Just as using any words of others can be lazy.
For reading is only good if you are using it to increase your own intellectual thinking.
And to come up with your own ideas.
And to express your own thoughts and ideas better,
Reading is traveling.
Traveling through other people’s thoughts and ideas.
And, sure, it is okay to show pictures of your trips and travels but you don’t want to read from the guidebooks as you tell everyone about the trip … they want to hear your thoughts and experience it through your eyes and words.
Yeah.
I am certainly a lover of a well crafted written thought. That poetic turn of phrase. Even that full chapter of prose that when it ends you finally exhale. And then only to turn back upon on some pages and reread something because the way the words have been put together it stirs something inside you … it could be your soul … it could be your mind … it could just be ‘something’ but those words have created an imprint upon you.
But.
The imprint is often best used in your own words when shared.
Do I use quotes or literary references? Sure. You bet I do.
Do I use them to replace my own words? Rarely.
I use someone else’s words to either emphasize my own thoughts or introduce my thoughts or (in a business environment) to honestly “steal a moment.”
(note: ‘stealing a moment definition: that would be when the meeting is spinning in a direction and you cannot seem to stem the stream of unfocused idiocy spewing forth and you grab an appropriate quote out of your memory banks – because frankly your own words haven’t done shit to steer everyone away from whatever the hell it is they are saying – and you grandly toss someone else’s words out into the air. That, my friends, is the art of stealing a moment with a quote.).
Anyway.
Reading is useful only when … well .. you make it useful.
Reading and learning and saying nothing is a waste.
Reading so you don’t have to do your own thinking is a waste.
Reading to solely use other people words is a waste.
Reading to simply say things to show you are better and smarter (well, maybe more ‘well read’) is a waste.
Oh.
And not reading is the worst waste.
Beyond my quote/using others words rant.
If you are a reader and love books?
Don’t abuse your love for reading. Don’t just talk but listen.
And share after listening.
Your attitude with what you have gained from reading can either encourage someone to pick up a book or discourage some from reading.
If you love to read, you are an ambassador for reading and need to think of yourself as such.
Think of yourself as a curiosity fulfillment teacher. Think of it as your own personal “no person left behind” program.
Advocate reading don’t belittle someone who doesn’t.
And if you struggle to figure out how to encourage someone to read?
Maybe steal someone else’s words … Charles Schultz (Peanuts author):
“This is my report on the importance of knowing how to read. If you can’t read and you get a love letter, you won’t know what it says. That would be very sad. Although in the long run, it also could save you a lot of trouble.”
- Charles Schultz
Answering Dress Code Questions
Aug 1st
When you get into top management slots in businesses you start having to discuss some of the most random things which you would assume would be just common sense. But. I will tell you that the discussion you have with employees is absolutely nothing compared to those same discussions in the Executive meeting. All these senior executive types start talking about serious crap like “did you see what Evelyn wore to the office the other day” and getting their proverbial panties in a wad.
And then, of course, you have the head honchos who look around and sagely say “well, I worked my way through the business and it was because I wore “x” all the time and people took me seriously and that was the secret to my success.” (not that maybe there may have been something smart said or done on occasion). It is typically at this stage of the executive meeting where things start spiraling completely out of control. While no one had anything constructive to suggest when the discussion was about, say, the strategic direction of the company, everyone has an opinion on dress code. And then there are the brown nosers who line up behind the leader and shout “yeah, we wore that too and that’s why we got promoted and clients loved us.”
It was in meetings like this I was torn between becoming a human bobble head and becoming sea sick or simply falling into a coma as all useable oxygen was sucked out of the room.
So. Below is a typical management outline of company Dress Code doublespeak non clear direction and my interpretation.
Q. What does “business appropriate” mean?
A. We have chosen “business appropriate” as the preferred way of describing our dress standard. This acknowledges that the work you do should guide your choice of dress rather than having a formal dress code. Some individuals have incorrectly interpreted business appropriate as casual dress. (For example, wearing weekend attire to work.)
- WTF. I believe they are saying formal wear (black tie) is preferred versus formal sandal wear. If I were creative (and wanted to get fired) I could argue business appropriate means appropriate for business I work on … for example … if I work on Chiquita I am permitted to wear a fruit headdress any time I want .. Valvoline I can wear a cool mechanic shirt with my name sewn on the front … accountants are permitted to wear their formal green visor. Lastly. “Incorrectly interpreted business appropriate as casual dress.” Awesome. Basically while oddly crafted they are trying to tell you “don’t ever be casual at work.”
Q. How do I know what is appropriate dress if there are no specific guidelines?
A. We have not created an all inclusive list of appropriate attire. Instead, we rely on employees to use common sense to wear what is appropriate for the type of work that they do. While jeans, shorts, mini-skirts, clothes that expose mid-sections, sweat suits, spandex (or other tight fitting clothing), flip flops, and tennis shoes are certainly acceptable weekend casual wear, they do not convey a professional business image and would not be appropriate to wear in business situations.
If there are important business reasons for an employee to dress formally, such as attending meetings with outside clients who dress in more business formal attire, then formal business attire would be appropriate on those occasions.
- Ok. To be clear. I didn’t make this crap up. This is actual company policy. So. We trust you as long as it isn’t jeans, shorts, sweatsuits, spandex (I wonder if spandex underwear is okay?), tennis shoes, etc. once again. We won’t list appropriate attire but given this list wear a suit or something formal.
Q. Who decides whether my dress is appropriate? How is it reinforced?
A. We expect each employee to dress in a way that reflects the company’s professional creative and trendy image, shows respect for others and is appropriate for the business they will do that day. So, as long as those principles are met, each individual will decide what appropriately meets those criteria. And, most employees have a good sense of what is and isn’t appropriate for the work they do.
In the rare situations when the principles are not adhered to or are in question, each employee’s manager is expected to address the inappropriate attire, just as they would any other type of inappropriate conduct in their departments. Since dress always involves a subjective element, managers should use common sense in handling dress standard issues and talk things out in a professional, constructive way.
- Lots of references to common sense but basically you are at the mercy of your manager. And it pays to remember that shit rolls down hill so your manager’s manager is actually the one you are watching for “attire guidance.” Oh. And while I do love a contradiction how the hell do I maintain a ‘creative & trendy image’ but I cannot wear jeans, sandals or bare my mid riff (which is unfortunate because I have a sweet beer belly button tattoo)? Does this mean I have to wear some goofy tie with Marvin the Martian on it or worse a bow tie?
Q. Will it be seen as a performance issue if I wear clothes that are too casual (something I thought was appropriate, but my manager does not)?
A. Use your best judgment on what to wear to convey a professional image. If there is an issue, your manager should deal with it quickly, honestly and openly to help clarify what business appropriate attire might look like for the work you do. This should not be seen as a long-term performance issue unless it happens repeatedly despite getting advice and counsel.
- So. After reading the answer the real answer to the question is “yes. Casual clothes will be seen as a performance issue.” As in “you will no longer be performing here if you wear those fucking jeans (or loin cloth) one more time.”
Q. Can my manager dictate that my department wears only formal business attire?
A. This will need to be discussed between the manager and his/her department. If there are important business reasons for a department to dress formally every day, such as they meet daily with outside clients who dress more business formal, then this may be appropriate.
- Yes. The manager can dictate it. But. Once again don’t worry about your manager. If he/she has their shit together they will be slyly suggesting that they believe everyone should be able to dress however they want. Don’t be fooled by listening to them. Look to the corner office. Unfortunately no matter how cool they say they want the office culture to be if they wear suits every day and wear argyle vests or knitted sweaters with cats on them on “casual Fridays” … well … that is the “common sense” attire direction.
Let me be clear on this. Dress codes bring out the worst in senior management. It is an Office episode. Sadly so.
Okay. One last thought. THIS I am clear on. Do not appear on casual Fridays like this. Even wearing a suit won’t keep you from getting fired. 
email protocol: avoiding screwups
Jul 13th
So. On the list of requested topics I have received was emails and emailing. Basically it was asking how an old guy like me (or let’s say “my generation of workers”) could effectively manage younger people in the world of emailing.
Well. Emails are tricky in business. Mostly because those of us already in business learned writing rules of the road in written correspondence and the generation most comfortable using email learned it as a social tool (not business communication). But in my eyes it comes down to something borrowed and something new. Some things my generation learned (and were kind of steeped in with regard to written communications) are valuable to apply and some things new compatible with email and technology should be applied.
I found a nice site that reviewed the positives and negatives (or shortcomings) of email communication as well as just simply outlined how to define email communication.
- Email is a virtual dialogue which is not in real time; it lacks face to face cues such as expression and emotion. Often to compensate for the lack of non verbal cues we use “please” and “thank you” to aid the expression of collegiality. Another way to aid in the expression of emotion is the use of emoticons; or . The speed of response with emails makes them almost an instantaneous form of communication; although this is great for quick turnaround time a writer of emails must take into consideration the readers needs and preferences. If an emails tone is blunt and to the point a reader may interpret this as insensitive and/or the meaning maybe lost. Therefore, tone must be created through careful word/sentence structures.
I find it interesting to note that email communication now exceeds telephone traffic. Emailing has become the dominant form of business communication. Recent research indicates that employees will spend half their day reading and responding to email communication. This is most interesting because it should affect (I say “should” because I still see managers in my generation trying to force feed phone calls into the younger generation’s work habits) the way managers manage the younger generation. You will see in my thoughts on email protocol how I (and it may not be the best way but it always worked for me) attempted to weave telephone activity into an email driven communication generation.
So. With all that said here are some thoughts for email protocol I typically share with my teams/companies to help avoid some of the issues we often see pop up:
The Basics.
A Subject line:
- Client name or company name so people can identify who it is about
- Topic following the company identifier (what is the subject? A point of view, update, etc.)
The subject line (the re: ) is probably the most misused portion of email and yet offers the largest opportunity similar to the old subject line in written communication.
Forwarding and email “strings”:
- General rule. NEVER forward an internal email externally.
- And certainly eliminate “strings” of emails (particularly externally although internally is nice etiquette). No one wants to scan down to put together the logic or “what happened.”
- Summarize. Summarize. Summarize. I don’t care if you cut & paste (although there are risks involved in doing so and you need to be very careful with regard to tenses and such) but every email should be able to be printed out and stand alone like a letter would have in the “old” days.
Replying, reply all, replying to new people:
- General rule. Assume if someone sent you, and only you, a message they most likely elected to NOT include anyone else. Therefore, your reply to their email should only be to them. If you elect to copy new people on your response your tendency should be to build a new email from scratch. Always assume the original email sender would have worded things differently if they knew it was going to be seen by someone else.
- Reply to all. Tricky one with a variety of aspects. Rule #1. If it is a mass email most likely “reply all” with your response is not necessary. Rule #2. Email is not a chat room (in the business world), therefore, send your response to sender. Rule #3. No humor in a “reply all” message. I can guarantee you someone will not find it funny.
- The 3 time rule. If you have replied to the same email topic 3 times … something is wrong … pick up the phone. Anything more than 3 responses to the original request becomes a “string” and string emails spell trouble (they end up in some bosses email box at some point most likely with something in the subject line that starts with “help” … oh … and that is “bad.”)
Avoid exclamation marks and such:
- Assume your email WILL be forwarded once it leaves the company.
- No CEO or President of any company wants to see some smiley face or exclamation point… they want to know that business is being taken care of… in addition… it may be the only exposure you get to senior management and it creates an impression about you so that when you do meet them you want an underlying respect even before you step through the door. Call it the “pre-sell” if you will but keep in mind what you write to your day to day contact will most likely end up in some senior person’s inbox at some point.
- Question. Have you ever seen a CEO or President end a message with Thanks! … point made.
Some Overall Guidelines.
Call to action:
The number one thing that separates a memo, report, or PowerPoint from The DaVinci Code is a call to action. A novel is to be enjoyed. Business writing is intended to get the audience to do something – invest in a gummi bear innovation, fill out a kidney donor form, or flee the building in an orderly manner.
Questions to ask: Does my email ask the reader to do anything? If not, why am I sending it?
Oh. Call to action point 2. So you purposefully send an email where no action is required and it is for information only, tell everyone that. “No action required. For information only.” That is as good a call to action as asking someone to actually do something.
Assume nothing:
You have to assume nothing. So let the reader know what thinking has gone on behind the scenes.
Does the reader need to know that the project won’t succeed if the Postal Service strikes or that everything depends on a tsunami not happening in the next 100 years or that if Greece declares bankruptcy the entire firm will implode?
Oh. In addition. When following up, don’t assume everyone remembers everything you’ve said up to this point (nor expect them to scan all the thread to catch up). If you’ve got any worries that an acronym, term, or reference is going to elicit a confused moment, just explain it.
Make sure you ask yourself:
Am I relying on what the audience knows or what I think they ought to know?
Am I omitting anything from the reader unintentionally?
If so, why do I want to surprise them later on?
Emails are not like birthday gifts. Surprises are not good. Avoid them.
Do the thinking:
How many times have you gotten an email that says, “What are your thoughts?” followed by a forwarded chain of messages. That’s the writer saying, “I can’t be bothered to explain my reasoning or what I want you to focus on.” When you write explain what you’re thinking and what you want the reader spending their time on.
Make sure the email gives your opinion and options (calls to action?) for the reader to respond to.
Remember. People are not only NOT mind readers but nowadays no one has time to guess.
Simply state why you are sending this document in the body of the email:
Say it up front. Francis Ford Coppola is paid to surprise folks. We are paid to not surprise our boss. Whatever the purpose of your missive, say it in the first line. Mystery and stories are great ways to entertain and teach so unless you’re looking for a job doing that spit out why you’re writing up front.
This is basic business writing. Can the reader tell from the subject line and first sentence what I’m writing about without going further?
Don’t make the reader guess or have to work too hard to figure things out.
(dating myself on this one)
In the old days when you crafted a letter you gave the person the opportunity to read the first paragraph and make a decision whether they agreed (and did not read any further) or read on to see the rationale and steps taken to get to the action item. That logic appears to be consistent with what should take place in an email. Not suggesting everything has to be a novelette, but, think about how often you need to send follow-up emails to explain additional things and how often that would be eliminated if you had taken the time upfront to clearly outline everything necessary for someone to “read and act.
The power of “the call” (when emailing is not right):
I am going to give a couple of examples when it is time to pick up the phone (beyond the 3 email give-an-take example I gave above):
A well liked employee is leaving the company. Call.
(email doesn’t show enough respect or importance to someone they respected and thought was an important employee)
You, or the company, made a mistake (even a small one). Call.
(no reason to trust your written communication skills to effective communication. Plus. You may learn something that can end up in written document)
You want to debate a decision someone made. Call.
(this eliminates any possible misunderstanding of tone. Plus. You owe it to a person to talk with them in a debate. And NEVER debate with one person thru email if others are copied)
Something happens that could generate rumors if not explained. Call.
(never hide from communication. Rumors are worse.)
There you go. Just some suggestions.
Despite the fact we are writing less and less “formal” documents I would still teach business writing. Regardless of its full relevance (or lack thereof) the basics are the basics. Timeless communication tactics.
Grab a Strunk & White. Avoid the punctuation crap and focus on effective communication tips.
Oops. Got to go send an email. Maybe tweet. Or do a ‘shout out.’
enlightened conflict update
Jul 11th
So. After about a month of high tech fanoodling I believe we have worked out all the kinks on the site. If anyone runs into any issues as they delve into my unenlightened ramblings please drop me a note and we will address. Thanks for your patience.
Some updates (because some people have asked and I have received some great suggestions):
1. Music. No. We have not posted any music thoughts for awhile. I have over 20 written (some may be outdated by now) but the guy who was awesome at posting all those posts with the links and videos and stuff has been on a sabbatical. When he gets back we will discuss what we are going to do from here on out with the music posts. I have received a bunch of notes asking about them and how much you enjoy laughing at my musical tastes and we will see what we can do. Plus. With lala.com shutting down we lost a great easy source for sound clips so people could actually hear what I was writing about (assuming you had never heard of whatever wackjob band I had found that day to write about).
2. Business or Advertising posts. Well. We should be starting more of those back up soon. My video link skills are not particularly good (but improving) which coincided with the guy who is really good at video linking going on sabbatical as well as then we had some technical site difficulties. But I have improved my skills and the site seems fixed so more of those type posts will appear.
3. Requests. I have received some topic requests and those posts should start appearing soon. While I cannot guarantee I can write to a requested topic I do like to receive request. at minimum they make me think.
4. We are going to be building a new companion site called ProjectGlobalGeneration.
Actually www.projectglobalgeneration.com.
I will post something when we launch it. That site will be solely focused on my wacky global generation children’s education initiative idea. Several people have expressed inters in the idea (and they don’t seem that wacky). I wanted to make it easier to see the idea an all the information as well as a place to house all future writings.
Thanks to everyone. hope you enjoy and keep on enjoying. I am having a blast (if that matters).
Bruce.
generation jones part 2: debating with the joneses
Jun 29th
This whole generation Jones thing has got me in a tizzy. Mostly because I am having an interesting off-site debate/discussion/conversation with a couple of generation joneser “advocates” (who are quite passionate in their desire to make Generation Jones a household discussion item).
The bottom line issue is I am a skeptical joneser. Maybe because I am an advocate of Strauss & Howe (S&H) 4th Turning Generations but possibly because I am always a little skeptical when people want to take a big well thought out thought/concept and try to break it down into pieces and disassemble the greater thought (with little end value).
So. Here’s the deal (with my thoughts on thinking about generations and attitudes and generation Jones in particular).
Depending on what you want to do with generational nomenclatures (GenXers, GenJonesers, Boomers, Echo Boomers, etc.) they can serve great cultural and umbrella sociological dimensional type thinking but rarely can dig down into shopper or actional behavior. So. Depending on what you want to do with these nomenclatures you can end up investing a lot of energy trying to tear apart the fabric of what we have named a generation and gained not a lot of actionable ‘stuff’ at the end of the day (and I know I don’t have a lot of energy to waste myself).
What I like (and agree with S&H 4th Turnings): Their basic premise is causal.
In other words, generations respond to events created through cyclical reoccurrence due to lack of relevant experience to what they are facing at the moment. What this means is that a generation affected by a specific event will take actions to avoid a reoccurrence of that event but each ensuing generation starts evolving back into behavior patterns that will reinitiate that type of event (S&H refer to that main critical event as a Crisis). The following is a brief overview of S&H in case you aren’t familiar:
- According to Howe and Strauss, the marks between each generation are very clear and are based on their surveys of people born in these years. Each generation has a specific character called an archetype. The concept is that, for the most part, each generation is around 20 years and they follow each other in a specific pattern (Hero, Artist, Prophet, Nomad). This pattern has held true for the last 500 years of history with some year length variances. And the archetypes are overlaying the actual historical turnings: Crisis, High, Awakening, Unraveling. Once again these turnings have historically fit a pattern over the past 500 year of their study. If you accept their theory it allows you to extrapolate into the future based on the ages and attitudes of the generations.
Now. That may sound like a bunch of sociological gobbledygook but it is actionable.
While their extensive study suggests we are doomed to cyclical behavior it does permit us to understand why we do things we do (and as a marketer if you really invested energy in studying could be way ahead of the curve in new product innovations).
Most importantly it assists in understanding the overarching direction of our society. Their work also provides understanding what is happening in our society based on where we have been. Anyway. The following chart developed by a blogger (genXnation I think) does a nice job of showing S&H thinking:
Realistically it is this concept of the ‘turnings’ of Crisis, High, Awakening and Unraveling and the fact each of the turnings have overarching personalities (although that is not their word … I believe they call the collective persona as an Archetype) of Prophet, Nomad, Hero and Artist which represents the most important thinking.
So. While even Strauss & Howe (S&H) use generational nomenclatures (like Boomers, Silents, etc.) to assist them in the discussion the actual nomenclature is significantly less important than the underlying thinking.
Next. What I like about things like GenJones type generations: their basic premise is attitudinal.
While it would be a lot simpler to call each of the S&H archetype personalities a specific generation type (and we have attempted to do that in the past but everyone wants to try and slice and dice them to make some attitudinal adjustments based on birth date groupings) the reality is the early Artist archetype is going to assume some of the characteristics of the late birth Hero archetype (and so on) because it’s not like a light switch gets flipped on a specific date.
Therefore something like the GenJones generation which is firmly in an Unraveling turning (I am not sure anyone in the whole generational discussion is debating this) they are assuming some of the characteristics of Boomers and genXers (in fact the nice graph the GenJonesers provided me, and I included in the Generation jones Part 1, on the comparison of incoming freshman at UCLA, makes that point nicely).
In fact, if my memory serves me correctly one of these transition age groups was also identified with a nomenclature (I think they may have been called the Interbellum Generation – the group of people of the GI generation too young to fight in WWI but too old to fight in WWII … my grandfather was one of these).
Anyway. I guess the true point here is that there is a gradual shift from one generation to the next and not a specific point in time where everyone stops feeling one way and starts thinking another way. There is a period of time where the shift in generational attitude occurs. This certainly explains the “Generation Jones” people’s desire to call themselves a ‘generation’ (the following link shows to what extent you can actually take this “splitting the S&H generations” idea to with other theories that break the generations down even further).
Regardless. Another nifty chart from that GenX blogger shows the periods of transition between larger generations very well:
So this whole idea that there is a group of people between The Boomers (1943-1960) and Generation X (1961-1981) that has traits of both generations, but doesn’t feel it belongs to either, is certainly a viable idea. I just wouldn’t call it a “generation.” And I question whether there is any true value in trying to create a “generation” around this group. As noted earlier on the value of S&H generations study the opposite seems to be the fact here – I am unclear this new generation designation helps us understand the direction of our society. Breaking down the system into smaller parts may make some people feel they can identify with what is happening and how they act more clearly, but I am not sure if it helps predictive ability. I believe we could get to the exact same place without having to wade thru an additional generation.
Look. I do not doubt the idea resonates with people born during this time (like me). Shit. Why wouldn’t it? I get to be in my own club. How fun is that.
Ok. Before I leave this topic for the day I have seen a couple of things written about Generation Jones and Strauss & Howe that I wanted to address specifically:
(comment): while Strauss and Howe’s work has certainly added to our overall knowledge, their work over time has become less relevant. The main reason why their work has lost a lot of credibility among experts is their insistence on sticking with static generational length, rather than evolving with other experts who c
ontinually point out that generations are getting shorter.
- Sometimes these types of comments kind of drive me nuts. S&H didn’t add to overall knowledge they actually defined the overall concept. Therefore everyone is trying to edit the original idea. My good friend Luke Sullivan once suggested editing in this fashion as running the risk of building a Frankenstein. If people want to slice & dice the original great concept they should feel free to do so without disparaging the solid foundational concept. Experts can debate dates and names and stuff like that but that doesn’t mean the original experts lose credibility. Their overall turnings & archetypes (regardless of what nomenclature anyone wants to put on as labels) study is solid and credible.
(comment): when asked, people born 1954-1965 identify much more with this generation in-between, rather than with the surrounding generations –Boom & X –which are supposedly correct.
Generation Jones is catching on in such a big way because it’s true, and Jonesers clearly relate to it. It seems clear to me that within a short time from now, that Generation Jones will be clearly established. It already almost is, more or less. It has that feel of inevitability.
- Somebody shoot me now. Of course people relate to the idea. It gives them an opportunity to say they are different. Or unique. Or whatever word you want to attach to it. it will catch on because it is “buzzworthy.” And, unfortunately, in today’s world if it has a buzz factor it is certainly inevitable.
Anyway. With all the serious thoughtful stuff out of the way.
I like to claim to be part of the GenJones club. It makes me feel good. And it makes it easier for me to write about shit I did growing up as part of that generation. So. On with generation Jones (just don’t ask me to consider it a “real” generation … unless you want to debate it … THAT I would do in a second).
summarizing the global generation idea
Jun 23rd
It occurred to me after posting an introduction and 8 (maybe 9) posts and some ancillary relevant posts on the Global Generation and the Global Generation children’s program (which probably constitutes maybe 30 word document pages not including graphs and whiz bang images) that I should possibly attempt an executive summary type thing (or a recap). Ok. I would like to think I arrived at this brilliant summary thought myself but really someone read my stuff and said “hey. It would help me if you had a summary).
So. A brief recap.
I identified the window of opportunity by triangulating Generational attitudes and characteristics (citing Strauss and Howe cyclical generation sociological studies) and global interaction enabling innovations (the advent of internet based clustering trends and smartphones citing an Economist study among others) and “people” behavioral trends (Mass Mingling and “glocal” – citing trendwatching.com).
By triangulating I found the space (or window of opportunity) for the idea.
A reasonable question is “won’t people naturally gravitate to what you are suggesting naturally?”
Well. Beyond the fact people globally have shown no inclination in the past to develop this type of behavioral pattern I would also suggest this is a “window of opportunity” scenario. And I do not believe this window will remain open for the following reasons:
- The enabler will move on to another iteration and the idea will have to shift with it.
- If you believe in cyclical generational attitudes the next generation(s) will attitudinally not be receptive to the overall intent of the program.
- Consumer trends (behaviors) will match generational attitudes therefore trends, which wouldn’t inherently support a global education program like this idea, will take on the characteristics of the generation attitudes.
I do believe there is a window of opportunity in this convergence of attitude, behavior and technological enablement.
Here’s the thing. No one has identified and labeled the generation after the Millennials yet. This ideas feeds into the gestalt of that following generation. Therein lays the success of the program and idea.
The benefits of this program or what would we hope the program achieves.
In my “measuring results” post I suggested two things that I believe are the most important:
- 1. “If 30 to 40 years from now we are in the midst of the greatest innovation revolution since the industrial revolution as cross culturally an entire generation will debate and ideate.”
- 2. Lessen ignorance global = lower levels of poverty globally, lower levels of genocidal conflict, higher levels of personal success, and higher levels of overall happiness.
In general, the overall plan should lead to less ignorance. Less ignorance leads to several things – less extreme types of human conflict and more positive friction type conflict (ideation & innovation).
If implemented correctly all income levels and cultures of children will “rise to a higher level” in adulthood.
So. In looking at these benefits one could debate ‘is this really an education initiative?”’
Maybe not in a traditional sense. It certainly has components of traditional “abc’s” and mathematical but in order to ‘fit’ the Global Generation attitudes it incorporates a higher level of importance on:
- Critical thinking
- Understanding of different cultures (and the choices they make)
It is a more expansive education platform then a traditional education intuitive.
What that also means is that there is nothing like this idea currently in the market.
Aspects of it? Yes.
If one were able to get possibly 9 existing web based children’s education organizations in one room with a 10th who knew how to fill in the missing information and tie-in thinking this idea could happen next month (although I doubt it would be possible to get all 10 in alignment).
I guess my bottom line is that, no; there is no existing web program, like this already I place.
This is my summary of the idea in less than 600 words.
the jones generation part 1: i be one of the joneses
Jun 21st
Ok. I am a generations geek. I love to study cyclical generational behavior patterns and attitudes and why certain generations do something and other s do something else. Geeky? yes. Interesting? Well. To me it is.
So. I had a comment on a post I wrote where I reminisced about The Runaways and the writer suggested I was part of the Generation Jones (which I had never heard of and in my typical curious style immediately started researching what the hell this whole Jones thing was all about).
The Generation Jones website (yes, there is one) suggests that Generation Jones (originally penned by historian Jonathan Pontell) is the group of people born between 1954 and 1965 (this group of people represents about 25 percent of the population). The “Jones” symbolizes moderation between the “personality extremes of the Boomers’ idealism and the Xers’ cynicism.” Apparently they uncovered this ‘lost generation’ assuming it was passed over by society as the focus leapt from Boomer to Gen X’ers.
Well, as noted earlier, I am a generational guy.
And I imagine we could find niche generations within any larger generational turning if we looked hard enough. Heck. If anyone practiced long enough anyone could dance on the head of a pin if they desired to.
So. Narcissistically I loved the idea of talking about myself as within my own generation (admittedly they use words that appeal more to me then some of the Boomer words or GenX words). And, of course, I like anything centered on me.
But. I thought the whole idea of a Jones Generation, or Generation Jones, was kind of silly.
Then. Lo and behold The Economist came to the rescue of the Generation Jones concept. Buried in the 14 page special report on rebalancing the American economy (4/3-9 issue) they make a specific reference to the children of boomers borne in between 1955-1964.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I stopped and thought a little more about this Jones thing.
The point in The Economist is that most typical generations spending/saving behavior changes after they move out of the traditional home buying years (savings increase as a % of household income) yet the Baby Boomers during the specified period did not increase savings as a %. In fact they maintained an incredibly low (10% of disposable income) savings % during this period. So. The consumer boom I grew up in defied fundamental wisdom (The Economist refers to it as “the binge”) and it is this group I was borne into that is running face first into the traditional economic rules that are reasserting themselves.
Okay. That made me ponder this whole Generation Jones idea a little more.
The theory is that Generation Jones still wants to change the world but they are less ideological and more pragmatic. Pontell explains:
“. . . We are practical idealists, forged in the fires of social upheaval while too young to play a part . . . Our practical idealism was created by witnessing the often unrealistic idealism of the 1960s. And we weren’t engaged in that era’s ideological battles; we were children playing with toys while Boomers argued over issues. Our non-ideological pragmatism allows us to resolve intra-Boomer skirmishes and to bridge that volatile Boomer-GenXer divide. We can lead.”
In addition I read words like “Chaos reigned, and we kids (with decreasing parental and societal guidance) were too challenged in finding our individual identities to be very concerned with finding our collective one. Jonesers, like others, focused on “me”, not “we” in the Me Decade of the 70s.”
Well. Once again portions resonated. It was an odd time to be growing up.
Portions of us (this age group) were defined by the three D’s (my three D’s … I didn’t steal them from anyone)
- drinking age
- draft
- democracy anniversary.
I grew up as the drinking age shifted from 18 to 21.
I grew up as the draft was dissolved (but I knew kids who had a draft number).
I grew up and celebrated the 200th anniversary of United States democracy.
It was an odd time of personal responsibility and unrestricted versus restricted actions.
Sure. There are some other cultural aspects (they point out MTV, the birth & invention of the internet by “Jonesers”, political leadership) but I would argue any niche could find enough of those extraneous data points to justify a niche generation.
So. I looked at this poll these Jones people did.
A nationally representative sample of 500 U.S. adults born in 1961 (the year Obama was born) showed that today’s 47 year olds clearly feel not like Boomers or Gen Xers, but instead believe they belong to the heretofore lost generation in-between Boomers and Xers (Generation Jones).
ThirdAge, a popular website for mid-lifers, commissioned the poll, in conjunction with Obama’s Aug. 4, 2008 birthday. When respondents were asked which generation they believe they are a part of: 57% chose Generation Jones, while only 22% picked Baby Boomer, and only 21% said Generation X.
The underlying concept for the poll was that rather than focusing on expert opinion to determine the question of Obama’s generational identity, a very effective way of answering this question is to ask the actual people born in 1961 to self-identify their generation.
Question:
500 U.S. adults born in 1961 were asked:
“Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Baby Boom Generation,
Generation X, or a lost generation in-between (usually called Generation Jones)?”
Results:
22% chose: Baby Boom Generation
57% chose: Generation Jones
21% chose: Generation X
ThirdAge commissioned this polling of a nationally representative sample of 500 U.S. adults born in 1961, conducted July 31- August 1, 2008.
Here is where I struggle with the research (but I do admit I am intrigued with this whole Generation Jones thing).
Of course people checked the box on “a lost generation in between”. I could have predicted that. Given an opportunity for someone to self identify themselves as being “unique” (or distinct) the majority of people are going to run as fast as they can to stand in line for the “hey, I am part of a special group” and sign up. But. It is interesting research (I just hope they didn’t spend a whole bunch of money on it).
Now.
If you wanted a niche generation and you needed a spokesperson Generation Jones got very very lucky (or better said … fortunate?). Jonathan Pontell, who coined the term for this 53 million-member-strong generational segment, is a dynamic charismatic speaker. Compelling genuine and awesome at delivering factoids that sound appealing. For example, he describes this generation as stuck “between Woodstock and Lollapalooza.” Nice phrasing.
Also. They didn’t buy into or were too young to understand the Baby Boomer tantrums; yet they were a tad too old to join the Gen-Xers in the mosh pits. Pontell describes their heritage:
“So who are we? We are practical idealists, forged in the fires of social upheaval while too young to play a part. The name “Generation Jones” derives from a number of sources, including our historical anonymity, the ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ competition of our populous birth years, and sensibilities coupling the mainstream with ironic cool. But above all, the name borrows from the slang term ‘jonesin” that we as teens popularized to broadly convey any intense craving.”
Next. The Joneser website did an awesome job of collecting a specific factoid to showcase that the “Joneser collective personality is clearly separable from that of Boomers and Xers.”
“Admittedly, determining generations is complicated, an inexact science, with inevitable blur on the edges. Nonetheless, broad accurate generalizations emerge with careful analysis. The three generations differ in many ways. One major difference is that Boomers tend to be idealistic, Xers tend to be cynical, and Jonesers tend to be a balance of idealism and cynicism. Attitudinal research bears this out.
For example, UCLA has conducted a particularly extensive national poll of 350,000 college freshman annually since the mid-60s. Students are asked to rank in importance different goals in life. Look at the following contrast between the three generations on the two key goals reflecting idealism and cynicism:”
|
FRESHMEN RANKING GOAL AS “ESSENTIAL” OR “VERY IMPORTANT” |
|
GOAL |
1966 |
1977 |
1990 |
| developing a meaningful philosophy of life |
85% |
61% |
42% |
| being very well off financially |
44% |
60% |
76% |
Look. What I may be tempted to take away from this study is that of all the generations Generation Jones knew what they wanted the least (or was inherently a wishy washy generation) but suffice it to say this factoid doesn’t hurt the argument for a Generation Jones.
Anyway.
I admit I don’t like the Generation Jones name. I’d like to see a name that better reflects the history or something quintessential or self defining about our time.
Regardless, I like the idea of a generational identity that’s more squarely focused on me or maybe better said “what I perceive as my time.” It’s kind of fun. I like thinking I am part of this group of people:
Russell Crowe. Madonna. Barack. Nikolas Sarkozy. JK Rowling. Elle McPherson. Michael Stipe. Eddie Murphy. George Stephanopoulos. James Taylor. Tracey Ullman. Weird Al Yankovic. Suzanne Vega. Allison Janney. Ronnie Lott. Emma Thompson. Katie Couric. Sharon Stone. Michelle Pfeiffer. Ellen DeGeneres. Andie McDowell.
So. For now I will use Generation Jones to my benefit. Start feeling more special and maybe start calling personal posts that reflect growing up experiences a Generation Jones posts. And I will have some fun with it.
Global Generation 4: role of an education plan
Jun 13th
So. This Global Generation I keep talking about. These kids some of whom haven’t even been born. I have been struggling a bit to explain the implementation of the education platform. And then I opened up the new Economist and there were two articles back to back on Human Rights. The key article to me was a short article discussing how Amnesty International, UN Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch are unaligned on advocacy of civil liberties and the rising issue that several key Western governments (including America) are giving less priority to Human Rights. 
But what really hit me square between the eyes was how focused these organizations are on intervention. Setting up a legal process to deal with people who abuse Human Rights and highlighting existing problems (abuse). And when that hit me it was a good thing I was on an exercise bike reading The Economist because I began a pretty vigorous rant in my head.
If I had these people in front of me I would ask them:
- Have you not learned anything about the power of people?
- Have you learned nothing about the power of grassroots programs?
- Have you learned nothing from historical revolutions?
- Have you learned nothing about managing human behavior?
- Haven’t you gotten tired of running around putting out fires?
- Wouldn’t it be better to maybe teach people it is better to not start the fire?
Look. I have the utmost respect for the results and intent of these organizations.
But.
At its most basic level my Global Generation idea is about human rights. About the fact education or understanding choices is the foundation for a values system (within individuals) ultimately creating societal (within varying cultures) value underpinnings.
It made me realize that this global education program for a Global Generation is actually a discussion of preventative versus intervention attitude.
And, to be honest, we need both.
However it appears most human rights organizations focus on intervention (and that’s not bad) which is half the equation … maybe even less than half if you look at it from a long term vision standpoint. In the business world this would be considered ‘long term death to a business’ by running around trying to stop problems (and gaining credit for them) rather than isolating why they happen and coming up with a plan to stop them from even occurring.
So. Isn’t this idea I am discussing really a long term grassroots human rights initiative?
And if I think about it that way then describing implantation is a lot easier.
The premise? Let’s just say human rights are about righting wrongs as well as having and claiming a right or rights. While there is certainly a place for say “a UN declaration of human rights” (which we have actually had since 1948 but has no “teeth”) ultimately it comes down to people’s choices (and that means education). Therefore the vision of Human Rights advocates shouldn’t be to run around pointing at adults and trying to change their behavior but rather try to affect behavior by educating your core target.
Youth. And from birth if you want to truly affect a generational attitude.
This kind of thinking takes vision and fortitude. And media and investors will come ‘a gunnin’ for it year in and year out because you won’t see results (or major ones) for 10 years. Heck. Maybe 20 years.
Why did I say major? Because even though you are aiming at youth invariably some other older age groups will be affected (let’s say a smaller group of like minded young adults an existing advocates who you hope are influential in some way).
This is a plan where the world will not see its complete benefits until maybe 2035. Let’s say even 2045 (and that date becomes more important later in this post) Uh. That is what grassroots is about. Building a groundswell of attitudinal underpinnings which encourage desired behavior patterns.
Oh. And also. This is what revolutionary behavior is about. The great revolutions took a generation to come to fruition. First. Adults became unhappy with status quo (but are unempowered by the majority to do anything). Second. Their children learned attitude and behavior aspects growing up. Third. And when rose to adulthood shed the status quo when assuming leadership & decision making roles.
(note: yes. That was a simplistic description but a relatively true generalization)
Let me be clear. In the Global Generation I am not talking about a revolution level of conflict. But rather a revolution of global enlightenment (or conflict with societal/behavioral rules).
I am talking about implementing a grassroots anti ignorance campaign.
But. While I ranted about the existing Human Rights initiatives truly the best way to impact global human rights behavior is probably a bookend strategy.
But. One without the other is wasted effort (in my eyes).
One bookend is these existing organizations. With an emphasis on the UN human rights Council (this is where 2045 becomes relevant).
There is a UN human rights declaration (a global initiative) developed in 1948 after the atrocities of WW2. Yes. It exists. It has no teeth and needs support. And there is an interesting book I happened across at the local bookstore that suggest by 2048 we could have the legal system in place to actually have a viable global UN backed human rights high level sanctioned program. And I am all for it. And it is needed.
I have not read the entire book yet (just scanned it) but it outlines a systematic process to establish the global legal bookend. However, the author speaks about the process as a ‘grassroots’ program and I would debate with him whether it is grassroots (but that would be another post). to me it is simply a nice systematic approach to building a necessary legal foundation for human rights (a superior intervention program & process).
Anyway. That is one bookend. Ultimately it empowers PEOPLE to stand up for human rights (although some bonehead is going to argue its intent is to be able to sanction those who don’t meet human rights standards. Uh. But that is using conflict to resolve conflict).
No.
This first bookend is really only effective if you are building an opposite bookend at the exact same time. Create a Global Generation of people who are willing to point to the declaration (and what it says and stands for) as important. I do not mean global leaders to point at it and say it is important (although influencers are always good). But rather a generation of people. Working people. Everyday people. Farmers. Villagers. Factory workers. Town mayors and spokespeople.
People who in their heart of hearts understand the choices that could lead to abuse of human rights (and say “no”).
This is a program where the attitudes of a generation rise INTO leadership (instead of challenging existing leaders) positions and are empowered by the other bookend to steady the shelf of nations and their actions in (what I am calling) enlightened actions. Less ignorant actions. Less human rights abused conflict. Ultimately enlightened conflict.
So I would tell these folks at these high falutin’ initiatives. You are going to fail unless you invest in the other bookend. You are ignoring basic human behavior aspects. You are firefighters in dire need of a fight fire campaign (Smokey the Bear was embed
ded in a generation of children who understood forest fires).
I would tell them they have a fairly unique human generational opportunity in front of them.
I would tell them to stop and think and with their vision in mind course correct actions for a longer term effect (who in Amnesty International forefathers foresaw a global web based platform when they constructed their vision? They couldn’t).
I would tell them remember effective grassroots programs. And remember human behavior, real human behavior and belief system changes, occur thru generations and not in 5 year plans.
I admit. I read an article like this in the Economist and it drives me a little nuts.
Organizations with great intent and more money than a good smart business person could ever spend and bureaucracy and in fighting and media attacking “lack of results” and possibly some people who can’t see the forest for the trees and it comes to wasted effort. Ok. That was harsh. Inefficient long term effort. Kills me.
But. Maybe I am biased. I am the guy who believes we can impact the behavior of the Global Generation. I am the guy who believes we can build a global education foundation. So. Maybe I am the guy who is nuts.
Well my site. Nuts for everyone.
the Global Generation Part 3: sociology & net platform
Jun 13th
So. I discovered a long time ago I rarely have an original idea. Therefore it behooves me to seek out the original idea and use it (and credit them). In part 3 of the Global Generation I am going to discuss the generation. Specifically two components
- The rise of a sociological platform for an attitude and belief system.
- The net enabled education platform and how it fits into a specific generational skill set.
In the sociological platform discussion I will combine the excellent San Diego rap/rock band POD and Nietzsche (who I heard was never a particularly good rapper). Yup. C’mon. Someone has to give me points for this combination to make a point. In the net enabled education platform I will actually use a West Point lecture to move the discussion along.
With that. Here are my thought on the sociology and education of the Global Generation.
The sociological & attitudinal platform
Take a minute and watch the P.O.D. video of their song “Change the World”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzXW5yZi0e8&feature=related
The one word I would change (at the end) for the Global Generation is Love. Make the word Respect and this is it. The Global generation attitudinally can change the world. And that is about the only thing I would change and this song and video represent the attitudinal platform for the Global generation.
So. Eliminate “Love” at the end. Love will not change the world (sorry). And the Global Generation will not be defined by ‘global love.’ They will be defined by ‘respect.’ Respect for an Individual’ freedom of choice globally. So. I would change the end card(s) to:
Respect
Freedom of Choice
The basis of my belief of the Respect Freedom of Choice can be found thru Nietzsche. I believe the role of the Global Generation is to fill the world and especially human existence with meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, and essential value (thru respect for individual freedom of choice). This observation stems in part from Nietzsche’s perspectivism, or his notion that ‘knowledge’ is always by someone of some ‘thing.’
In other words knowledge is always bound by perspective and it is never mere fact. As we learn there are interpretations through which we understand the world and give it meaning. In fact he goes even further to state interpreting is something we cannot go without, it is something we need.
My belief in the Global Generation is Nietzsche’s point of view that a way of interpreting the world is through morality (or, more specifically, respect of individual’s choice). And that morality is one of the fundamental ways in which people make sense of the world especially in regard to their own thoughts and actions. Nietzsche distinguishes a morality that is strong or healthy meaning that the person in question is aware that he constructs it himself (theoretically from a low level of morality) where interpretation is created by projecting on to something external. Regardless of its strength, morality presents us with meaning, whether this is created or ‘implanted’, which helps us get through life. Interestingly the internet should enhance this belief system exponentially as individuals are bombarded by moral challenges (and perspective) globally rather than just local interface.
So. Given my belief in the ‘Individual Empowerment/Community Strength’ attitudinal core within the Global Generation it is Nietzsche’s perspectivism which will permit this core to prosper. A basic values foundation fed in an “all you can eat” buffet style by the internet will create a basis for a “Respect for Individual freedom of choice” Global Generation.
It is important to me when discussing a “Global” Generation that the ideas I share truly apply globally rather than ‘America-centric.’ I do believe this sociological platform will slice through all the turnings in existence globally. While it is easy for us to focus on the United States, globally the turnings occur in different time (years) cycles depending on the region. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some similarities but rather we need to recognize some of the regional differences to insure this idea can cross any boundary. My belief I that this sociological platform actually “flattens” some aspects of the turnings and possibly assists in managing the high/low swing of an unraveling or even a crisis. See map below for a representation of the turnings globally:
Source: I apologize to the developer of this extraordinary global map of the turnings but I cannot find the original source. 
Ok. Next topic (and I will delve into this deeper in Global Generation 6).
Net enabled Education
As noted in previous writings the internet plays an integral role in my belief in the discovery and alignment of the Global Generation. I believe web based education, and the transferral of information & knowledge, will address generation specific characteristics like what many of us ‘old people’ call “young people’s lack of attention” (or an increasing lack of desire to invest energy on attention to things).
Well, old people, get over it.
The issue is focus, or concentration, not attention. I believe it is easy to get people, and kids, to pay attention (thru carrot or stick methodologies) but if there is no focus on the information being relayed/communicated than nothing (or little) is retained. The internet has honed an increasing ability among younger generations to concentrate and focus on extreme detail in extraordinarily complex environments (and use of imagination on top of all that).
In addition some people argue the internet will create the decline of ‘contemplative thought’ (or taking learning in solitude, creating their own ideas/thinking and applying it to the outside world gaining a more worldly insight through reflection).
I don’t agree.
Those people have never seen a teen playing one of those web based games where they are playing people around the world making decisions quickly and seeing the repercussion immediately (and reacting). Those people haven’t seen teens discussing complex issues on niche sites of interest bouncing ideas off each other and debating their merits (in their own cryptic vocabulary).
We need to stop applying an old belief system on a brand new generation.
The effect of technological change on human concentration and focus has been positive in my eyes. (by technological change I am including any web based interface – websites, blogs, games, wii, etc.)
Using a lecture given to West Point cadets, “Solitude and Leadership” (I think this article is in The American Scholar Spring issue), William Deresiewicz discusses the necessary, and potentially eroding, skill of concentration and its affect on leadership (or becoming an effective leader). Let me say in general I agree with the direction of what he suggests. The challenge I have is he ignores decision making maybe in order to focus on thinking. With regard to today’s world he says this:
Multitasking, in short, is not only not thinking, it impairs your ability to think. Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it. Not learning other people’s ideas, or memorizing a body of information, however much those may sometimes be useful. Developing your own ideas. In short, thinking for yourself. You simply cannot do that in bursts of 20 seconds at a time, constant
ly interrupted by Facebook messages or Twitter tweets, or fiddling with your iPod, or watching something on YouTube.
Ok. Here is what I believe. He is suggesting that technology/web is cheating kids (or young people) by forcing multi tasking which inevitably discourages thinking and coming up with original ideas. There are a couple things in that thought but let me start with ideas.
Rarely is there such a thing as an original idea. Ideas are more typically created by the crashing together of multiple stimulus (sometimes more is better upfront) of existing factoids and the ability to assimilate and shape the idea from those factoids. Well. Technology multi tasking is just that being conducted at lightning speed (on occasion). I believe the internet I assisting a new generation to be some of the best thinkers and ‘idea creators’ we will ever see. The multi dimensional games kids play at an amazingly young age is helping shape imaginative creative quick decision making and ideation. In addition the games also teach trial & error so that kids can experience a ‘poor decision’ versus an ‘effective decision.’
Okay. Moving on. Another section of the lecture speaks then about the challenges of concentration (and the idea of solitude to avoid distractions):
Basically what the lecture argues is the web does not enable a sense of solitude where, given you ignore the distractions, you can concentrate on the important things. He argues for the necessity of slow, independent thinking, of solitude, of the hard work of thinking things through. He writes:
Concentrating, focusing. You can just as easily consider this lecture to be about concentration as about solitude. Think about what the word means. It means gathering yourself together into a single point rather than letting yourself be dispersed everywhere into a cloud of electronic and social input. It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube– and just so you don’t think this is a generational thing, TV and radio and magazines and even newspapers, too– are all ultimately just an elaborate excuse to run away from yourself.
What I believe he misses is that he is ignoring the immediacy interactive aspect of the web. Concentration is not on a time continuum. Length of time does not necessarily translate into better concentration. In fact, the younger generations are becoming more and more accomplished at short concentration abilities. The ability to assimilate an astounding amount of detail and information and sift through it to make the inevitable decision. In addition to that ability I have personally seen that when you challenge that decision they have the ability to quickly resift the information and assess “where they went wrong.” I won’t argue with anyone that this ability comes at the expense of other things (because I am sure it does).
He goes on to further suggest “solitude doesn’t have to mean introspection,” and that there is a valuable “solitude of concentration.” What he is really talking about is ignoring distractions in order to focus/concentrate. Yeah, well, the Global Generation will probably be able to teach the boomers something about this (assuming the Boomers actually can hear or want to learn something new).
We already see signs in the Millennial of what I personally call the “funnel concentration” ability. What I mean is that in an incredibly short period of time a Millennial can assess the situation and ALL distractions and starts eliminating unnecessary distractions and absorbing useful distractions to ultimately close them all out at the point of isolated concentration (‘so, what am I going to do’) and then “do.”
Deresiewicz is arguing concentration skills are eroding because of the internet. He is wrong. (really wrong). Concentration skills are evolving. And in some ways better than they have ever been.
Lastly.
In fact web based technology is funneling a young generation specifically into what he describes is lacking in today’s world (to develop leaders):
No, what makes him a thinker—and a leader—is precisely that he is able to think things through for himself. And because he can, he has the confidence, the courage, to argue for his ideas even when they aren’t popular. Even when they don’t please his superiors. Courage: there is physical courage, which you all possess in abundance, and then there is another kind of courage, moral courage, the courage to stand up for what you believe.
<the problem is> Your own reality– for yourself, not for others. Thinking for yourself means finding yourself, finding your own reality. Here’s the other problem with Facebook and Twitter and even The New York Times. When you expose yourself to those things, especially in the constant way that people do now—older people as well as younger people– you are continuously bombarding yourself with a stream of other people’s thoughts. You are marinating yourself in the conventional wisdom. In other people’s reality: for others, not for yourself. You are creating a cacophony in which it is impossible to hear your own voice
The web is the furthest thing from endorsing ‘conventional wisdom’ as you can get. Truly the challenge is wading your way through all the divisive fragments in order to come to your own ‘truth.’ Yes. I do worry that the internet today doesn’t have a true ‘fact based non opinion information platform’ but to suggest being bombarded by a stream of other peoples thoughts will slow the development of leadership qualities is wrong. And judging how a future generation will assimilate that knowledge based on our own abilities (older generations) is silly. While I cannot guarantee a larger percentage of leaders within the Global Generation I do believe we will have one of the strongest generations of ‘thinkers’ (or individual decision makers) that we will have seen in quite awhile. And that is because of web based technology not despite it.
In summary I believe the Global Generation because of web based technology will not only be effective thinkers but also have an incredible well rounded values (respect) point of view.
