==

“I’ve often noticed that we are not able to look at what we have in front of us, unless it’s inside a frame.”

Abbas Kiarostami

==

‘To work in the world, one needs to know how the world works.”

Zygmunt Baumann

===

I’ve written about framing in a variety of ways. Navigating invented boundaries to framing is 90% of success. Today I will suggest the more uncertain, the more confusing, the world is, the more we will craft a frame that “explains” it all to us. This is a different frame, and framing, than I have explained in the past. In this framing instead of crafting a frame to provide clarity of reality, we instead craft a frame to explain what we believe is reality.

Which leads me to the framing effect.

Framing effects occur when people give different answers to structurally similar problems depending on their “frame” (Kahneman). This self-crafted frame is crafted by our biases, intuitions and “common-sense” beliefs despite how bad intuitions tend to be and how non common commonsense is and how misguided our beliefs often are. Regardless, this creates an effect where our frame makes certain logic more palatable and that affects the reasoning. We converge on our own thinking. This convergence only increases in a group dynamic. So, while the fact we frame may have all the appearances, to ourself, that we are reasoning, the truth is the decisions are almost foretold. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention LLMs here. An LLM, in today’s world, is an imprecise, precise looking, frame. We ask it a question and the computer, having gobbled up more information and knowledge than any individual human is capable of, spits out a response. We ask; it answers. And its here I bring up one of my favorite nerdiest books: The Alignment Problem by Brian Christian. It was here I saw the thought “the computer is extremely confident when it guesses.” Sometimes, not always, we ask; and it guesses an answer. But it doesn’t tell us it guessed nor does it offer any thoughts on how confident it may actually be with its answer. The good news is a new tool call Thermometer has been developed to frame some confidence levels for us. My fear is that the crappy answer machine train will be way down the tracks before Thermometer, or anything like it, is commonly used. LLM digression aside, we are our own LLM. Ponder that.

Which leads me to expectations.

Frames establish order and order creates expectations creates expectancies if not expectations. And in doing that we attain what Stuart Hall called a breach of our expectancies. In other words, we naturally order our world and anything that represents symbolic challenges makes us feel uncomfortable. Media has a significant role in this. Not only does media record resistance, but often they normalize it by placing it within an acceptable framework of meanings and symbols (even suggesting it is the majority while it is a minority view). By repositioning and recontextualizing things within society it subverts conventional thinking and legitimizes new thinking through something called “the false obviousness of everyday practice (Althusser).” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is framing (orderliness) to encourage disorder.  The reality is that this disorder coheres into a meaningful whole. It creates a new internal structure for a subculture creating an orderliness where in each part, and person, is organically related to other parts, and peoples, and it is through the fit between them that the members themselves make sense of the world. Within these people can see their core values held and reflected. The frames, and framing, offer society coded exchanges of reciprocal messages.

“Men in bits of paper whirling in the cold wind

That blows before and after time.

TS Eliot

Which leads me to shaping.

Shaping is a version of framing, shaping is the active use a of a frame to craft a desired outcome, and how things are framed drives perceptions, attitudes, behaviors and even decisions. The problem with most framing is that in seeking understanding (or some cognitive engagement) they create a sense of ‘identical problems’ (“I have seen this before”) when, at best, you have only seen a version of this problem before. A frame tends to unite seemingly random things. Within a frame even beliefs are united. Usually in a neat fashion. Unfortunately, uniting demands dimension, perspective and inexactness which offers some uneven edges that makes thinking richer and more interesting than some smooth filed down concise recap. Shaped frames tend to emphasize ‘reciprocal messaging’ and reciprocal messaging actually restricts the addition of additional messages and stories therefore it smooths down communal thinking. Basically, frames can make reciprocal messaging an echo chamber where stories and myths thrive. I say that because restriction is often cloaked in “honing a good story.” Unfortunately, reality is always a little uneven and less restricted. That said. Effective consistency is certainly a way to ensure some things are not seen and, yet, remain connected in some way. Ponder that.

Which leads me to contagion.

The contagion rate is the fraction of the time that an encounter between an “infective” and a person effectively convinces the susceptible people enough of the story to spread it further. Many encounters may be needed before a particular person is “infected” with a narrative. Now. Contagion may seem like an odd concept when tied to framing, but hear me out. Technology has reshaped how we frame things. And technology has certainly reshaped contagion. To be clear. It is a bit naive to suggest this is a new issue. Certainly, technology has amplified some issues, but our crappiest beliefs (narrative) have thrived as narratives for quite some time. While we may never be able to explain why some narratives “go viral” and significantly influence thinking while other narratives do not, we would be wise to add some analysis of what crappy thinking clusters tend to embed self-activity thinking.

Narratives are major vectors of rapid change in culture, in social ‘vibes’, and ultimately in behavior. Spreading narratives, often many parallel narratives around a common theme, have been creating cultural change long before social media. The only difference may be, well, the framework of the model, because there is a higher contagion rate for narratives due to social media automatically directing narratives to clusters with likely interest in them (let’s call this “directed infection”). That said. An effective frame in a contagion also heightens the removal rate, the rate of forgetting or the simple decay of memories (this is actually cue-dependent forgetting). The removal rate increases because there are declining cues for the memory, i.e., a story seems less connected, less apt, or even superficially contrary to current theories and prejudices. Contagions and framing have a symbiotic relationship.

Which leads me to narratives and frames.

Narrative is a word used to describe ‘the accumulated wisdom around the best frame through which to contextualize and think about things/events.’  Narrative is the filter through which sensemaking is distilled. It is the glue that connects disparate events together to create an understandable whole. The fundamental objective of any of these attempts is to create an indelible narrative imprint increasing the value of the narrative itself. What I mean by the narrative itself is crafted typically by those in power attempting to keep their power through substories, i.e., subgroups enhance that narrative without which those in power would not be able to keep their power. Basically, they use these narratives, frames, to fuel the narrative itself; the ones they desire. This is impoartant because what seems a single society, and a meta narrative, is usually divided by multiple mesa populations with their own mesa narratives. So long as they speak the same language, figuratively not literally, they enjoy the same signals, pursue similar goals, accept the same rules and regulations, there is mesa social cohesion in a meta society. But let communication fail or let a gap of misunderstanding develop among mesa communities so that the signals, symbols, words or phrases, no longer carry a universal meaning, a gap appears where an entire narrative, or frame, can slip into and vanish. Frames create a social construct which creates ‘order.’ The rules and regulations create the boundaries of what could be called law and order which preserves a degree of order essential for the survival of the society as a whole. This ‘order’ is more social identity than it is anything else. ‘This long order are the rules that protect an individual from the depredations of others and represents a concerted defense to protect an individual from the depredations of others. All of these things happen within a larger construct of which is framed by the individual need for satisfaction through identity stimulation and security’ (Robert Ardrey). Yeah. Its actually a bit surprising, but security ranks lowest among our needs and identity highest (there is research, I just lost it). To know who you are; to achieve identity in the eyes of your social community; to sense a fulfillment of and from that identity, all meet a need.  We abhor anonymity and effective framing insures a place of identity.

Which leads me to clarity (and transparency).

Frames expose evidence; real or fantasy. People love evidence. The pursuit of evidence and explanations and clarity creates an intense pleasure when we ‘find’ it. We are encouraged to believe the transparency a frame offers enables not only truth, but encourages a feeling of “how right we are.” I believe it was Georg Simmel who said “transparency prohibits fantasy from incorporating its possibilities; no reality can compensate us for their loss because fantasy is self activity that cannot be replaced in the long run by obtaining and enjoying (reality).” He is right. We may be delusional, but we like fantasy thinking because it offers the easy evidence we require. In fact. Transparency is not the holy grail, it is, in fact, lack of definition. That may sound a bit nuts but the lack of definition enables us to fit in our own little fantasies. And this is where we go back to frames. Within the frames we craft for ourselves we enable a periphery of things within which change and pleasure and possibilities to thrive. Rather than create the concise clarity within which common sensemaking can occur we enable our self-activity, self-thinking, a home to cozy up to a fire of fantasy-like thinking. I have also written a number of things on our love of fantasy thinking, but the difference here is that even with logical framing, we easily delude ourselves. So, use your frames wisely. Ponder.

===

“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”
Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

===

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself. You are not powerless. You are not without power.”

Little Crow

===

Suffice it to say, 24/7 technology has challenged most of what we thought about our self-identity. In the good old days self identity was a bit easier because we had a fairly limited exposure, neighborhood/school/work/community, to images and shared experiences which led to shaping what we saw as “self”. In today’s world we are faced with an onslaught of information which we are, frankly, incapable of assimilating within our cognitive scope. And while many people discuss this in terms of stress, knowledge, decision making, today I discuss it in terms of self identity.

It was actually Toffler, in The Third Wave, who warned us of some of the self-identity challenges in a small section called “warehouse of images.” He described being connected to the

worldwide web would be an information bomb exploding in our midst showering us with a shrapnel of images and drastically changing the way each of us perceives and acts upon our private world and, ultimately, what we view as ‘self.’ The outcome of that was a transformation of our psyches and identities. This transformation naturally occurs as each of us mentally creates a model of reality through this ever increasing warehouse of images. To be clear. Some of what we are calling “images” are visual, others are auditory and some even tactile. All of which craft some precepts crafted from some somewhat-tenuous traces to “our environment” (note: technology can suggest an environment which isn’t really practically what our true environment is, i.e., if I live in Cherkassy Ukraine I don’t really share much of the environment found in Ibiza Instagram). But all of this, practical or not, creates linkages that define relationships with our own self identity. Some are simple, others are complex, some even conceptual, but together these images add up to our picture of the world and allow us to locate our self identity in times, spaces and the network of connections around us.

Which leads me to make a point about now versus then.

These images do not spring from nowhere. They are formed out of the signals or information we interact with from our environment, neighborhood, jobs, homes, churches, schools and even politics. What mass media did was create some standard parts of a universal image file. This centrally produced imagery helps produce the standardization of behavior and ‘identity’ which permitted many of us to choose between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ (or something in between). Technology drastically altered all of this. Standard was no longer standard and non-standard almost doesn’t exist. There is a lack of clarity with regard to cultural identity and because we have lost that grander narrative everything falls down to ‘individual choice’ which sounds good; but truly only increases stress. So as we are bombarded with an accelerated amount of images, it forces a parallel acceleration of change and doubt as we create and recreate in an attempt to sync up to an everchanging onslaught of context. New information reaches us and we are forced to revise our image file continuously at a faster and faster rate. Older images based on past reality must be replaced unless we update them our actions become divorced from reality. We not only find it impossible to cope with assimilating all the new images but also it challenges us to understand our own identity because we struggle to put our identity in a static context. In other words, we are constantly facing a self-identity crisis simply by existing in this environment.

Which leads me to make a point about ‘standardized view of identity.’

The distinguishing feature of conformity is that it is in implicit and it feels voluntary. No one tells us what to do or choose and no one offers a legitimate or formal reason to do so. Because of that, just as we prefer to spend time with people like ourselves, we like to fit in and our ‘identity’ arcs to some normative/median identity. And when we find that we don’t fit in, we can change or not. Conforming is the choice, sometimes conscious sometimes not, to change ourselves. Most conformity is familiarity and familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds comfort. I say this not to suggest self-identity is about being like everyone else, but rather to suggest today’s 24/7 technology doesn’t really offer us a ‘median identity.’ Something to measure our identity on an I, We, World view. Its one big swirling moshpit of identity fragments so even if you wanted to be ‘normal’ you may not really be sure what normal is.

Which leads me to identity within a moshpit world.

Knowing the hard limits to our cognitive capacity and the huge cost of working long meaningless hours to ‘fit into a 24/7 world’ should not be an intractable problem to address. We have gobs of data and information showing the disastrous consequences on the individual. Despite that people continue to ignore the cognitive truths and believe they can somehow stretch the cognitive limits of their minds. This all has consequences for our self-identity. The ubiquitous world of technology allows us to connect with more people more ideas more information than ever before. All beyond the limits of our cognitive capacity which traps us in this horrible doom loop of where does our self begin and where does it end. Hanzi Freinacht is the one who suggests the idea of transvidualism where the self actually contains part of the whole which while most likely true only leads us to even more anxiety-driven questions: what does the self hold on to? Who are you? Is your reality yourself? is your identity ever just one thing but in constant motion and morphing with each interaction? I would be remiss if I didn’t point out all these questions suggest opportunities to accept our self-limitations and purposefully seek out, within the collective, ways to be part of things that are bigger than ourselves without losing are self-identity. To be sure, it is always easier to envision the negative scenarios within what I’m saying, but I believe the way of navigating the moshpit is to instead imagine the positive ways in which technology might help us create, shape and control our own identities and our own potential. We should be imagining the positive ways which this technology world allows us to apply a ‘new me’ within changing contexts and molding ourself to a changing world WHILE holding onto the center of who and what we are. It is possible the technology world will not only be able to better show us who we are, but also visions of who we want to be and who we could be.

“Be true to thineself.”

Shakespeare

—

We could use technology to help us understand why things are as they are as well as envision ways of what we could do with our lives. But here’s the deal. The struggle ultimately resides in ‘self.’ What I mean by that is ‘the core or the center of who and what we are.’ We all strive after something which we deem good or better sort of our personal version of progress. But if we are not careful this becomes good for the self and not the greater good as in not taking into consideration the larger whole. So, unless we as individuals sort out our center, our urges, impulses, and desires in a coordinated way we are doomed to constant confusion living in a contradictory identity state. This could quite possibly be self-destructive in a technological world which is constantly trying to attack us within its own coordinated, orderly system of ideas of what it thinks we should be and who we should be. To be clear.

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”

Yeats

Even if you do not think about your centre, I can guarantee it will never be empty in a 24/7 technological world in which everything is connected the outside world because it will connect with whatever you leave empty and fill it with what it wants.

** note: even if you ‘cut-yourself-off’ from 24/7 technology on occasion, this is a battle you cannot avoid. Technology is ubiquitous. Take care of your center or technology will take care of it for you.

Everything I am discussing falls within a technological world which has all the appearances of structureless; as in chaos. But its not. Any group of people, of whatever nature, that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time, but it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. Certainly the looseness and informality of the construct encourages participation in discussion and its often-supportive atmosphere, but always connective, elicits some personal insight. It within this that our identities are shaped and formed. Structureless gains structure then gains identity, a ‘personalized’ identity despite any pre-identified ‘centralized purpose’ suggesting what it should be. This last point is significant because this group identity shaping can either be of the people, or of the technology/algorithms. The latter happens more often than we would like to believe.

If a self-identity seeks to grow and thrive as it itself, it will often have to disabuse itself of some of the prejudices of the organization and structure of the things it attaches itself to. To be clear. There is no such thing as a laissez faire group in the internet, it is simply a smokescreen for either technology manipulation or someone seeking power.

Where we go from here.

Hanzi Freinacht said “the new game of life looks a lot like this: whoever has mastered the most perspectives when she dies, wins.” That’s the self-identity game. It used to be a more simplistic “what I believe represents what I am” but with today’s technology world who I am, if you seek to have a center that holds within multiple contexts, is an accumulation of perspectives. If the industrial age encouraged a standardization of identity, technology is ripping us apart. Overcome by details and information we have become almost incapable of conceptualizing anything – including our own identity. Consequently, we have begun crafting the details of who we want to be seen as to compete in a world in which other’s identities flash before us detail by detail. Detail by detail we push out into the world and before you know it you are no longer a self – as a solid concept – but rather a bunch of details and pieces you think have some value. And this is where stories come in. Thinking conceptually may be too much of a mind bender, but having a story, or stories, is not as tough. Good stories and well-maintained identities embracing stories endure. This is actually part of the Third Wave Toffler mentioned. 2^nd Wave media tightly reinforced, within stable distribution structures (major TV networks & major papers/magazines) shared world views and some semblance of common sensemaking within which an identity could comfortably reside (or, conversely, create a counter culture identity). In today’s environment worlds are created through our digital connection points, perspectives are gained through many interactions, and we need to become more comfortable projecting our identity, all facets, through this digital connectivity of almost infinite networks of other humans. The reality is technology is getting better; and worse. Technology is becoming easier to craft the identity we would like to project, but it is getting worse in that if you are not careful algorithms pick at the little gaps seeking to exploit with fear, doubt, and victimhood. Clearly, the lines have been erased between what we would have considered our self-identity and the digital worlds that represent our identity. The technological world has forced us to think of ourselves, in many ways, as content. And in some ways that is good. If our identities are content and useful content should have some substance, maybe, just maybe, by treating it like content we will make sure it is worthy of our self. Ponder.

 

There’s always a price for what you want.

===

“Of course, in an age of madness, to expect to be untouched by madness is a form of madness. But the pursuit of sanity can be a form of madness, too.”

Saul Bellow, 1959

===

‘The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured; the second step is to disregard that which can’t be easily measured … the third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important … the fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist.’

Daniel Yankelovich in Corporate Priorities: A Continuing Study of the New Demands of Business (1972).

===

This is about how technology has left nothing untouched and how that effects education and ongoing learning <education or in general> which impacts society. Generally speaking, in today’s world, technology, in some form or fashion, is at the core of everything, and yet technology still requires deliberate interaction which means that other than a fraction of each day when one is using a device you are not really ‘connected’ – albeit connected. This means while you may spend a great deal of time glancing off a wide range of ‘reality’ you do so passively from a technology standpoint. I say that to remind everyone of the ‘human layer’ to everything in life.

Look. I am an unequivocal believer the future is about, and of, humans, am clearly humancentric in future thinking, and, yet, when discussing the future of technology, I argue/debate with other ‘humans will define the future’ people than I do technology people. That said. Technology has become so fundamental that its availability – and lack of availability (because that has consequences also) – actually set some constraints, as well as some limitlessness, TO our social scale.

Let me explain.

It is clear that technology, including automation, algorithms and AI, inspire a variety of less-than-positive consequences behaviorally and psychologically. But it’s also clear that, well, it’s kind of hard to imagine any aspect of life untouched by technology not just social media or having fun, but also in terms of how people work, earn a living, educate themselves and, in general, interact with each other. There is almost no stage of the science, art, medicine, archeology, learning process or any imaginable field where AI hasn’t made an impact. Even education. And the more we draw it into our quest for knowledge, the more it changes that quest or, as Marshal McLuhan said: “we shape our tools and thereafter the tools shape us”. We’ll have to learn to live with that, but in order to ensure a positive path we need to be sure we continue asking the questions creating the next generation(s) of technology.

Which leads me to where I believe we go next.

Almost everyone I know discussing this issue speaks of ‘leaning out’ from technology, i.e., “how can we limit our usage and interactions with.” I think they are either nuts or naïve. I think we should be discussing what we should do as people is to lean in more & more into technology. I believe this because I cannot envision a scenario in which future generations will be less dependent upon technology than we are now. Just spend any time with really young people and they aren’t just technology-natives, they are technology dependent. In other words, they are elevating what they do and think via technology.

                             ** note: I have believed this since 2010 when I built an online education platform (using metaverse ideas before metaverse became a thing). The closest I have ever seen anyone share my point of view to the level I do is Mike Walsh and his view on Generation AI.

===

Business, if its honest with itself, is the same. Now, we can haggle about whether that dependence is good or bad or how much dependence is good or bad, but haggle or no haggle, technology is integral to their life, i.e., nothing is left untouched.

Regardless of your view, accepting technology is integral to our future in some form or fashion should influence the nature, and types, of the technologies we develop, the ways in which we use them and the manner in which we respond to their consequences. If we choose to do so, we can shape these technologies and how they affect our lives in a positive active way rather than in a passive usage way.

The greatest obstacle, circling back to the beginning, is actually found in the word ‘untouched.’ Most solutions to technology/human issues seem to focus on how to make technology touch humans less <selective usage, space away from technology, etc.> rather than saying “if everyone and everything is untouched, how can we shape those technologies to benefit people.” In other words, if technology is going to touch more, and more often, (and it will), then let’s construct a healthy relationship and engagement with technology.

This means we need to stop applying an old belief system on a brand new generation.

The effect of technological change on human concentration and focus has been positive in my eyes (by technological change I am including any web based interface – websites, blogs, games, wii, etc.).

My point of view is not shared by most others. Inevitably it seems people only want to highlight the bad and ignore the good (or possibilities). In doing so the old belief system leans in on, well, old beliefs. I am not suggesting that everything old is bad, just that it’s the wrong place to begin your thinking if you want to create something good for the future. Let me use a lecture given to West Point cadets, “Solitude and Leadership” (I think this article is in The American Scholar Spring issue), to make some points. In this lecture William Deresiewicz discusses the necessary, and potentially eroding, skill of concentration and its effect on leadership (or becoming an effective leader). Let me say in general I agree with the basic premise of what he suggests discussing. With regard to today’s world, he says this:

Multitasking, in short, is not only not thinking, it impairs your ability to think. Thinking means concentrating on one thing long enough to develop an idea about it. Not learning other people’s ideas, or memorizing a body of information, however much those may sometimes be useful. Developing your own ideas. In short, thinking for yourself. You simply cannot do that in bursts of 20 seconds at a time, constantly interrupted by Facebook messages or Twitter tweets, or fiddling with your iPod, or watching something on YouTube.

Ok. Here is what I believe. He is suggesting that technology/web is cheating kids (or young people) by forcing multi-tasking which inevitably discourages thinking and coming up with original ideas. There are a couple things in that thought but let me start with ideas.

Ideas are more typically created by the crashing together of multiple stimulus (sometimes more is better upfront) of existing factoids and the ability to assimilate and shape the idea from those factoids. Well. Technology serial tasking (not multitasking) is just that – being conducted at lightning speed (on occasion). I believe the internet is assisting a new generation to be some of the best thinkers and ‘idea creators’ we will ever see. The multi-dimensional games kids play at an amazingly young age is helping shape imaginative creative quick decision making and ideation. In addition, the games also teach trial & error so that kids can experience a ‘poor decision’ versus an ‘effective decision.’

Another section of the lecture speaks then about the challenges of concentration (and the idea of solitude to avoid distractions). Basically, what the lecture argues is the web does not enable a sense of solitude where, given you ignore the distractions, you can concentrate on the important things. He argues for the necessity of slow, independent thinking, of solitude, of the hard work of thinking things through. He writes:

Concentrating, focusing. You can just as easily consider this lecture to be about concentration as about solitude. Think about what the word means. It means gathering yourself together into a single point rather than letting yourself be dispersed everywhere into a cloud of electronic and social input. It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube– and just so you don’t think this is a generational thing, TV and radio and magazines and even newspapers, too– are all ultimately just an elaborate excuse to run away from yourself.

What I believe he misses is that he is ignoring the immediacy interactive aspect of the web. Concentration is not on a time continuum.

Length of time does not necessarily translate into better concentration. In fact, the younger generations are becoming more and more accomplished at short concentration, or focus, abilities. The ability to assimilate an astounding amount of detail and information and sift through it to make the inevitable decision. In addition to that ability I have personally seen that when you challenge that decision they have the ability to quickly resift the information and assess “where they went wrong.” I won’t argue with anyone that this ability comes at the expense of other things (because I am sure it does) but I would argue it is reshaping how people think and do.

He goes on to further suggest “solitude doesn’t have to mean introspection,” and that there is a valuable “solitude of concentration.” What he is really talking about is ignoring distractions in order to focus/concentrate. Yeah, well, younger people will probably be able to teach the boomers something about this (assuming the Boomers actually can hear or want to learn something new).

We already see signs in young people of what I personally call the “funnel concentration” ability. What I mean is that in an incredibly short period of time a young person can assess the situation and ALL distractions and starts eliminating unnecessary distractions and absorbing useful distractions to ultimately close them all out at the point of isolated concentration (‘so, what am I going to do’) and then “do.” Take a moment and reread that. I say that because what I am suggesting is a slightly different way about thinking about critical thinking and situational awareness. And maybe that is how we should be thinking about future generations – they will think just a bit differently than we older folk do.

Look. Deresiewicz is arguing concentration skills are eroding because of the internet. Shit. A lot of older people are saying that. He is wrong (really wrong). Concentration skills are evolving. And in some ways better than they have ever been.

In addition, some people argue the internet will create the decline of ‘contemplative thought’ (or taking learning in solitude, creating their own ideas/thinking and applying it to the outside world gaining a more worldly insight through reflection). I don’t agree.

Those people have never seen a teen playing one of those web-based games where they are playing people around the world making decisions quickly and seeing the repercussions immediately (and reacting). Those people haven’t seen teens discussing complex issues on niche sites of interest bouncing ideas off each other and debating their merits (in their own cryptic vocabulary). Let me be clear. I am not suggesting no solitude for thinking is good, just in how we define solitude. For example, in this little clip Austin Kleon discusses finding a ‘bliss station’ and actually uses, uhm, technology. That said, where I think we could improve how we think about this is to encourage kids, and people in general, to think in networks and systems and connectivity (conversations are the smallest unit of change) instead of all this talk about isolation and isolated problems and isolated thinking.

Which leads me back to ‘leaning in.’

Suffice it to say technology, because it leaves nothing untouched, generates a range of problems beyond the technology sphere with some ramifications/consequences for the future.

We need a systematic method of bringing other areas outside of technology expertise to bear. To me this is an industry solution and, yet, looking around we can easily see we have an institutional problem (technology, economy, political, business, society).  The internet, technology in general <including AL/algorithms beyond social media>, seems to be out of control and the social system incapable of functioning and trying to absorb the bludgeoning from the internet <and technology>. My concern is that the lack of agreement on this issue, leaning in or leaning out, is problematic because as technological developments evolve, we could quickly find ourselves driven deeper into a less-than-positive social/human hole in which technology makes that dependence I spoke of earlier slowly chewing away at our mental and intellectual fiber. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out we are facing what Norbert Weiner pointed out that we need to be sure of our objectives because the machines would outpace the designers at some point in combination with, well, humans in that there are some humans seeking to exploit the flawed technology universe.

Let me circle back to humans defining our future.

People, maybe society, but certainly people make the decisions with regard to where technology goes from here.

People will decide whether behavioral algorithms get fixed.

People will decide whether automation replaces human jobs.

People will decide whether fake content gets addressed.

Technology development is not faceless. Business leaders, computer scientists, technologists and public policy-makers choose to develop the technologies for good <or to the benefit of people> or choose to absolve themselves of the responsibility. They will shape the future which is important because inevitably it will be society, people, which will find the “sweet spot” in which humans and machines can work together. This vision could be encouraged by introducing incentives that encourage companies to develop AI systems that can avoid large-scale societal risks and encourage large-scale societal benefits. Once again, it is important we, well, think about leaning in to the relationship between people and technology because the reality is that technology is both a creator of inequality AND equality.

===

“The important thing to appreciate here is that a direct new innovation in one particular capability can have far-reaching effects throughout the rest of your capability hierarchy.”

D. C. Engelbart

===

Which leads me, lastly, to the entire untouched thing.

If nothing is untouched, well, what happens when it longer touches? What I mean by that is technology in and of itself is actually nothing. Without people using it and content in it (this includes data) it is – nothing. But in leaving everything untouched it has become something and that something can be debated as reality or mirroring things in reality. This may sound esoteric, but I have a point, two in fact. The first is the internet is of reality in its totality (theoretically all of existence in the present exists in some form or fashion via technology) but we, as individuals, only see scraps. We see fragments and halfisms. And from those scraps we create what we PERCEIVE reality is. The corollary to that is we can choicefully ignore parts we don’t want. So, while the potential exists for making a collective belief possible, it just doesn’t happen. Common sensemaking is going to be difficult but at some point we need to tackle ‘halfisms versus wholisms’ so that while not everyone will ever see ‘the whole’ the fragments do not drive the narratives.

The second is in any given moment the internet/technology is lingering near an exit door. What I mean by that is while reality exists whether we like it or not, technology can say sayonara anytime it wants. And if and when it decides to exit, we are left with, well, you and I and all the shit reality has to offer – with no choices on whether we want to ignore them or not. My point on that is while nothing is left untouched by technology – it is a precarious relationship. The best way I can explain this is from the past. For years people bought papers so they could see their favorite comic strips. It was kind of an anchor reading moment – until the newspaper discontinued the comic strip. A touch point was removed. Gone. That reading anchor went ‘poof’. Now take that charming little example and extrapolate it out to civilization and the underpinnings of all activity. Yeah. Not only no comic strip, but nothing to read at all.

Nothing is left untouched until it isn’t. Yeah. That’s the deal. The physical world and all its troubles exist with or without technology. It would behoove us all to ponder that for a moment. Why? Well. Let me take the optimistic thought path. If technology touches everything in reality it also has the potential to address many of the problems in reality – if we choose to touch those things with technology. The pessimistic thought is given the ubiquitousness of technology these days we are fucked if the world wide web crashed and we were all untouched by technology.

I am certainly not suggesting we all go back to pre-technology days and, in fact, I believe given what I have just written I triple down on leaning in ON technology seeking to ensure a safe technology connectivity to reality (and us) so that we can maximize its benefits 24/7/365. I also believe given what I wrote we should be tripling down on technology to help us solve/resolve some of reality’s most relentless ‘wicked’ problems and issues.

Which permits me to end where I began: there is always a price for what you want.

Ponder the price we have to pay for a world where nothing is left untouched by technology.

Ponder the price we have to pay if we do not lean in on technology.

====

“A leader’s role is to raise people’s aspirations for what they can become and to release their energies so they will try and get there.”

David Gergen

=====

I get in lots (lots) of discussions/debates about what leadership is, and isn’t, and who are leaders, and who isn’t. Most often I find myself in some fairly simplistic discussions in that everyone is trying to distill the entire topic into some soundbite. The truth is leadership is complex and leaders are rarely, in totality, great leaders in every context.

Let me try some foundational thoughts:

• I believe anyone, and everyone, can lead
• Leadership is contextual or situational (generally speaking) in that 98.129863% of leadership is within the moment rather than on some grand level
• Common Sensemaking, the ability to have everyone in an organization to make sense of a situation with some common understanding, guarantees everyone can effectively think (and it also has some efficiency attributes)
• Common sensemaking increases the potentiality of leadership in everyone
• Common sensemaking increases the potentiality of decision-making from everyone
• Decision-making is distinctly different than thinking and sensemaking
• Not everyone is as comfortable making decisions as they are in making sense of things and thinking about things
• Decision-making is where ‘leadership’ in the most common definition occurs
• Not all decisions are created equal and not all people are comfortable making decisions inequal in impact
• Decision impact is rarely understood and always overestimated
• The best leadership properly applies sensemaking, properly is receptive to collaborative thinking, properly estimates decision impacts, properly articulates decision impacts (so organization properly applies mental and physical energy) and properly applies resources to decisions

Which leads me to structurally just making everyone a better potential leader.

Common sensemaking is the core. Some people may suggest it is the ability to frame consistently from person to person. I have had several experiences with this, but let me highlight J Walter Thompson where everyone was trained in the “Thompson Way”. It was a construct for thinking about communications and strategy and behavioral dynamics. Everyone was trained. In every department and at every level. What it meant was that anyone, at any time, could frame up a discussion and everyone would ‘make sense’ of it in a similar way. Everything was framed in a way that everyone could participate in the discussion. I imagine my point is that we should be searching for common ground from which to assess a situation, make decisions and lead. That common ground means in any given context, any given person could possibly lead from that situation towards progress. Just ponder.

Which leads me to everyone likes to think (but not necessarily make decisions).

To be clear, thinking and making a decision are distinctly different things. That said. It’s a given that people are more motivated if they are involved in the thinking about that ‘thing’. We like to do things more if we choose to do them (rather than be told or coerced). Far too often business ‘leaders’ think thinking is inefficient and most people don’t like to think. Neither are true. Thinking in terms of the situation, and possible progress paths, is like festina lente: slow down now to speed up later. I, personally, think people like to think, like to ‘feel smart’ and treating people as if their thinking isn’t valued actually diminished value creation organizationally. Just ponder.

Which leads me to the decisions and decision making.

Effective doing from decisions is dependent upon common sensemaking from which that decision is made. But while I believe everyone likes to think, I do not believe everyone likes to make decisions (the difference between ownership of the idea and ownership of the accountability). And maybe this is where a type of leadership occurs; decision-making responsibility. Someone who makes the call and accepts the accountability. It is calming to everyone else. It doesn’t mean shirking responsibility just that they feel better not assuming the responsibility. And that’s okay.

Next. Being decisive isn’t about making the perfect decision every time. That isn’t possible. Rather, it’s about being confident that the right things have been considered and the right context is assessed. This is important because many good situational decisions are disastrous somewhere in the distant future and some semi-bad situational decisions actually have happy outcomes. That last sentence summarizes the unpredictability of decision making, yet, suggests the possibilities found in outcome surprises. I could suggest this is why leaders thrown into a situation, rather than a situation thrown out to potential leaders, tend to fall into the biggest trap decision makers fall into – the overwhelming desire for a definitive answer leading to very bad decisions and outcomes. But answers need to be agreed upon and decisions need to be acted upon. Some people are better at this than others. I actually don’t know if they are leaders or just people who can own decision making and I am not sure it matters.

Just ponder.

Which leads me to declustering.

Leaders like to cluster decisions and business like to cluster things. All are typically done because everyone believes it is more efficient and, possibly, more effective. Clustering is the unspoken organizational corrosive barnacle on the progress ship. It is true business, and people, arc toward replication. If a leader spots a ‘decisionmaker’ inevitably they will guide more decisions to that person simply. Decisions then cluster thereby making the overall – most people – desire to be involved in decisions to decluster. Yeah. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. By default, you’ve once again parsed out responsibility, not collaborative sensemaking, and created a different type of hierarchy. I am not suggesting some people aren’t better at making decisions than others. What I am suggesting is leaders’ natural instinct is NOT to spread sensemaking and thinking, but isolate so when convinced to distribute and spread, no matter how effective overall it may be, inevitably they will redistribute to a few – that’s the arc. Just ponder.

In the end.

In general, I think we talk about leaders, and leadership, in some wacky ways. There are millions of articles about what ‘great leaders are’ and about ‘great leaders’ as if they are anomalies or some special breed of humans. They aren’t. I am sure there are some exceptional leaders, but I am equally sure there are even more exceptional leaders buried under the bullshit world of words & expectations if we would let them emerge. The truth is everyone can lead and some people are better at decision making which is just a version of leadership. I will not argue that some people seem to energize others around them and maybe that could be called leadership, but I would also argue simply offering that particular feature/characteristic doesn’t mean everything should cluster around that person. I tend to always go back to one thing – the law of the situation. The situation demands the leader. In fact, the situation chooses the leader, a leader cannot choose a situation. Just ponder before you invest a lot of energy deciding who is a leader and who isn’t.

====

“Only through participation by the many in the responsibilities and determinations of business can Americans secure the moral and intellectual development which is essential to the maintenance of liberty.”

Louis Brandeis