Posts tagged Global generation

friends, feedback, influencing & a new economy

So.

My thoughts on this topic were inspired by a trendwatching’s briefing called “The F-Factor.”

Their briefing (another excellent one by the way) discusses focuses how the impact of influencers’ on purchasing has increased because of the web (and the dynamics associated with the web).

By the way. Trendwatching has another excellent briefing called Crowd Clout from about 2007 or so which makes essentially the same point.

I am going to try and put my spin on their insights by talking a little about the past (the evolution of this whole influencer explosion) and the future (how it is creating a new economic model).

Let me begin by saying despite the advent of “social media & social marketing” that consumer decision-making has always been personal and social.

The truth is that consumer decision-making has always been about seeking feedback, leaning on what friends say and seeking ‘influencers’ thoughts … all of which influence the ultimate purpose.

This was true even before the media (or people seeking to create some ‘buzz’) added the word “social” to the marketing world. Yes. Even the marketing dinosaurs knew decision making ultimately had a significant social aspect.

What do I mean?

People talked amongst themselves.

People talked to their neighbors about home services.

People talked to relatives or friends about more personal decisions.

People reached out to trusted advisers (doctors for medical, veterinarians for pet stuff, dermatologists for skin stuff … well … you get the picture).

People talked and discussed.

In fact The Economist just did a great article on how Martin Luther built the entire Protestant faith off of ‘buzz.’

(boy … that is social media working at levels they could typically only dream of these days)

The difficulty we face in the current “what is buzzworthy” world we live in today is that it wasn’t called social back then therefore we seem to struggle in finding ‘successful past case studies’ (or at least ones that someone will pay attention to). In the “old” days … people simply sought out ‘experts’ (I use the term loosely … let’s assume the definition here is “someone who probably knows more than I do and can inform my decision making process”) to make a better decision.

Before social media you could always count on the following two factoids with regard to who influenced a purchase the most.

“Who do you speak with about making a purchase?”

1. Family. 1a. Friends. (you could flipflop or call it a tie pretty much all the time)

But something HAS changed.

The internet has changed our worldview on friends (and influencers).

“Our definition of friends has changed because of Facebook, and Twitter, where quantity as opposed to quality is now almost a mantra”.

Rick Murray, President, Digital Edelman Digitas

Well.

I don’t know that I totally agree with Rick from Digitas.

Oddly while social networks do increase quantity research has shown three key things (to indicate that quality is tagging along with the quantity characteristic):
1. A Pew Internet research study shows that internet has actually strengthened and expanded existing social roles of churches and fraternal organizations.  Therefore the quantity has simply strengthened existing quality.

2. the same research showed that more frequent communications via text actually ENCOURAGES the desire to spend more face-to face time

3. the research also shows that texting requires more careful crafting than a telephone or face-to-face communications and 3 out of 10 teens say “that they are more honest with friends when they talk online” therefore quality is the underlying foundation among all this “random quantity” discussion.

Next.

And while we often talk about how internet is influencing people we need to be careful with the ‘influencing’ word.

Research shows that the web can assist in education but ultimately the final influencer remains one and the same as the past.

The most tangible example I have at my fingertips of this notion is the most recent 2011 NPD Group Aftermarket Consumer Outlook Study:

Q: “Where would you go to learn how to do repairs on your vehicle?”

- Friend/Family                                                57%

- Vehicle Repair Manual                               46%

- Mechanic                                          42%

- Internet                                            42%

- Store Personnel                            16% (yikes)

Basically a Mechanic is AS influential as the Internet in this decision.

One word thought here. Wow.

So.

The main point here is that a consumer now has access and is aware of more people (true friends as well as web based friends) and can have more frequent communication due to the digital revolution. Yet. Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network (personal or professional) and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.

The other truth is that products today are at the mercy of crowds of friends. Crowds providing unsolicited feedback and influencing hordes of consumers making decisions on a daily basis.

Yes.

This is the “F-Factor:”

It is the expanding scenario of consumers increasingly tapping into their networks of friends, fans, and followers to discover, discuss and purchase goods and services, in ever-more sophisticated ways. (source: trendwatching.com)

The F-Factor is a real part of people’s lives because it provides real value. Value in that it offers a purchase decision making opportunity that is more efficient, more relevant, and more interesting and provides more “depth/breadth” than before. In the past consumers either had to spend endless time and effort on trying to discover the best of the best, or had to rely on sources that were distant, unknown or untrusted, and therefore potentially unreliable or irrelevant.

Now the six degrees of separation (at least in the influencer world) has shrunk significantly to a “no degree of separation” influencer world (this entire phenomena is inherently changing the trust value equation).

So.

Trendwatching does a nice job of identifying five ways that the F-FACTOR can influence consumer-buying behavior:

1. F-DISCOVERY: How consumers discover new products and services by relying on their social networks (Friends).

2. F-RATED: How consumers will increasingly (and automatically) receive targeted ratings, recommendations and reviews from their social networks. (by the way … this is creating an entirely new industry of something called ‘curated consumption’ where non-experts become distributors of expert like information).

3. F-FEEDBACK: How consumers can ask their friends and followers to improve and validate their buying decisions.

4. F-TOGETHER: How shopping is becoming increasingly social, even when consumers and their peers are not physically together. (in other words, the web permits consumers to share real time information and feedback and opportunities … and this is like a pebble in a pond syndrome where relevance & interest creates ripples difficult to quantify when it works).

5. F-ME: How consumers’ social networks are literally turned into products and services (curated consumption at its best).

This is one of those situations where the internet has unequivocally changed the dimensions of existing attitudes & behaviors. Simplistically the web has put the old F-Factor on steroids. I say it that way to point out that the web has not created anything new (attitude wise) but rather has encouraged a desired behavior to new boundaries.

The internet has also expanded an interesting existing consumer aspect to this entire “influencer” situation.

It is expanding the entire trend of putting consumers to work (whether they recognize it or not).

Think about his for a second.

This trend existed before the web. The easiest early example of this was in the fast food industry. For example the consumer of the fast food restaurant is also to some degree an actual producer of the meal.

-    Among other things, diners are expected to serve as their own waiters carrying their meals to their tables or back to their cars, sandwich makers (by adding fixings like tomatoes, lettuce, and onions in some chains), salad makers (by creating their own salads at the salad bar), and bus persons (by disposing of their own debris after the meal is finished).

This trend has existed for some time.

Putting consumers to work gained momentum with companies/brands after the birth of the fast food restaurant and has expanded to other industries:

-    Being a gas attendant  by pumping your own gas

-    Serving as a bank teller at the ATM machine

-    Working as the checkout cashier at the supermarket by scanning one’s own food, bagging it, and paying for it by credit card

-    Being a ticketing agent by using electronic kiosks to check in at the airport

-    Serving as an entertainment guide by co-creating a variety of experiences such as moving oneself through Disney World and its attractions

-    Performing traditional medical professional services by using do-it-yourself medical technologies (e.g., blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors, pregnancy tests) that allow patients to perform their own medical tasks

-    Being a caller on a call-in radio show

-    Being part of a Reality TV show

And now the web has enabled brands (or is it consumer empowerment like everyone suggests) to put consumers to work in a wide range of sometimes subtle and less material ways (this is where the F Factor truly comes into play).

Once again.

Think about that.

Much of what happens (and is created) online is generated by the user. Today’s web experience is often being defined by users producing content (individually as well as collaboratively). It wasn’t that way in the beginning when most of what existed on the original web was provider-generated but lately there has been an explosion of “consumers doing the work.”

Some examples of how the internet is putting consumers to work:

-    Wikipedia – where users generate articles and continually edit, update, and comment on them

-    Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites – where users create profiles composed of videos, photos, and text, interact with one another, and build communities

-    Second Life – where users create the characters, communities, and the entire virtual environment

-    Blogs – where the commentary is produced by the consumer

-    eBay – where users are their own selling agent & shipper

-    YouTube and Flickr – where mostly amateurs upload and download videos and photographs

-    Craigslist – where consumers (mostly) create the market

-    Amazon – where consumers do all the work involved in ordering products and write the reviews. (in addition users’ buying habits and site navigation are documented to recommend products)

-    Yelp! – where users create an online city guide by ranking, reviewing and discussing various locations and activities in their area

-    The GeoWeb, which consists of online maps where, increasingly, users are creating and augmenting content with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo tools. In fact. Google Maps users can fix errors; add the locations of businesses; upload photos; link Wikipedia articles to, and blog about their experiences with, or reviews of, places on the map.

And that’s not all.

Start thinking about the new “location awareness” tools, often used in conjunction with ‘smart’ cell phones with GPS technology, which allow users to track where they are at any given moment and upload this information to websites such as Facebook, Twitter or one’s blog (Google Latitude, Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and Loopt mobile phone application).

Sure.

This type of consumer involvement in consumption was certainly not invented by the internet, but given the massive involvement in popular online sites, it can be argued that it is currently both the most prevalent location of this new type of consumption (consumer) purchase model … and it is certainly the most important facilitator as a means of consumption.

Bottom line.

It can be argued that the web is influencing an entirely new consumption model.

A new economic model (as I so succinctly suggested upfront).

This leads me to my big finish.

Friends, feedback and influencers is bigger than simply the web or how brands can compete in this transparent world (where putting consumers to work doesn’t mean they are an employee).

The F Factor is impacting America & capitalism (forget about the whole brand and branding discussion … this is much bigger than that).

Capitalism itself will be transformed, perhaps radically, in this F-Factor world we live in. Several thoughts lead me to this conclusion.

First. The inability of companies (brands) to control consumers in the way, and to the extent, that they have been able to control consumers in the past. Due to increased transparency there is a greater resistance to the incursions of obvious capitalism (e.g. efforts to gain greater control and greater profits).

This does not bode well for the companies dabbling in Facebook & twitter & social marketing who are doing so with the intent to “influence or guide purchase behavior.”

Second. It is difficult to think of today’s consumer, mentally & attitudinally, as being exploited in the same ways as before. The whole idea of exploitation is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that today’s consumers seem to enjoy, even love, their involvement and what they are doing and are willing to devote long hours to it … for no pay.

Third. The emergence of a whole new economic model to conduct business because of the internet. Traditional capitalism is dependent on the notion of the exchange of money for goods and services and profits are made in those exchanges. However, little or no money changes hands between the users and the owners of many websites (for instance, users do not pay Facebook or Twitter to use the services).

For one thing there is the unwillingness of corporations and other organizations to pay for work done by these new web based influencers. This is compounded by the fact the new consumer increasingly prefer, and are able, to pay little or nothing for that which they consume on the internet (news, blogs, social networking sites, and so on).

Think about this as part of a new economic model.

Friends … family … influencers … or extended employees?

Yikes.

That will raise some hackles.

Yeah. Think about it.

What I have outlined is contrary to what Humphreys & Grayson (2009) argued that when corporations are involved this type of consumerism is simply the creation of “temporary employees” and thus does not indicate a fundamental change in capitalism.

However I contend that entire business models based around these new consumer types (the so called “temporary employees”) who are unpaid and given the product for free indicates the possibility of a new form of capitalism.

Now.

If you are a business and you are reading this, think about the implications.

All these “friends” providing feedback (unasked for or asked for) and influencing gazillions of attitudes (which generate some type of behavior) are your employees (paid or not).

They are your associates.

They are an extension of all those people who come in every morning, drink your own bad coffee and use the internet inappropriately during business hours in your office.

When you look at them that way would you choose to treat them differently?

Do things differently?

Think about your “social media” plans differently?

Even sit down with strategic planning and think about your business model differently?

I will help out here.

The answer to all of those questions should be “yes.”

The web is a powerful powerful facilitator of influence & business.

You may elect to call it “friends & feedback quantity” architecture but I suggest if you want to be successful you think about it as a “quality” mechanism which can impact a new economic model.

Intimidating? Possibly.

But if you don’t think of it that way you will probably influence no one and end up on the slippery slope of irrelevance (with no friends).

my thoughts on education inspired by The Wire

So.

Every time I walk into a high school I have a feeling that education … well … that it could be better. For everyone. Teachers & all kids (no matter their socioeconomic status or whether they live in an urban or rural environment).

Shit.  Not could … that it should be better. And I imagine the crazy thing about educating our youth is that everyone wants it to be better.  I cannot envision anyone in the education system seriously not having the best intentions or wanting every kid who walks through the door on day one to learn more and get an education.

I don’t know what happens in other countries but in America’s case we are more class/caste driven which has an impact on kids’ education from the earliest age.

Simplistically … the more affluent send their kids to well financed school systems (public or private) while lower income families traditionally get a worse education (for a variety of reasons) in lower financed systems. By the way … this is not an indictment of teachers because i believe great teachers exist in all school systems.

And even if a lower income kid fights their way through the system to get to college … well … the system is still against them. A Dept. of Education study states low income family students with high test scores are less likely to complete their studies (cross the finish line as it were) then high income family students with lower test scores. In other words, poor children are much less likely to make good then we often like to think. Oh. And the information shows that this fact is truer in America then in Canada and Europe.

The Australian Education system also conducted a similar study.

Let me be clear (and the rest of the post will focus on this point).

Kids are no more, or less, smart based on their associated socioeconomic background.  A brain is a brain.

But.

Their socioeconomic background affects their ability to dedicate themselves to learning.

All that said … if you are interested in this topic you should watch season 4 of The Wire. It is the season which uses the high school education system as the main thread for the story line.

This season was so well done a number of universities actually use it to discuss the challenges within our existing education system.

Ok.

Let me begin by saying … if you truly believe in your heart that each and every kid deserves a “chance” then be prepared … the season is simultaneously hopeful, yet hopeless and, ultimately, disturbing … all at the same time.

You can see the challenges and opportunities all at the same time.

And it is an additional maddening aspect in that everyone who tries to fix the system loses.

I admit. It’s disturbing & demoralizing to see good intentioned people (and kids) repeatedly getting crushed (even though it is just a TV show).

And you wonder why you see good intentions squandered until you hear one of the characters on the show say something that is so sadly true … “This game is rigged.”

Look.We all know the system is “broken.”

And good income people can beat the system.

And, frankly, it is those people who suggest “there are no excuses for not getting an education or having an opportunity.”

And, frankly, that’s a bunch of bullshit.

Go teach at an inner city school for a day.

Shit. Go teach at any public school for a day.

“No excuses” is a phrase of blatant ignorance when you see what stresses face many of the lives of the children you see which actually are not ‘excuses’ but in fact … realities. Realities they must face day-to-day.

As you will see, for example, on The Wire is the drug addiction, the crime connected to the drug trade, the business of the drug trade, the barely functioning families, and the poverty which are realities impacting a young student’s ability to be engaged or even be consistently involved (and that doesn’t even touch upon the emotional “hope” aspect).

In that Wire season there are four boys who try to engage with learning and with school, and are occasionally successful (which each student recognizes and are extremely engaged in those situations) but their life situations just do not permit ongoing consistent progress.

The Wire clearly shows us that many kids, many good smart kids, will fail in school through no fault of the schools or of their own.

Ok.

On the other hand, on the ‘hopeful side’, the show showcases the amazing potential our youth exhibits – even in the face of the direst situations. I actually believe it showcases, almost better than I have ever seen, how young people grasp the ‘light’, even if it only appears for seconds, even within the darkest environments.

It is within those moments of viewing the season that you just want to pick up a phone and call someone and say “fix the education system” because it tears your heart into pieces to see what ’could be.’

I also loved how the show so definitively states that only an incredibly small number of students are so emotionally damaged by their circumstances that they are totally unable to respond to what school has to offer (and I happen to agree with them).

The show does this extremely well by taking a group of ‘project kids’ who are the most disruptive and troubled but showing how they are potentially capable of functioning in a learning environment.

The project is where they pull a small number of disruptive students out of regular classes and puts them in a special, smaller, class with a larger number of adults. The students in the project group are involved in the drug trade or are heading down that path. The project succeeds in two ways. It reduces disruption in the regular classes and it allows focused and appropriate attention, with a greater adult-to-student ratio, to the students in the project class.

Oops. Here is where a flaw in our existing system rears its ugly head … the program is terminated when the city’s educational administration decides that a program that is not raising test scores and that smacks of “tracking” is too politically risky. Oh. ‘Tracking’ or ‘profiling’ … swear words in today’s environment (although … I admit it is a slippery slope).

In other words … a promising initiative is eliminated because of rigid bureaucratic goals.

A promising initiative eliminated … that worked. And worked despite the issues that undermine learning in urban schools (although I would argue that it isn’t just urban schools but everywhere) like fragmented families, no families, teachers required to teach to the test, declining neighborhoods with few legitimate jobs, overwhelmed or indifferent leaders.

Oh.

And good initiatives get eliminated due to the fact that the education system is beholden to stats (or “jukin’ the stats” as the show reminds us).

Ah. The ‘stats’ (scores).

This season of The Wire discusses the statistics in that the school system needs to produce raised scores on standardized tests. As a result actual learning and teaching are deeply compromised. The Wire is particularly critical of the testing regime associated with the 2002 No Child Left Behind law in that just as the teachers (and the project class) are beginning to discover some viable strategies for teaching to the students they have to shift to prepping them to take the standardized tests. It is a vivid demonstration (albeit a theatrical one) of an empty gesture within the education system in which the students learn nothing of value and which derails their interest, and growing, if shaky academic engagement.

The system was set up with good intentions but the show displays the flaws.

The show also showcases another thing I encounter (nd this is my opinion) … that many of our schools seem to sanitize the troubling, often offensive, and challenging aspects of real life while the Life reality is that students are surrounded by a popular culture which deals bluntly, graphically, and harshly with real life reality. Ok. I admit I am not sure we want our schools to include all the inappropriateness that is commonplace in the popular culture because one would hope (or, let’s say I believe) our schools should show students what ‘could be’ (from a ‘taste of what is finer’ perspective). It is probably unrealistic on my part but ultimately my hope is that schools would teach the best of the best and give kids something to aim for (without ignoring what is real).

The balance is that the education system needs to exercise discretion but I believe we tend to underestimate what students can appreciate and understand.

I don’t know how schools and education can ignore perspective when teaching. The Wire reminds us that all education, whether you want to define school rules versus street rules or not, have to deal with any aspect of the following (I pulled this list from a formal sociology & education article):

-          intersections between representations of race, economy, and criminality

-          issues of masculinity

-          gender and sexuality in police and criminal cultures

-          the family, childhood, parenting, and criminality

-          re-imagining of the heroic beyond traditional narratives of America

-          roles for women in urban America (and roles for women in general)

-          the technology of crime

-          street speech and class-based communication

-          cultures of addiction and treatment

-          constructions of violence

-          stress and trauma narratives

-          education and class

-          interest groups and issues of governance

Some of these are big emotional issues and some may appear to be “not my kid’s type of issue” to some more affluent family readers …. but these are real issues … to all our kids (so don’t be fooled by what you think you see in your own life).

Anyway.

Four features of The Wire’s depiction are particularly worthy of note.

First, the “inner city” kids, like kids anywhere, are shown as bright and curious, and capable of learning. Second, the ability of the schools to educate these children is shown to be strongly compromised by the kids’ world outside of school—their absent or dysfunctional families, their distressed communities, and the lack of any visible accessibility of the world of legitimate work.

Third, despite these negative forces in the students’ lives, teachers and school personnel are capable of making small but significant contributions to children’s educational and personal growth.

Fourth, public schools are portrayed as natural and appropriate places for young people to be in the context of their developing lives (although the particular distressed school the boys attend is deficient in many ways).

In addition.

The Wire did a great job showing us how, in a broad perspective, we are failing our youth with regard to education.

Oh. And it reminds us that good things don’t always happen to good kids. And life can get in the way of even the best education.

But. The main thought?

The show wants to say that most of the kids in school, even in public schools, would be capable of making significant educational progress were their lives and communities not so chaotic and troubled. The Wire portrays the students as naturally curious and constantly learning.

In conclusion, one character on The Wire states the issue better than I could ever.

He predicts …  if we don’t solve it … “there will be an endless stream of kids who are not prepared for productive lives.”

global generation 11: learning by lurking

I called this “learning by lurking” but this is all about how the project global generation education initiative, because of its web based platform, creates learning through a unique aspect of web based collaboration.

This is thinking about the project global generation education initiative with a focus on collaboration for learning.

Oh. And, of course, how the project GG initiative can assist in reducing the children out of school numbers, increase literacy and most likely reduce future conflict … all through the collaborative aspects of the initiative.

Let me get a thought out of the way.

I have written a variety of articles on how collaboration is misused in the business world. Misused in that I believe ideas are driven by individuals and collaboration often dulls the edges of individual ideas (under the guise of improvement).

On the other hand … the traditional education system is ignoring the benefits of collaboration for learning … or maybe better said “the gathering & sharing of knowledge” particularly with regard to the global youth.

What I mean is that there is an opportunity within this context where children, utilizing a web platform,  could be driving the ideation (versus the current system where teachers facilitate learning and ideation).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … sound like the inmates running the asylum? Not even close.

Anyway.

The focus of this write up is to sync up the idea of collaboration (due to the initiative’s web platform) and the original generational idea of “community individualism.” (global generation 1)

Web based children’s education collaboration represents an opportunity because:

1.            The existing way we view the education system, based on brick & mortar, is archaic. For a variety of reasons … collaboration included.

2.            The existing education system is archaic from a sociological perspective (creating a healthier collaborative mind).

But (ponder this):

“We are now at a point where we must educate our children in what no one knew yesterday, and prepare our schools for what no one knows yet.” – unknown author from an education article

So. It is possible archaic is a strong word … but maybe we should be using stronger words as we discuss education children (and improvements).

Yet. What I know for sure is the current global education structure misses the opportunity to globalize socialization of knowledge/education. What I mean by that is the existing brick & mortar inherently diminishes some education opportunities because of the face-to-face “clique” challenges.

Ok. I will come back to that last one because it is a humdinger of a thought.

-          Collaboration and education

Collaboration when discussing the internet is obvious.

I am going to avoid the obvious and utilize a twist on the idea by taking advantage of global consumer trends.  Two trends called Casual Collapse and Mass Mingling (source: trendwatching.com).

Casual Collapse and Education

Casual Collapse is the current seeming  ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that have defined specific societies.   And it continues to collapse because of the internet (to be specific – the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge empowered by the internet) and all this is happening without causing any particular apocalyptic aftermath. But it also appears In mature countries/cultures a ‘CASUAL COLLAPSE’ seems unstoppable (whether a government or an elderly culture wants it to happen or not).

People have grown up immersed in consumer culture – they ‘get’ it. But as everyone becomes more savvy about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking. It is less tribal thinking but more global perspective.

Casual Collapse is not a negative trend but rather it is indicative of a variety of things (of which the web is a significant component).

But the web is a layer on a natural progression happening – the urbanization of emerging countries.

There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally (in Africa alone in 1980 28% lived in cities while today its 40% – 40 million people). As new arrivals find themselves distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to these alternatives grows, as does their interest.

The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this will happen overnight. As trendwatching suggests … “compared to much trend thinking, CASUAL COLLAPSE moves at a glacial pace.”

And I am certainly not suggesting that everyone becomes overwhelmingly liberal as soon as they move to the city. but there is a clear trend for urban populations to have more socially liberal and tolerant views on a wide variety of issues.

And from Casual Collapse I shift to Mass Mingling.

Mass Mingling and Education

Within the construct of the Global Generation Children’s education initiative I am certainly not suggesting a Global mind. Nor is the intent to create a “global mind” (as one) or even a “Global society.” I am rather discussing the benefit of a global education initiative. And therefore I am  discussing collaboration as an extension of Mass Mingling through educational platforms to build empowered (or enlightened) individualism with a respect for the global perspective.

This is a big difference then creating a global mind.

This is about fostering innate curiosity and sharing knowledge … where children are then empowered to create their own ‘mind.’

This initiative is built upon the power of an individual’s mind (and the fact of power of one to make a difference).  So how the heck does that lead, or encourage, collaboration?

it maybe be easiest for me to discuss collaboration specifically within a construct of the “community individualism” generational characteristic I have proposed in terms of community, individual and the crossing of the two.

Nothing is more powerful within the individual child’s mind than curiosity.

A web based education initiative should encourage/enhance Collaboration that cultivates curiosity.

Most dictionaries define curiosity as something like “a state in which you want to learn more about something.”

(Bruce NOTE: they could possibly have made this a definition for children at the same time).

But it is also about being comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing, whilst at the same time being motivated to explore and discover more.

It is a human characteristic that as soon as you think you know something with certainty you no longer want to learn more about it, i.e., you are no longer curious.

But children are endless vectors of curiosity.

With children there’s a sense of not knowing it all going in with an innocent, open mind and an intention to learn more.

We are tapping into an unfillable well at this age (as long as we nurture it).

“The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity. – Einstein

Yes. A bunch of people will say ‘it cannot be done through the internet.” Or. Even better … how can kids collaborate without guidance or a teacher.

Mass Mingling actually thrives on curiosity. Think about the characteristics of curiosity.

-          Most of the time, when we make a mistake, or see someone else making a mistake, our automatic reaction is to start making judgment and blame – we tell ourselves off, beat ourselves up about it, and we might even give someone else a hard time if we see them make a mistake. An d this only has the effect of triggering our stress response, which causes our thinking to become more rigid in our thinking.

Mass Mingling permits millions of young children to browse socially through information, existing knowledge and mingle with other’s thoughts – making mistakes along the way as they mingle.

But this curiosity needs to be nurtured by teaching children that mistakes are just information and feedback from the real world, letting us know how things are in the real world, and telling us what’s working and what’s not working, what the blocks and obstacles to progress are, and even tipping you off on opportunities to solve problems and meet needs that other people might have.

Children will be exposed to the idea that their mistakes can be the very things that lead you in the new direction that turns out to be way better than you’d previously conceived.

And, frankly, today’s education system doesn’t foster curiosity.

I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic about education. The real problem lies with adults who lack a comprehensive view of learning, adults who are guilty of classifying real learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience. The focus on tests is creating a generation of students who equate learning with test results.

But ideas & innovative enlightened thinking does not arise out of a vacuum. It must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment with ideas and products. Original thinking and novel ideas should be affirmed and honored and cultivated. Even if it is simply original/novel in the eyes of the young.

A web based initiative can encourage creativity by helping students learn to assess and take intellectual risks as they learn more. In my eyes the goal of education should be to prepare children to be competent and original in their thinking … at any age.

The value of Casual Collapse & Mass Mingling

This is where Community and Individualism become interconnected. And the foundation of the Global Generation takes root.

A collaborative group of kids who have learned together, made mistakes together, learned FROM each other and maybe even laughed at, if not with, each other creates stronger respectful individuals … within an interacting global community.

It is a fact that education at an early age (and hopefuly continued) is indispensable in equipping citizens with the abilities and skills to engage critically, and act responsibly.

Anyway.

I found an interesting project being conducted along these lines (although I don’t believe they are thinking big enough).

a collaborative effort is under way on the issue of educational assessment and it offers insight into how it can happen and what motivates the companies involved.

Cisco is in a partnership with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement aimed at transforming global educational assessment and improving learning outcomes. Joining Cisco in this effort are Intel and Microsoft. Thomson says the three companies came together at the Learning and Technology World Forum in London “with the intention of changing the world.”

The three large, global technology companies have different business models – Cisco sells networks, Microsoft sells licenses and Intel sells devices – but they all compete for attention in the education market. All three are also committed to changing education in the United States and globally, and, according to Thomson, their leadership became convinced through the World Economic Forum that “education itself was still the best way to drive change in the world.”

The sheer number and variety of educational systems worldwide poses a significant challenge to any effort to effect change on a global scale. Thomson points out, however, there are three characteristics common to any system of education that guides the partnership’s work:

Here is the best thing I found …

Education everywhere is a social construct. It is not an industry or a vocation. “People come together to provide skills competencies and abilities for their children to succeed.”

  1. Systems are comparable enough in their desire to measure progress. A kind of assessment unique to education is common across all systems.
  2. There is still an economic component to education. In all countries its purpose includes fostering social development, citizenship and an ability to participate in the economy.

The spokesperson  says that collaborating to tackle the issue of educational assessment worldwide requires Cisco and the others to step out of their “comfort zone.” They are accustomed to relationships through which they sell billions of dollars in technology to the education sector. Now they have to listen to those same customers and ask what they are using it for.

“And sometimes saying to customers you don’t really need to buy more technology from us.” Thomson remarks. “What we need to do is figure out a better way to use it.” Figuring these things out cannot be driven by revenue generation, he stresses. “It’s not about selling more. It’s about changing things.”

The kind of change that Cisco, Intel and Microsoft are striving for will not happen without involving academics, countries (the owners of the educational systems) and corporations in identifying and assessing 21st century skills.

Thomson says that the “Uncommon Table” the Boston College Center seeks to create for collaboration on education will need a “big tent.” That’s just the approach being taken by Cisco and the other companies. Their initiative on assessment draws from educators in Australia, Finland and Portugal, parts of Asia, and the United States, if the fragmentation of the U.S. educational system can be worked with. He says success will take willing partners open to foreign advice and academics prepared to collaborate and ready to adapt change into their own systems.

“If we can find that right way to keep that disparate group of people working together; if we can find that right ecosystem at a national level to actually implement, we’re going to make a tremendous difference,” the spokesperson predicts. “And that’s a difference that’s not there to drive revenue. It’s not there to create new product streams. It’s there simply to create a better world.”

(I would like to note that this can actually be found in my Global Generation how to make it happen & fund write up … and I said a similar thing).

I applaud Cisco, Intel & Microsoft … although I would point out to them that they could do it another way … the project global generation way.

What I DO like about what they are trying is that they are potentially solving a core issue – funding.

Ok. Moving on.

Socialization and a web based Education

Beyond collaboration ‘missed opportunities’ let me go back to how brick & mortar is archaic from a socialization perspective.

Existing education systems are a breeding ground for a caste system.

Kids are brutal in a face-to-face system.

Online can be just as brutal … but in a faceless way.

Who you are and how you dress and what you say (even the language you speak) becomes secondary to “what you say and what you think” in an online community.

All people are equal in body online. sociologically this means that ideas and thinking create the caste system.

And before someone begins slamming on “decreasing social skills because of the internet” take this factoid along for the ride …

PewInternetResearch: “Our research shows face-to-face time between teenagers hasn’t changed over the past five years. Technology has simply added another layer on top. Yes, you can find studies that suggest online networking can be bad for you. But there are just as many that show the opposite.”

In my eyes the value of an educational  web world is that it permits a child to regularly place themself in unfamiliar situations, or with unfamiliar people, and provides  the opportunity to be exposed to ideas and views that they’ve not been exposed to before.  And all of this provides an opportunity for real-life evidence/knowledge to challenge existing certainties – and open the way for curiosity.

We have the opportunity to integrate the newest forms of interactive technology with children’s natural curiosity (and a generation that has web abilities almost beyond our understanding) to create natural conditions in which collaboration can occur.

-          The natural anonymity of online tools frees us from tacit biases or self-doubt and encourages individual leadership.

-          Asynchronous tools allow global work teams release from the bonds of time zones to tackle projects with increasing effectiveness and productivity.

-          Social networks now become visible through community tools allowing financial, time, human and other organizational assets to be redeployed toward developing innovative approaches to unique problems, rather than reinventing solutions to problems that have been previously solved.

So.

Lets move along from socialization socializing and discuss socializing learning.

I call it … Learning by Lurking

Twitter has certainly taught us you don’t have to be an active participant … you can be a ‘lurker’ … and participate (or build a viable network system and have people be involved). And in education’s case it isn’t creepy … it can actually benefit a dormant mind … or a personality that doesn’t feel comfortable stepping forward. In other words, all have the opportunity to benefit from the few great minds.  And providing an opportunity for the few who don’t have a voice (but have the mind) to be able to finally step forward at some point.

THAT is the benefit of a global NON brick & mortar system.

Online permits some of the best minds, but possibly not the most socially acclimated, to rise and maximize their talent.

Such places could even be more than just schools but genuine hubs for related activities for the entire community. With a global connection to the net – maybe not the net but another layer (along the lines of facebook which is also another layer of net) an education/informational platform awaits to be activated by a mind. (note: as outlined in global generation 6 this is hardly pie-in-the-sky nor cost prohibitive in this day and age)

Another ‘lurker’ (or maybe better says ‘anonymity’) aspect of the web enabled platform  is that it permits mistakes … maybe some spectacular mistakes … with little or no social repercussions.

Now.

Am I suggesting social skills aren’t important? Nope. They are.

But here and now I am talking about education and enlightenment.

Frankly the current education system is not about enlightenment.

Sorry folks.

That just is the truth.

The benefits of Lurking & Collaboration summary (or … The Big Close …)

At its most basic level we are teaching our children the way they need to act within a learning construct at such an early age that when they grow up they will not depart from such behavior because it is ingrained (positively).

Behaviorally the child’s mind experiences the right way of dealing with issues & thinking & ideation so that it becomes a natural instinctual act. It becomes habits that produce profitable outcomes in their adult years (hopefully in the form of ideas & accomplishments).

This idea is truly about teaching kids, beginning at the preschool age, relationship-building collaborative skills that creates a mental foundation on how to deal with others AND educate.

Even prior to a child entering a traditional classroom (should that opportunity exist) there are opportunities to teach them how to interact & ideate with other people in a positive way. And the project global generation children’s education idea is truly about learning collaboration skills at their most rudimentary level.

I also believe, in my heart of hearts, that this is the best way for humankind as a great way to preserve and instill languages and cultures to counter the homogenization of urbanism combined with globalism.

Yes.

That is fostering Community Individualism.

When collaboration takes place between people who realize the benefit of smooth working relationships then higher creative achievement and productivity is accomplished. Healthy cross-functional teams working in concert for the greater good eventually translates into efficient operations, regardless of whether in an academic, work, social or home environment. In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life.

And I do believe that the structure of web based schools/schooling with children as young as five or six in which they can express their opinions, share thinking & ideas and ultimately propose their own solutions creates a solid foundation for a ‘community individualism drive/intent’ Global Generation. It is this kind of attitudinal construct which offers unlimited opportunities for leadership and engagement.  And it is this type of education structure which, by the time those five- and six-year-olds reach an appropriate graduation age, they will have a profound and enduring understanding of what it means to be in a collaborative society and have the ability to contribute within their own community … as well as a global level if given the opportunity.

This is an idea of molding a people from diverse origins, cultural practices, languages, into one collaborative group of thinkers, within a framework which has to be democratic in nature (because it crosses any and all geographic boundaries, yet it can be absorbed within any cultural construct.

And by doing so it mitigates conflicts and adversarial interests without oppression and injustice but rather through expanding brain power.

Whew.

Sound big and audacious? Yup.

Sound like it could better individuals? Yup.

Sound like it would therefore better any country construct (regardless of its unique government or religious direction)? Yup.

Sound possible? You bet. I call it the Global Generation children’s education initiative.

global generation: education finds a voice

Well.

Global children’s education seems to be finding a voice.  Ok. A number of voices (imagine if they all worked together).

I was pleased to write about project global generation and a global children’s education initiative again inspired by  writing the 2010 MTV Europe awards. Huh? Yup … but don’t be scared .. it is actually relevant .. and entertaining with regard to global education.

So.

Some background (because I am assuming many of my readers have never seen the Europe Awards). The 2010 MTV Europe Awards are something to see (everyone should take a minute to watch at least one).

I have seen a number of them but they mostly have some show-stopping performances, and this one had increasingly skimpy costume changes (Katy Perry seems to make a gazillion changes).

Hard to describe but it is VERY different then an American awards show.

But the awards ceremony was simply the opportunity to be able to showcase what I wanted to write about.

They this “Free your Mind” award (I don’t know if we have it in the USA).

And it’s awesome.

And it’s awesome because somewhere out there someone had to recognize that not only is music a possible spokesperson for good (because of the iconic status it has on occasion) but someone also recognized that music seems to have the ability to align people.

This year’s award was (in my eyes) extremely well deserved and extremely well presented.

Shakira won this year for her inspirational anthem ‘Waka Waka (It’s Time for Africa)’ which was used to promote universal education and her charitable work in Africa.

And as she wins she states …  ‘music is the soundtrack of our lives.’

(Amen sister)

-          on a separate note … she also has a separate foundation trying to improve education in her home country of Columbia as well as she has spoken at the UN as part of her commitment to children’s education and the UN Millennium Initiative (the 2nd goal in the Initiative is about global education for kids)

Anyway.

I don’t particularly like Shakira’s music but I don’t give a shit.

In this case her focus is on target … she says it like it is … and, the best, she did something. In fact she is doing a lot of something. Good for her.

But global children’s education got an added bonus during the awards show.

Oh.

And if I could bottle this ‘added bonus’ up and use it over and over and over again to showcase the importance of education to the youth and the impact we adults can make on this initiative I would (and I may).

Here is what happened.

30 Seconds to Mars did a pretty amazing introduction to the award and synthesized the importance of global education before actually introducing Shakira for the ‘free your mind award.’

This is an incredible well articulated thought.

30 Seconds intro to Shakira: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wt4iBYEJa8

Let’s be clear about something (whether you like 30 Seconds to Mars or not).

Jared Leto is an excellent speaker.

Let me say that again (because a shitload of people will disregard him as a soap star and make believe rock star).

Jared Leto is an excellent speaker.

And a compelling speaker.

And frankly he used his fame and the stage to actually say something worthwhile. And I believe everyone should give him credit.

I know I do.

He articulated the big idea better, ok , as well as anyone would, or could, ever have.

Anyway.

That was a bonus.

Ok.

One more bonus.

The Waka Waka video which helped Shakira win the award:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ssflEr3s44&feature=related

That’s it for this post.

From a global perspective I believe poverty & children’s education are the two most important issues that need to be addressed for the betterment of the world’s population. While people may argue I believe if you fix these two things everything else will fall I place (Human Rights, resource management, etc.).

And from a global perspective (in finding a solution to global education for the young) it appears there are some outstanding individual efforts … in combination with a powerful overarching institution like the UN which has incorporated it into a larger Millennium initiative … gosh … imagine what they could do if the collaborated and worked together? (gosh)

Anyway.

Congratulations Shakira.

Congratulations Jared.

You don’t know me … but I appreciate what you did and are doing.

(and by the way … if you do happen to read this check out my project global generation initiative at www.projectglobalgeneration.com because I think you would like it)

global generation 10: 115+ million children out of school

Okay, here we go, back to discussing global education for children.

I just got my hands on The UNESCO “children out of school” global research study (it is a study focused on The UN Education for all Campaign and Millennium Development Goals in which, worldwide, it attempts to ensure that no child is excluded from receiving a primary education).

Official title: The study from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics in Montreal – Children Out of School: Measuring Exclusion from Primary Education.

This study is amazing.

Particularly if you care about what kids are, or are not, learning globally.

And particularly if I needed a specific tangible objective for project global generation children’s education initiative.

Let me state some things (before I go into one of my diatribes).

Globally, 28% of all children at official school entry age are not in school (that translate into almost 18% of ALL global children are not in school).

Yup.

Think about it. That’s almost one in 5 of all children. Just less than 30% of all kids who should be getting an education.

This is the kind of stuff that really gets me going.

This is the kind of information that makes me believe a web based children’s education initiative is THE way to future education success.

And while one in 5 is scary … I believe the numbers are understated (in terms of the issue).

UNESCO did an excellent job of isolating kids in school versus kids not in school (and normalizing the numbers from country to country).

But there are a couple of things which makes these numbers scary.

They did not measure dropout (and this is a MAJOR issue when discussing a lot of global rural communities).

They did not measure quality of education (that’s another discussion for another day).

And the numbers (issue) is certainly skewed toward emerging countries … and we in the industrialized countries certainly understand what issues reside in the education system we have today (and the numbers don’t isolate that issue).

The historical data shows a decline in the number of children out of school. But they also indicate that the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015 is most likely out of reach.

And I am going to show some numbers that may make it appear like we are being successful in creating a global education base (the graph plots trend data on the number of children out of school calculated by UNESCO for the period 1999-2005 and by UNICEF for the period 2002-2006 and the 2002 estimate in the latter trend line is based on joint work by UNICEF and the UNESCO Institute for Statistics):

But we need to look beyond ‘the numbers.’

The truth is a little more disturbing.

If we assume that the reduction in the number of children out of school continues at the same average rate as over the past years (which is a big assumption because trends tend to flatten over time) more than 30 to 40 million children will still be out of school by 2015. We will certainly have failed in our effort to secure primary education for all children.

In addition.

The study reflects, as they isolated issues, that children who do NOT enter education at the appropriate entry age are significantly more likely to drop out (stop) education.

But.

Let’s stick with the issue as of today.

The study states that there are almost 115 million (out of a possible 650 million) children who are not gaining an education.

Unacceptable my friend … unacceptable.

So lets move on to seeking solutions and where to start by sharing some thoughts concluded from the study:

-          Mothers matter (more than dads). The presence of a mother in household increases likelihood of education .. as well as NOT likelihood of education. If a mother has no education a child is significantly less likely to go to school. In fact 2 times more likely to be out of school.

-          Poverty matters. 84% of out of school children in Latin America come from the poorest 60% of hhlds.

-          Religion has no (statistical) significance.  For all we pontificate about the suppression within some religions from a statistical significant it ain’t a dot on the map compared to other factors.

-          Gender is also not significant (we just need more kids being educated … not girls or boys).

-          In terms of sheer numbers India leads the pack representing almost 23% of the total

-          In 14 African countries 50% or more are not attending school (which is scary because this country represents a significant growth population in the global economy).

Ok.

Those are some facts.

Some thoughts (because I still do believe in a global web based kid’s education initiative).

Let’s go to the big one.

Year one is important.  REALLY important.

If you don’t start a kid at the right time … well … the odds of them getting the knowledge you desire decrease significantly.

You have to get them started.

In my eyes that is all about engaging their innate curiosity (that isn’t a research thing that is a Bruce thing).

I tend to believe part of the value of getting into the game early is that it sparks the natural/inherent internal engine inside each child.

Funding & getting kids in the game

So.

Let’s take a minute on “getting in the game.”

The Guardian just had a nice commentary on why poverty matters and financing/funding for The UN Education for all Campaign and Millennium Development Goals.

Oh.

Just in case you don’t know … this is the specific Millennium Development Goal (number 1 is directed toward Poverty and there are 8 goals in total).

-          Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education targets

Target 2a: Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling

- Net enrolment ratio in primary education

- Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary

- Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men

Will we reach the Millennium universal primary education goal by 2015?

No way. Not with the numbers I showed earlier. It will be a combination of children not even having the opportunity combined with the drop out rate.

The only way we can attain the goals (and all of the above, not some, are imperative to meet) without some innovative financing and thinking.

Here is the Guardian article on the funding challenge:

The MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) promised education for all, but to avoid failing the world’s most disadvantaged children, we need a global fund. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/dec/28/universal-primary-education-innovative-financing

So.

Unfortunately money does matter (even where this is good intent).

Do I agree with a global fund? You bet.

Do I believe it should be private investment driven rather than UN driven? You bet.

Why? Well … as I outlined in my Global Generation funding aspect … I believe someone with a truly philanthropic perspective (a betterment globally for all) is the only one who will have the kahones & fortitude to forge what needs to happen … across all geographic boundaries.

But funding of what (because just having the dollars is not enough if the idea is flawed)? This is where some innovative thinking should be kicking in. And there needs to be some innovative thinking because to truly have a global education initiative it needs to accommodate a couple of things:

-          This Poverty issue (or what can someone afford). Why? Because poverty is a root cause of students dropping out of school. For example .. the Cambodia SES Survey found the literacy rate in rural Cambodian areas was a mere 64%. In the area around Kravanh, one of the remote SC locations, poverty is widespread. Making matters worse, many students live so far away from larger villages that they are unable to get to a traditional school. And with the poverty, their families can’t afford the school supplies, supplementary class expense or transportation to help their children continue in school.

(I mention that because a web based education system resolves lack of urbanization and supplementary class expense)

-          Lack of urbanization. While emerging countries are urbanizing the fact it globally we are dependent upon a thriving rural community. Dependent not only from an economic point of view but also from a sustainable point of view. and if you combine a lack of affordable transportation infrastructure we need to find a viable non-brick & mortar education infrastructure to provide the access.

Of course I have a point of view on the innovations in the education infrastructure.

Global access (and the web)

Ok.

Let me attach another factoid (because I mentioned Africa earlier and that continent is an important segment of the global challenge).

Africa has over 600 million mobile phone subscribers.

This more than USA or Europe (I didn’t make that fact up).

Yes.  More than USA or Europe (surprising isn’t it as we walk up & down our streets and seemingly everyone has a mobile phone).

I state that to make the point there is an education opportunity here beyond the tried & true brick & mortar school system.

And while we in the industrialized world may not get it, or understand it, there is an entire world out there existing off a mobile technology platform (for more than texting, calling & sending pictures).

So often we focus on what is right in front of us rather than seeing the big picture. The big picture isn’t face to face.  The big picture is mobile technology.  “Cloud” education and collaboration.

This probably sounds wacky to many of my readers but you need to take yourself out of your own situation and see yourself in a different place in a different environment.

Mobile technology is going to drive the emerging economy and world.

Think about this.

Today Africa emerging countries) only represent 2.5% of total global economy.

And while having 600 million mobile phones only 10 percent of the geography is mobile enabled.

Oh.

And while it may be easy to think they don’t have the leadership to allow it to happen this portion of the world is encountering a higher level of peace & stable government (whether we like it or not) then ever before.

If you examine generational trends you would see that the emerging countries (let’s just say Africa) or on the cusp of their own industrial revolution … with an internet engine which past industrial revolutions have never had before).

Ok, my friends, we will never see something like this ever again.

This is like having etch-a-sketch minds … millions of brilliant innovative intelligent minds … with NO preconceived notions (a blank etch-a-sketch) creating new ideas.

I hate to tell everyone here (in the good ole USA and any industrialized countries) but they are gonna think of shit we have never thought of ever before (and it will be good shit … things we can all benefit from).

C’mon.

Beyond Africa specifically … we are talking about 115 million untapped minds.

This is about potential and “what could be” (ok. what will be).

I am not going to go through all the characteristics to showcase how all the emerging economics are simply in the neophyte stage of “what has already been” because if you don’t just believe it inherently than all the facts I may show you won’t convince you.

Look.

The point of all this is:

-          There is a global education issue.

-          There is a global education opportunity

-          There is a need to look at education in a non traditional way to maximize the opportunity.

In the end, Bruce opinions aside, there are 115 million kids not getting an education. For chuckles add another 84 million who drop out, for a variety of reasons, and say we have 199 million kids who are going to be uneducated adults.

What a waste of mind power.

What a frickin waste.

6 million, 27000 & 1

Ok.

6 million clicks.

27000 unique visitors (this month).

1 post that had 27000 visitors (pure coincidence).

1 guy writing about stuff he cares about.

Those are just some numbers about my blog.

I don’t really pay much attention to the Enlightened Conflict site statistics.

But. It was brought to my attention by my good buddy the Dman, who rummages around in the backroom of my websites on occasion, that I have had over 6 million clicks one month (2,800,000 in the current last 30 days or so) and that some pretty big numbers (at least to me) that swing up & down on a monthly basis depending on what I write.

27000 unique visitors in past 30 days.

Apparently google has “crawled” my site the last three months (I just wanted to type that) and re-posted some stuff.

Is that good?

Shit.

I don’t know in the bigger world but to me? Yeah.  I am a content creator. I guess it’s good 6 million times people have viewed anything.

And it’s pretty heady stuff to wrap my head around that anyone, let alone 27000 anyones, read the shit I write.

Am I surprised? Yup.

It just seems like a big number for one lil ole guy.

My buddy the Dman is gonna dig around some more to give some insights beyond the fact when I wrote my Love series a boatload of people searched it and read it and something I wrote in April of this year had 27000 frickin’ people read it.

Now that, my friends, creates a hurdle for future success assessment (at least it’s something to aim for).

So.

Am I happy with these numbers? Sure.  Why not.

More importantly from an enlightenment perspective I wanted to use the 6 million people who wandered by good ole enlightenedconflict in that one 30 day period to put some things into perspective for readers … in an enlightened way of course.

Here you go.

Some 6 million factoids:

-          Upright Walking Began 6 Million Years Ago

-          The BBC sends 6 million click throughs a month (so does that mean I am as good as 1/12th of the BBC ? … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I can live with that).

-          Shape magazine, Forbes & Money magazine all have 6 million subscribers.

-          The US Labor Dept. states that Six Million More Jobs Needed for Healthy Economy

-          The largest star cluster (or a small galaxy), a globular cluster called Messier 15, has about 6 million stars (to be a full on galaxy you need more stars).

-          Philadelphia region just crossed 6 million people.

-          Bagdad has a little over 6 million people.

-          Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) has a little over 6 million people.

-          Israel has a little over 6 million people. And approximately 6 million Jewish people lost their lives in world war 2 (just a reminder of one significant outcome of that conflict).

-          There are about 6 million Russians in China’s Siberia geography.

-          The Bible Society of Brazil is commemorated an unprecedented accomplishment in 2009 when it distributed 6 million Bibles in Brazil and across the globe.

-          About 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity annually.

-          There are approximately 6 million Buddhists in America

-          In 20 years of independence Ukraine’s population has decreased 6 million.

-          About 6 million people visit “the roof of the world” (Tibet) annually (which interestingly is about the same number of tourists that visit Brazil).

-          About 6 million US children are currently are raised in households headed by grandparents.

-          About 6 million children, or nearly 9% of all children in the United States, benefit from Social Security as dependents of workers who have died or become disabled or as family members in households where an adult relies on Social Security. Of the 6 million children in families that received Social Security, 1.1 million were lifted out of poverty by Social Security income.

-          Over 6 million US children currently take ADHD medicine.

-          In 2009, US child abuse involved an estimated 6 million children.

-          In September Sweden contributed $6 million toward efforts to end sexual and gender based violence in Liberia.

-          Hunger and malnutrition are the underlying cause of more than half of all child deaths, killing nearly 6 million children each year.

Some sobering numbers to remind peple that there are some really basic things we need to fix globally.

So. Where to go from here.

As I told Dman … “onwards & upwards.”

Now I want to figure out how to write something meaningful enough to impact 7 million people in a 30 day period and have over 28000 people read something.

Do I know the topic I want it to be? You bet.

How curiosity is the enemy of ignorance.

How we should use education to enlighten a generation of children.

How all children globally should have access to learning (not just because a brick & mortar school is nearby).

A fact: One hundred and fifteen million primary school-age children are out of school according to a joint global estimate by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and UNICEF.

This number equals 18% – or almost one in five – of the children worldwide in this age group.

The heck with 6 million.

Let’s aim to impact this 115 million. Why not.  The intent is good. Attack ignorance with words.

Unrealistic expectations?

Who would have thought one guy with a couple of good friends could create a blog that would reach 3 to 6 million people every 30 days?

“never doubt that a small group of like minded thoughtful people can make a difference.” M. Meade

This I am today and that I will be tomorrow.

At least this I know.

world happiness and freedom

This is an updated version of my old “happiness & freedom” post because I found a great world map to put with the original chart and I have thought about it a little more.

Plus. I imagine this is part two of “freedom of” (a post I wrote a very long time ago) if only because it follows up the burden of responsibility that comes along with having ‘freedom of’ by recognizing, that despite the burden of that responsibility, people who live in cultures with freedom tend to be happier people.

I do follow this thought with some facts (some research) but let me suggest subjectively that the concept doesn’t surprise me.

Mainly because I believe when people are involved in the choices being made or decisions or even simply voicing opinions they feel more involved (and are proportionately happier). Simplistically (in the truest of layman terms) being involved means it isn’t just being bottled up to explode at some point. Now. That doesn’t mean there is a massive risk of unhappiness if there is constant involvement in choice and decision by the ‘common people’ if they are constantly rebuffed in final decision by “leader people.” Because that is simply an expression of ‘false freedom.’

(and Americas current divisiveness and splinter vocal groups is an example of such)

But, in general, people are happier if they feel like their voice matters (and being able to vocalize or have freedom of choice is one way of ‘mattering’).

So. The research.

What I find most interesting in this map is the fact it looks like Mongolians are very happy. Go figure.

Oh.

While joking about Mongolia (being happy) I actually did type it to make another point about world happiness.

Several studies have been done to analyze the relationship between country/world happiness and wealth (or GDP per person).

So a country like Denmark comes out on top (and this isn’t surprising because they have a generous secular welfare state which uses the tax commons to ensure no one does without), and indeed 64% in one survey describe themselves as “very satisfied” compared to only 16% in France.

However.

Interestingly The U.S. (one of the wealthiest countries in the world), when measured on the GDP/person to happiness scale, is almost on a par with “middle income” nations such as the UK and Brazil. This suggests that while wealthier people declare higher satisfaction with their lives when you look at the country in aggregate, the richer country appears no more satisfied than middle income ones.

This can mainly get explained by the fact the wealthiest 2% control some 65% of the wealth in a wealthy nation like the U.S. therefore the remaining 35% of income has to be split amongst the remaining 98% of the population (which decreases satisfaction when measured against wealth). And it is in middle income nations where the taxation is typically progressive and therefore provides the means to live in “quality” for the majority. In those cases people will not have extraordinary wealth but no one will live in poverty either.

Anyway. I added this because I am writing a post here about happiness associated with some form of democracy (or freedom of thinking & choice) and I am willing to bet someone wanted to begin the “you are avoiding wealth as a factor of happiness” debate.

Well.  I am not avoiding it. Simply putting it into perspective.  The truth is really true.  Money cannot buy happiness. Yes.  It can make lives easier and more fruitful at its lowest levels (avoiding poverty and permitting basic sustenance) but in truth it does not create happiness more than does “freedom to participate in choices, freedom to speak, freedom to worship, freedom of …”

Ok. Moving on.

It figures that I find a piece of research and an awesome graph (with lots of little data points) and I cannot remember who did the research (so I apologize to that person/team).

By the way. I don’t want to suggest these findings refute past evidence that genetics (figured I should bring this up because I also addressed wealth) play an important role in subjective overall contentment/health  (that has been proven before).

However, the research analysis indicate genetic factors are only part of the story because happiness levels vary across different cultures.

And since ‘cultures’ is simply a term for  a “grouping/gathering of human beings” (and therefore human nature) this suggests that the pursuit of happiness is not completely futile. Genes may play a crucial role, but beliefs and values may be the engine that gets happiness going. The research findings also indicate that varying levels of well being are closely linked with a society’s political/government construct. In other words sharp declines in a society’s level of well-being can lead to the collapse of the social and political system and conversely high levels of well-being contribute to the survival and flourishing of the social and political system (it just so happens that democracies flourish more often than collapse).

So. Through this research they have discovered (in their words … “we now know”) that a nation’s past government structure, economic development, and freedom are closely related to well being, and that freedom has the highest correlation with well being suggests that it is the strongest factor.

And well being translates to happiness.

Hey. This is kind of like if A plus B = C then  … well  … okay … whatever.

So.

Just another reason to support ‘freedom of’.

We will be happier.

Just in case you need to have it spelled out … being happy is better than being sad.

Anyway.

If freedom contributes to happiness, well, you can’t beat that.

Up with freedom.

*note: I am following this post up with one on what is happening in the Middle East and the fact that attaining a democratic structure doesn’t happen overnight (although we impatient Americans cannot believe it hasn’t happened yet).

the words of teens


I began this post (quasi rant) because of one of those studies which make you wonder how (or why) anyone would fund it and then it evolves to a discussion about today’s youth.

This is also part a nod of acknowledgment to how teens are moving forward quite well and creating their own thumbprint on their generation and innovation.

This is also an acknowledgment of how incredibly shortsighted older people can be (with regard to change and youth).

So.  This stupid study.

Two University of Toronto researchers who’ve been studying teen text messaging say that not only is the medium not wrecking the English language, but may actually be creating a “linguistic renaissance” as teens re-learn words like “shall” and “must.” After reading months of teen text conversations, the lead linguist reported that she “was able to gain access to a world that most middle-aged academics never get to.” All of that is partly interesting, partly a little creepy and mostly incredibly stupid.

Stupid? Yeah.

Well. Each generation puts their indelible stamp on the everyday language. I wouldn’t call it a renaissance but rather simple evolution. If we believe for one moment that someone in Shakespearean time wouldn’t look at us today, after listening to two 50somethings talk, like we were crazy (and uncouth … if they could understand them at all) we just haven’t thought about it well enough.

Teens aren’t destroying anything.

In fact they are creating.

They are creating the new way of doing things and saying things. They are creating new ways to articulate ideas and emotions.

Does it make us old folk uncomfortable? Sure. To us there was nothing wrong the way it was.  But to believe it will destroy things in a bad way is just darn silly.  In fact almost on the verge of stupidity.

Change driven by youth is inevitable.  And inherent in the change is good. Different … but good.  Because generations tend to improve upon that which is (rather than not improve). And at the root of the changing? A search for individuality. THAT has never changed. Teens are expressing their individuality in their own words and their own ways.

Does it drive older people crazy? You bet (see any parent who had a kid in the 60’s or 70’s … or the 20’s or 30’s for that matter).  In the end it is that search for an individual voice that creates the generational change. Their imprints create positive change and self expression and in a bigger sense a generational impression. One teen said it best online:

My biggest fear
is that I’ll be just like
everyone else.

THAT, my friends, is the small voice of every generation. It was my generation’s voice.  It was the one before and the one before that (etc.). Texting, emails, phones whatever are simply ways the generation expresses itself.  It is not bad.  It doesn’t diminish any skills or some invaluable “thing” that is valuable to us old folk. It increases some “thing” that will shape the next generation. It isn’t a renaissance for gods sake.  It is simple evolution of generations.

With that said.

Some words from today’s teens, which could have been the voices heard from any prior generation, and show everyone … well … how this whole generation thing works. Note.  These are all tween/teens words:

I might have my insecurities and flaws, but I also have plans. I know I am going somewhere in life, whether I have to do it alone or not. Here is the thing about me, I can shift priorities and balance things how I like, I am dependent on no-one. Other parts of the song resonate with me, such as the line “nothing comes for free.” This is a reflection of necessary sacrifices needed to get somewhere in life, something I fully acknowledge. I also relate to being a control freak, I have a need to be in control of my life. It helps me manage my life though, as I am careful not to lose touch with my goals.

——–
It is times like those where we need to step back from ourselves and focus on the big picture, the reasons why we must do the little things. It is so easy to lose yourself in the quest for something, so easy to get caught up in other things. Sometimes, I forget why I fight so hard to shine. In these moments of self doubt, I force myself to remember who I am and where I want to be. I am suffering here, I need to get out. In working hard to maintain my grades, I am working towards scholarships and acceptance into university right after graduation. This will enable me to be closer to the city. Thus, getting A’s will get me out of here. Who am I? I am me. I have potential and I do not want to waste it in this deadbeat town. I am getting out of here. This I swear.

——-

Dear Skepticism,

Oh, why must you infect my brain with your contagious thoughts? You are not content to let me simply accept, you find any way to twist my beliefs into doubts. When I am truly happy, you shatter the illusion and show me exactly why my life is nothing to be pleased about. Mirroring me, images of success and loneliness, you know how to get under my skin. Skepticism, you know my inner self more so than any other, thus you know which strings to pull. I am your marionette, controlled by your twisted intentions. Push and pull the words in my mind, formulate sharp sentences designed to drawn blood from my fragile humanity. The way I hurt others, is multiplied in the way I myself am torn apart.

In this distance, in this loneliness, skepticism welcomes itself to my chemically dyed head, taking it’s place amongst longing and deep hurt. Underneath the surface intelligence, beneath the mathematical formulas and psychology terms, is my fragility. This I admit, not much effects me, except my own carefully targeted words. Why would I allow myself to feel pain at the words of others, when my own mind is so much capable? My inner demons are muted when I am amongst others, when I am laughing with my best friend or in the arms of my boyfriend, but in silence they scream demented tones. “Why would anyone love you?” They taunt me, pulling at my weaknesses. “You really think you have anything going for you besides your intelligence?” They laugh at my naivety. “If you were worth something, to anyone, would your phone really be so silent?” They say the things I do not want to hear. They speak the truths I try to forget.

Skepticism, please take a leave and allow me some peace of mind. A good night’s sleep would be beneficial, I am sick of this restlessness. The distance itself is enough, I do not need your constant reminders of what it might mean. I know you find pleasure in twisting at the corners of my mind, but please fuck off. I do not need the constant doubts you provide me with. This weekend has given you sufficient time to point out exactly how I feel, I get it. Skepticism, I know you only want to protect me, but it’s much too late for that. I am old enough to make my own mistakes and hold my own beliefs so please, fuck off.  I am done with you telling me who does not care about me. You are not a good friend, understand that I want nothing to do with you. You only bring me down.
Sincerely,

———————————————

Now.  There are some words to ponder.

And, if we are really really honest with ourselves (we adult folk) these are words that we said ourselves at some point in our tween/teens.

For all the labels and negativity we pile upon our youthful generation they are strong, they are aware and they feel empowered as never before to go do what they believe they need to do.

ok.

I say all this not to suggest we as adults don’t need to watch over this generation and make sure that the really really stupid mistakes (of those who just don’t really know any better) are avoided.  This is written to suggest that this generation is creating their own change and to try and constantly burden it with “all these new things are stealing what is important to them” is just darn silly. Yes. Silly. New things beget new things and new behavior. Scary to us adults? Yup.  And when we get scared we attempt to stop it.

Generational change cannot be stopped.

So complaining about it and wringing our hands and investing gobs of energy to try and keep ‘the way we did it’ in place is …. Well .. wasted energy.

Truly wasted energy.

And counterproductive to the end result desired.

A strong independent thoughtful individual empowered to be successful as a person – alone or part of a team.

Let them tweet.  Let them text. Let them use their verbal shortcuts. Let them grow.  Because some day they are gonna be taking care of us.

global generation 9: teaching critical thinking for kids


“Developing the mind is important but developing a conscience is the most precious gift parents can give their children.” john gray.

I purposefully selected the quote above to open my discussion on the importance of teaching critical thinking “global generation” style within my global generation children’s education initiative.

Why?

Because most times in education discussions the idea of critical thinking is a simple “mistake, or trial & error, exercise the decision making muscle” type discussion.

And I am not just talking about that. I guess in my version (at least associated with the Global Generation children’s education initiative) is really more “critical thinking with a conscience.”

Yes.

In my eyes I do believe the main learning thrust behind this Global Generation children’s education initiative of mine is teaching critical thinking.

But.

All within a framework of ‘respect for individual choices’ (or call it “responsible choice making” if you would like).

Realistically the key to empowering ‘understanding of choices’ within an entire Generation is creating this combination of understanding, or having the basic building blocks, of critical thinking AND values/respect.

So these two things are actually inextricably intertwined. Critical thinking and conscience.

And while I will begin focused on critical thinking (and the importance) I will finish this up on why in the global generation initiative it CANNOT stop there and the fact that “respect for individual choices” needs to be incorporated.

Yes.

The respect issue is an additional dimension. But children need to learn the affect of their decisions upon others (to attempt to instill a non-individualistic focus, a less selfish perspective and a more holistic view) to truly teach critical thinking.

Am I aiming too young for all of this stuff?

Ah. Let’s remember this is a global education initiative.

While here in America adults are slowly preparing children for adulthood many children, say in Bulgaria or Kenya are thrust into adulthood home responsibilities as early as 10.

And with the intent of this initiative to affect an entire generation from a behavioral standpoint it would behoove is to begin preparing all children globally at a similar pace.

Too early for “American kids?” (some may argue … as I have said before … “let them have their youth”)

No. not too early.

And I believe how you say it (how it is taught) can allow them to have fun and enjoy learning (and I will show some existing live examples later on).

ok.

Back to critical thinking.

Or understanding logic.

The pluses and minuses of a decision (not arithmetic).

Thinking things through and making choices.

This is about making mistakes and encouraging curiosity.

This is about freedom of learning.

This about teaching about freedom of choices AND repercussions of choices.

So.

Maybe this discussion boils down to an interesting word – mistakes. Because if we don’t teach kids how to manage mistakes then one ‘mistake moment’ could be the first step in discouraging curiosity.

Well. It could be worse actually.

In some cases a mistake won’t discourage it will be a stop sign (just watch kids as they try a sport like tennis at a young age and quickly see mistake after mistake of not being able to put ball between lines.

Or.

Maybe how first mistake in some addition (which had nothing to do with their brain power but rather a simple mistake or not understanding) moment feeds into a belief they are not good at math.

Therefore the worst outcome of not understanding mistakes (or management of mistakes) is that they are encouraged to do nothing.

“A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.”
~ George Bernard Shaw

“Mistakes are the portals of discovery.”
~ James Joyce

I do find it interesting that this entire discussion about teaching critical thinking and ‘making mistakes’ makes for interesting (and tough) discussions as you discuss the right & wrong words to use with children.

one great discussion I had the other day with a couple of people, who have more experience teaching young kids then probably most of the people in the world, centered around this idea.

We talked about the word ‘fail.’

Or failure.

The context was part of using games to teach.

At a young age the issue with a children’s game is it has to be easy enough to be attainable but hard enough to make them think and be challenged. In order to do that a significant number of kids will be failing (or not being successful) a number of times before they achieve the next level in an educational game.

Look. I don’t believe there is any debate (at least when it comes to critical thinking skills) that losing (or failure) and how you deal with it was an important lesson.

So. How do you tell a kid it is okay to fail?

Especially in a game.

Especially across cultures where some parents find mistakes unacceptable.

How do you teach very young kids that sometimes the success comes from the attempt?

And that failed attempts is learning and are stepping stones to future thoughts and ideas and sometimes success. And if not success maybe just another other failed attempt.

Critical thinking at its most basic level is trial & error.

And it behooves us to teach an ENTIRE generation this beginning at as early an age as possible.

Anyway.

So maybe this is a “chicken/egg” discussion where I am going to put mistakes first.

I will tell you that there are some incredibly talented web based thinkers out there who are attacking this issue (and also have the personal passion to be doing some awesome stuff).

My friends at Flying Rhinoceros in Portland Oregon have a variety of kid’s online games and this is one example (of which I would use in a second as part of the Global Generation children’s initiative): http://test.fraboom.com/game-quitshovin

There is also a great source called “free for teachers” which is kind of a portal to some great kid’s critical thinking educational tools and games:  http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2010/04/10-sources-of-educational-science-games.html

In addition Crickweb in England also offers an awesome collection of critical thinking (and other) games for young children. On Crickweb you can find games for students to practice and learn the basics of numeracy, literacy, geography, history, and science. There is also a collection of games for used on Promethean whiteboards.

(important note: I have said this a number of times about my Global Generation Children’s education initiative already but it bears repeating every time I discuss and showcase any tactics … yes … some very talented people have developed some incredible resources that are aligned with the overall concept. No. they are not all together and no they are not all aligned toward a common goal. This is about as fragmented a topic – strategy and tactics – as any industry/category I have ever seen. I also admit it frustrates me. All this talent. All these great ideas. All “wasted” in their own little corner of their world when if they could all be aligned and thrust upon the world they could have a massive positive impact.)

Anyway … moving on …

For the higher education thinkers … I am really talking about critical thinking and a didactic education for kids …. creating “crisis” moments in young kids games is a healthy way of teaching critical thinking in a game environment (where ‘crisis’ takes on a less ‘high ramification’ situation) to begin the teachings of crisis and mistakes and thinking management.  I wrote about this in my ??????? post where I discussed the Heglenian thinking model.

What this means is that mistakes (which sounds slightly better than “error”) have to be built into a teaching plan or initiative. You almost have to force children into situations where they will fail (make a mistake) before they can move on. to be slightly proactive with this concept let me suggest that in the teaching games instead of a “mistake” we are seeking to create a ‘crisis’ which creates conflict and thinking with young kids.

By aggressively attacking critical thinking in this way we teach children two things:

i.                     How to deal with mistakes (learn and try – iterative)

ii.                   How to deal with crisis (decision making – patient under stress)

Here is Heglen simple chart showcasing what I am talking about:

Whew. Crisis. Tough word when discussing kids.

Well. Here is the difficult part.

Crisis and mistakes are part of life.

I imagine the tricky part is if you have parents or a boss who forget that in their relentless (and unrealistic) pursuit toward perfection they deem mistakes ‘unacceptable’ or that anything less than 100% perfection all the time is grounds for chastisement.

In addition … many adults don’t manage “crisis” very well.

All of this leads to a lack of ‘forgiveness behavior’ which affects a child’s behavior.

How? Well.  It translates into the bad habit of not making any mistakes (or not understanding that crisis is part of dealing with day to day life).

Oh.

Huh? What did I just say?

Yeah. The bad habit of never making a mistake.

Well. The only way you can never make a mistake is either:

-          never to do anything (so scared you simply follow behind others all the time)

-          so careful with everything you do you invest so much time insuring you don’t make a mistake the actual “doing” is a disappointment (the ROI is very low).

So. That means there should always be a thread of “What would I do if I had no fear of making a mistake?” when you considered taking action (versus “holy shit, don’t move, it may be a mistake”).

This became an important thought for me to write about because I saw in a recent poll, the top 3 fears that were cited by most Mine Your Resources readers were:

  • I’m worried I’ll be out of my depth and I won’t have the skills and knowledge to do those things
  • I’m scared of committing in case it’s the wrong decision
  • I’m scared I’ll start and then not finish it

The Common theme? “I’m scared I will make mistakes or fail!”

Whew.

And this is adults.

So adults who are under this belief subsystem are teaching our kids today about critical thinking and mistakes.

(uh oh).

So.

Part of the beauty of this global generation education initiative is it almost takes this issue out of human hands and lets technology take over. (that’s the web based aspect of the initiative – note: I do have a follow up post to once again address the issue that kids can learn via primarily thru internet).

Can it be done?

Yes.

Give someone enough money and they can design a critical thinking algorithm kid’s game model that will automatically heighten difficulty if the child has exhibited certain decision behavioral patterns.

And the corollary would be to have the same pattern review so difficulty adjusts to level of critical thinking maturity.

Why are both important?

Developing critical thinking skills is about making a generation tide rise higher. Not force some to drown and some to swim.

So there are some basic critical thinking behavioral actions that should be encouraged regardless of thinking maturity.

Regardless.

We want to create a program that teaches to dig beneath the surface of ideas and the value of developing questioning minds in cultivating deep learning. The game links I provided show a systematic, with depth, game interaction encouraging kids to see and assess the plausibility of things. The objective has to ultimately be to establish an additional level of thinking to ‘the thinking’ encouraging the growth of an inner voice of reason that monitors, assesses, and reconstitutes (rationally) thinking, feeling, and action. I want to create an initiative that addresses:

The Consequences of Making a Decision. In times of significance, that space in time may decide if you follow your instincts or let another factor prevent you from making the right choice. Peer pressure, overwhelming doubt, fear, and all those demons that like to whisper in our ears. You might make the wrong choice. Or the right one. But those little devils return to doubt even your hesitation and contradict themselves by pointing wildly at the other option.

Kids need to learn that sometimes making a decision (or doing nothing) has an effect on the freedom of choice they would have otherwise.

The Consequences of not making a decision. It should be one of the deadly sins. Maybe more dangerous than lust, pride, sloth, greed, envy, gluttony, and wrath put all together. (Ok, I may be exaggerating a bit there.) Hesitation is the cause of many regrets and failures, as evidenced through numerous clichés in literature and media.

Because in that moment, before making a decision or taking an action, the consequences of what follows may lead to the remaining sins. And I don’t mean that hesitating before choosing whether or not to eat ice cream will result in accusations of gluttony for the cold dessert. Nothing so drastic as that.

Learning why you may not have made the right (or best) choice. Asking yourself if you could have done something differently. Maybe learning that there were other “just as right” choices.

Coming to Terms with Mistakes (or less than the best choices). Learning that although you might not get what you expect, you learn and find something new. Regrets and fears are worse when it’s about something you didn’t do. We don’t want kids to become deranged risk-takers taking any choice that appeals to them but rather teach those critical thinking aspects.

Relating thinking and decisions to others. While critical thinking often focuses on personal choice it is good to share learnings on how to consider another Individual. Maybe taking time to consider them in how the outcome of the decision will affect them. And learning on the dynamic that exists between individuals, the group, the relationships and repercussions of decisions not just on self but in totality.

It is this last part that is vitally important to the Global Generation education initiative.

And it ties in to something that the United Nations has already dipped their toe into (so I imagine it cannot be that hare-brained an idea).

This initiative I am discussing certainly revolves around:

-          Freedom of learning.

-          Freedom to think.

-          Freedom of speech.

And government has freedom to govern within their own beliefs (so I am certainly not suggesting everyone has to be a full democracy).

Look. I don’t know what to call the “relating thinking and decision to others” other than suggesting we are trying to build in a component of human values to the critical thinking learning.

But.

I sometimes get into trouble when I discuss this initiative and the word “values.”

But it is human values (which, yes, can be subjective).

But some guy did a study and actually analyzed the importance of human values as “attractors” (or how they can gather likeminded people into groups).

Basically the study suggests that Human values can usefully be understood and experienced as attractors.

How relatable they can be considered as attractors by different cultures/people depends on that particular group’s appreciation of the distinction between what the study identified as  four different classes of values derived from an interpretation of complexity studies.

In one sense, all values may be seen as attracting in a strange manner — especially when simplistic understanding is avoided.

Emphasis has been placed on the manner in which each class of values can be perceived as:

-          Appropriate

-          Inappropriate

-          Inappropriately appropriate

-          Appropriately inappropriate

Such distinctions are important for understanding and patterning the dynamics between advocates of particular classes of values. (note: I will write an entire article on Human Values as attractors to gathering likeminded people … let’s call it Human Values Mass Mingling).

Anyway.

Interestingly the UN has dabbled in this arena with the World Programme for Human rights Education.

It is a proactive education program to eliminate violent conflict.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …

Someone (me) would call that encouraging enlightened conflict.

Who would have ever thought me and the UN would ever agree on anything? (not me).

Here was the Plan of Action for the First Phase (2005-2007)

The General Assembly proclaimed the World Programme for Human Rights Education (2005-2007), focusing on the primary and secondary school systems. “The World Conference on Human Rights considers human rights education, training and public information essential for the promotion and achievement of stable and harmonious relations among communities and for fostering mutual understanding, tolerance and peace” (Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, Part II.D, para. 78).

, it contributes to the long-term prevention of human rights abuses and violent conflicts, the promotion of equality and sustainable development and the enhancement of people’s participation in decision-making processes.

Well.

How ‘bout them apples? At least they have thought about it.

In the end?

Critical thinking skills? Making mistakes? Making decisions?

Whatever.

Another way to say this is to suggest we are building confidence in decision making (ability to cope with mistakes and crisis situations as well as confidence in figuring out solutions).

One would hope if we do all of this right that we create a confident person (in fact an entire generation of them) who has a strong sense of right and wrong, is adaptable and resilient, knows himself, is discerning in judgment, thinks independently and critically, and communicates effectively.

One would hope if we do all of this right that we create a concerned citizen, who is rooted to their local geographic culture, has a strong sense of civic responsibility, is informed about their own country/region and the world, and takes an active part in bettering the lives of others around them, skills necessary for children to recognize and manage their emotions, develop care and concern for others, make responsible decisions and still handle challenging situations effectively.

One would hope if I explain things well that you will see that if we create this initiative that it ends up being about developing children to treat themselves and others with respect, act safely and contributing to society and its laws and practice cooperation and peaceful problem solving.

And.

I am not sure there isn’t anyone who doesn’t want that.

about conflict (and enlightened) & global generation

So.

Every once in awhile I don’t need to think about what to write because someone writes something that makes my point (and I get to use that and write).

The Economist. 9/4/2010. E-communication and society.

An entire article about how internet is proving (sociologically) to be a divisive tool rather than an ‘expansive community enabling’ tool.

In fact. I will begin at the end … using what was said in the article to make my point (hopefully using a credible source to make my own points and idea more credible).

All this argues for a cautious response to claims that e-communications abate conflict by bringing mutually suspicious people together. Facebook has a site called “Peace on Facebook,” where it describes how it can “decrease world conflict” by letting people from different backgrounds connect. (The optimism is catching; this spring a founder of Twitter described his service as “a triumph of humanity”.)

Ok.

A reminder on my own frame of reference.

I do believe the internet can assist in ‘decreasing world conflict’ (hence the reason I built a website called enlightened conflict with a global frame of reference).

Yes. I do believe the idea (the global generation children’s education initiative) I am proposing would be more effective than what Facebook and Twitter (and several other organizations) are attempting to do.

I have written several things about what role my particular idea of a global generation education plan plays within a Human Rights construct (which is invariably tied to ‘decreasing world conflict’).

Two quick thoughts upfront:

  1. My global generation education plan for young kids will have an indirect relationship with Human Rights. It is not a Human Rights initiative per se. it is a foundational education plan of action focusing on elementary aspects of education and values focused education to fight ignorance of choices cultures make with the ultimate end ‘vision’ being a decreased world conflict scenario.
  2. I do not believe in any way that the intent is to create global “peace.” It is not one of my objectives is to ‘stop war.’ I am not opposed to that result I just don’t believe it can, or will, happen. Conflict on many levels is inherent to human behavior. In addition, lower level conflict (competition, debate, etc.) creates what I call “positive friction” typically leading to ideation, innovation and informed decision making. Unfortunately (this is human behavior) if you encourage that lower level conflict there will always be someone who will abuse the learning and instigate levels of higher level conflict (and prey on ignorance to do so).

Anyway.

The Economist.

A generation of digital activists had hoped that the web would connect groups separated in the real world. The internet was supposed to transcend colour, social identity and national borders. But research suggests that the internet is not so radical. People are online what they are offline: divided, and slow to build bridges.

Facebook’s architecture makes it easy for groups to remain closed. For example, it suggests new friends using an algorithm that looks at existing ones. But simpler, more open networks also permit self-segregation. On Twitter, members can choose to “follow” anyone they like, and can form groups by embedding words and shortened phrases known as “hashtags” in their messages.

With ideology, the pair’s findings were a bit more hopeful; liberals and conservatives at least communicate—by trading taunts.

But the internet is not magic; it is a tool. Anyone who wants to use it to bring nations closer together has to show initiative, and be ready to travel physically as well as virtually.

Whew.

Good stuff.

Thanks Economist.

Without saying it you have suggested that everyone is going about it wrong (and with impossible expectations).

Yes. The internet can affect conflict (by diminishing it).

No. It will not have an immediate effect.

Yes. The Internet is a tool.

No. It is not being used correctly yet.

Yes. Internet can affect behavior and beliefs.

No. It will not make a huge impact (against diminished conflict) in this generation.

Bottom line?

Changing existing behavior and beliefs is one of the most difficult things in the world to do (and this is stimulus – response stuff … what people believe leads to what people do, i.e., people’s values/respect attitudinal structure impacts their actual ‘conflict’ behavior).

And.

Facebook and Twitter, although with relatively good intent, are constructing their ideas from the wrong frame of reference. Yup. They are going about it incorrectly.

First.

They are in a competitive emerging industry and their real intent is not to limit global conflict but rather “win” in the business game of social media. And to make sure they win as the industry shifts from emerging to maturing (or at least adolescence) type industry.

Second.

Because of the first point outlined they are looking short term.

And they may also possibly be assuming they are tapping into a dormant global desire for less conflict. I suspect they are wrong. The internet (as the article points out), in its toddler stage, is divisive and simply a place where individuals can see who can shout the loudest with their point of view. Or if it you want an older analogy (if you want to argue that the social media web world is older than a toddler and maybe a teen) that users are going thru the initial mating dance uncertainty of meeting new people in different countries and different cultures with uncertainty and some fumbling and certainly falling back on their own insecurities and certainties of what they know (or believe). All that analogy stuff said … their programs are constructed short term by simply trying to gather a community of like minded people when they aren’t really doing anything to actually grow the group of likeminded people.

Third.

It constantly surprises me why people if ignore what could be earned from the “green” initiative.

It takes generations (or at minimum a generation) to create a belief/attitude change.

Here is how it works (in a non-professorial sociological expert descriptive way).

You have the “crazy” initial advocates (who don’t look so crazy now) who are learning from trial and error. They are learning what words and facts divide or gather. They learn the hard way that it wasn’t just the idea but how it was communicated and understood (and it was more relevant to some who had similar values and beliefs). You need those people.

Those crazies shifted into a new generation (the young who had listened and learned and began constructing a belief structure) who began building the tools and “things” needed to give green some momentum. This is a larger group than early adopters but not an entire generation. That group inevitably increased (like a megaphone) the beliefs of the initial group. They also begin to start assuming more leadership roles (and are certainly significant enablers to ‘change’ for the next generation of those who ‘believe and want to change things’).

Environment and “green”?

We now have a generation arising (Millennials) primed with beliefs and attitude and tools to enable change during their lifetime. Everything in the green initiative had to be primed and built for someone to actually ‘do.’

Global conflict is the same.

And it drives me nuts when people don’t look at historical learning to build effective plans against objectives.

Look.

I am not suggesting Twitter and Facebook and even the 2048 group and Save the Children should stop doing what they are doing. Somebody just needs to get a grip on expectations.

If we truly want to use the internet to impact global conflict in any significant way we shouldn’t dump existing efforts (because they play the role of trial and error and gain some influencer advocates).

BUT. We should also build a robust global children’s initiative.

THAT is the way to build attitudinal and behavior change.

(sorry. I just started two sentences in caps to make a point but at least I didn’t use exclamation points)

Yes. I also agree with The Economist that there has to be on-the-ground in combination with internet if you want any web based initiative to be effective.

(but that is actually kind of basic and I am not sure any credible web based strategist or deliverer would ever suggest something that didn’t have multi levels of interaction involvement).

I would also like to note that I have built that on-the-ground component into the global generation initiative (it is ‘roving enlightenment missionary educators’ and I have even costed it out for budgeting purposes).

Ok.

All that said … The Economist makes excellent points and I imagine the real question/issue is does someone truly (and I mean truly) want to “decrease world conflict.”

Because if someone does then what twitter and Facebook is doing isn’t going to work.

Someone needs t look at the issue smartly and maybe differently 9throwing out some existing taboo construct things).

Look.

I don’t care if someone does the Global Generation Initiative I have developed (although it meets every criteria the economist outlines).

What I do care about is that people get their head out of their asses on how to affect generational behavior.

Someone who truly wants to address this needs to have the vision to understand what “behavioral attitude” really looks like (which is a quasi-paradigm shift) which ultimately leads to the desired response, i.e., “decreased world conflict.”

Oh.

And lastly.

Mainly because we are talking about what may seem like a seemingly unreachable objective … this task of “decreased world conflict” I want to end with some thoughts from my unequivocal leader in enlightened conflict thinking and quotes:

(insert image of TJ quote)

Thomas Jefferson:

-          If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

So. The point here is that while ‘decreased world conflict’ seems so … well … big … good ole TJ is suggesting that ‘if a world wants to be ignorant and have less conflict’ it cannot happen. We have to passionately and feverishly attack ignorance if we want to diminish conflict.

- Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.

So. The point here is pretty obvious.  The way to change behavior (tyranny or oppression) is through attitudinal & belief construct. You can do that through education and thinking and increasing knowledge but it helps to tie in a good dose of mutual respect and vision for ‘freedom of choice’ (not democracy but rather understanding of personal choice).

-          Every generation needs a new revolution.

Not Millennials (sorry. it’s just not their time … attitudinally nor tool enabled).

The Global Generation. THIS is the generation to have the revolution of enlightened conflict. Decreased world conflict as The Economist called it.

Not peace.

Built on a foundation of respect and critical thinking understanding.

And, remember, revolutions are not always about fighting & killing (see industrial revolution as proof).

So.

Thanks Economist.

You gave me an excuse to talk about the Global generation and enlightened conflict and a children’s education initiative.

Ah. But “decreased world conflict.”

Everyone should want to write and talk about that.