===

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

Ottmer <the futurist>

===

“Imagine a cheap little device that isn’t just smarter than humans — it can compute as much data as all human brains taken together.”

===

Discussions about all technology seems to careen in-between oblivious no-fear (lack of belief that something like social media or an algorithm could “effect how I think”) and conspiratorial fear (government control, globalists, ‘the great reset’). And that’s before we even discuss something like a brain chip, an invasive introduction into mental enhancement. But there is a future lesson found in that fear binary. That lesson is that something like a brain chip will make the world binary and, objectively speaking, even more unequal.

Let me explain.

The people with the least understanding of technology but the greatest fears will reject the most progressive innovations, i.e., something like the brain chip.

The people with the most understanding of technology and the healthiest skepticism of ‘technology for good’ will accept the most progressive innovations, i.e., something like the brain chip.

Simplistically, just to make a point, the quasi-ignorant social media users will become dumber and dumber while the quasi- careful innovation adopters will become smarter and smarter. The latter will accept the risks viewing the potential benefits as outweighing them and the former will just see risks with little benefits. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this means one group of people will progress while another group will inevitably regress which begets a societal issue.

I begin with those thoughts to frame what I see as the benefits of a brain chip (which I do believe is inevitable).

*** note: Michio Kaku believes it is inevitable and Elon Musk even has a company, Neuralink, attempting to design one.

Which leads me to say we shouldn’t dismiss fears, but should still embrace the better hope.

I believe it was Peter Thiel who suggested something like “there’s all these scenarios where the stuff can spiral out of control. I’m more scared of the one where nothing happens.” This may sound odd but I believe we have been lulled into belief that technology is progressing too fast. I say that because most technology innovation hasn’t really been that innovative. Most of it has been superficial, but highly accessible, so that there is a general appearance of fast paced high innovation. But most of the technological innovations haven’t truly moved the needle on truly meaningful things (but have made a lot of money through consumerism). What this means is that our general view of ‘better’ has been skewed toward a fairly low bar. That becomes important when something like a brain chip appears because it is so far above the common bar it takes on all the appearances of science fiction, fantasy and, well, scary stuff – mostly dystopian. But here is where ‘better’ steps in: the higher the brain integration – verbal, visual, special and execution – the higher the intelligence. If a brain chip stimulates just that, well, that’s better. Better thinking by any one individual encourages better thinking within all people. And if enough people embrace the technology it creates structural societal thinking lift. It is this version of better that will encourage a shitload of people to seek to augment themselves in terms of intelligence and skills. And those people will inevitably separate themselves from those who elect to not pursue this opportunity.

That said. Let me describe better in my mind. it is clear that the human brain is incapable of coping with the onrush of new technology in the mosh pit formation available on a day-to-day basis. As trite as it may sound, while we now have more information available to us than ever, overstimulation makes us dumber on a daily basis if not unhealthier (depression, anxiety, etc). Many of us clearly understand our brains just can’t keep up with technology-driven cognitive load issues. Research has clearly documented the influence of information overload on attention, perception, memory, decision making, and even regulating emotions.  We have even seen that engagement with technology interferes with the pursuit of other behaviors critical for maintaining a healthy social contract. So, if an implanted chip is able to address many of our cognitive needs AND make us more effective thinkers, why wouldn’t we consider it? Why wouldn’t we consider augmenting our brain to better optimize it (not change it)? Maybe we should think of the brain chip as existing to help the brain as kind of a thinking companion. Try this thinking. Because this chip would be collecting real-time data on everything imaginable with regard to your brain physiology and sense-of-environment, it also optimizes your physical presence. You gain richer and richer datasets from which the chip can guide you so you could be at your highest functioning thinking and behavioral level. I imagine it actually could augment you to new level. I would be remiss if I didn’t note I am discussing a closed loop machine Learning System. Therefore it is secure and designed to augment only you and personalizes your data as opposed to a one-sized fits all system. However, this means the chip is on all the time (as is your brain).  You have to accept the fact your brain chip is listening all the time – to everything (including your memory). What this means is that many things – memories, knowledge, faces, etc. – stored away on some dark dusty shelf in your mind (meaning it has an imprint somewhere in your brain) can be activated by the chip. It takes away that nagging feeling you are forgetting something and brings it to the forefront at the right time. The chip activates a portion of your brain that says “hey remember this/remember what happened/remember that person” and it activates images from the past, in relevant context, thereby heightening your level of attention in the present. The interesting thing about this particular idea is the majority of us remember the things that we like to remember and forget things we like to forget. What that does is inherently bias your views and attitudes. The brain chip doesn’t permit this shortcut. It cuts in line in front of bias with even the things you wanted to forget. To be clear. The chip I am discussing means you remember even the things you really do not want to remember – yeah, even the horrible stuff and the stuff you hate. That said. What this means is you use, better than in the past, what you already know and increase depth of decisionmaking and insight into what you are thinking.

I imagine the next level would be if the brain chip could actually connect with the world wide web and supplement, or complement, what you already know to round out your knowledge. And it does so contextually (which we already know from education deepens learning). That’s next level thinking.

Which leads me to security and privacy.

Some people will never get over their fear of information being stolen and the fears will only increase with a brain chip because it becomes even more intrusively personal. That said. The adopters recognize within an increasingly complex world to keep identity safe and secure – from a personal identity standpoint as well as identity interface to things we own and have – the way to save identity is to actually lean in on technology. Insert a ‘yikes’ here. Yeah. Hear me out. While I have a couple of ideas on how to do this, I tend to belief an implanted chip is the best way forward <for a variety of reasons>. Every person could simply have a tiny chip implanted that permits a computer, or scanning system, to read a personalized code broadcasted by the chip. And while that may sound vulnerable to hacking or copying there are a variety of means and authenticating systems which actually protect us. For example, both Google Authenticator and Blizzard’s official authenticator use open-standard “TOTP” for authentication codes (although different). Google uses 6-digit codes, while Blizzard uses 8-digit codes, but the real idea I offer is that your personal identity algorithm, because it is implanted, can be tied to your biology which, well, cannot be stolen.

Which leads me to creating a good brain chip.

Algorithms really aren’t capable of thinking. They are simply yes, no; A, B; limiting, reductive, not expansive. Well. that is before the brain chip. A brain chip augments are complex brain so we see in patterns, not binaries. That said. We should simultaneously mistrust a brain chip technology and still recognize that it can augment the superiority of the human brain. It doesn’t circumvent our choice making it actually increases our choice base, our consideration set, so that our responses are more well informed and more well formed. It could permit all of us to sift through stacks of information which until now we were simply cognitively unable to do – or do effectively. A good brain chip makes us more effective human beings. It makes us optimize the present and increases our sensemaking skills (which cascades into better choicemaking). I could even argue it just makes us better people in that we become more well informed and a bit less biased. And if that’s the benefit, maybe it is worth the risk. To be clear. I would gladly take a brain chip. Heck. I would take a health chip implant that could possibly optimize my health. The benefits of ‘optimizing’ my brain and body clearly outweighs the possible risks – at least in my mind. And I end with that thought because that is the decision everyone is going to have to inevitably make and I worry that the decisions will only amplify societal divides. But. That is a piece for another day. Today we should be pondering whether you would put a technology chip in your brain.

===

“We are making more and more consequential decisions with worse and worse sensemaking to inform those decisions.”

Daniel Schmachtenberger

===

all ideas can be weaponized

===

Let me begin by saying I am a ‘capitalist’ and believe capitalism this the best system to encourage innovation, progress and economic growth (I could also argue intellectual growth but that’s for another day). But that doesn’t mean that people do not use capitalism in ways that aren’t particularly to the benefit of society and civilization.

Which leads me to ChatGPT.

I, personally, believe ChatGPT, from a grander perspective, would assist in solving one of society’s larger existential issues – a lack of shared sensemaking. What I mean by that is society is struggling to agree on some basic fundamental understanding and therefore we cannot seem to have a foundational “sense” of things. So, one of the larger benefits I could see from ChatGPT would be that if someone asked the exact same question in Tbilisi and Boise and Lyon and Caracas and, well, you get it, anywhere, Chatgpt would offer the same response. That’s on a macro level. And then even on a micro/macro level (say just the United States) if anyone in any state in any town or county asked the exact same question, they would receive the same response. It becomes a great leveler of a combination of knowledge and articulation of that knowledge. It is race agnostic, political affiliation indifferent and, in general, doesn’t care about your own bias, just in delivering a fair response to the question you give it. And, yeah, the responses are shaped by whatever embedded coding parameters the software has, but, generally speaking, it is crafted to offer the best ‘agnostic’ response possible. Simplistically, this would assist in creating better societal sensemaking which makes decision making a bit more responsible as well as increases the level of effective citizen involvement on issues.

Which leads me to capitalism.

Every major technology platform is developing their version of ChatGPT. But it just got a bit worse. Elon Musk just announced he is developing an “anti-woke” version which “would have fewer restrictions on divisive subjects compared to ChatGPT and a related chatbot Microsoft recently launched.” What this means is that ChatGPTs of the world are no longer framed by truth or ‘accountable sharing of knowledge,’ but rather by ideology. While it would be easy for me to point out how whack this is, its easier for me to remind everyone of the Long Tail Theory. Reality is there is quite a bit of money to be had by purposefully fragmenting a market and ‘owning a niche’ and monetizing it. That is capitalism, “free market,” post-worldwide web. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is actually how business fueled culture wars. They like it so they can develop products and services from which they can profit from their particular place on the long tail. It can actually be quite lucrative, but not healthy for society and civilization. Basically, technology has deliberately crafted a content-delivery world which conforms to your beliefs and views – and makes money from that. This is as bad as it sounds. This is a world in which people may already arc toward fragmentation/tribal thinking and then someone actually amplifies that thinking, purposefully, to not only increase the tribes, but increases the silo walls. You no longer see alternative views but even if you do, they will get drowned out in one Chatgpt/AI drip after another. If you care about social cohesiveness, this should be frightening. If you care about business being ‘in and of society,’ this is annoying.

Which leads me to technology has, once again, missed an opportunity, because of profit seeking, to make the world better.

I’ve already pointed out the positive sensemaking benefits of if this chat AI if it had been done right and the negative consequences of the fragmentation when done wrong, so let me end with how technology almost seems to ignore its role in society and thinks of itself as a normal everyday product someone could pluck off the grocery shelf.

They almost embrace ignoring the fact they shape us, our minds, attitudes and even behaviors, and go forth missing opportunity after opportunity to make the world better.

They consistently ignore the problems they create and consistently suggest they are only offering a product and people make the choices.

They consistently absolve themselves of any responsibility and accountability (sounds almost like the tobacco companies in the wayback machine).

They consistently ignore the fact they are normalizing some attitudes, which normalizes some bad behavior, which only leads to, well, more of all of that.

They consistently ignore all of what I just said by falling back on ‘free market capitalism 101’, i.e., we are simply a product in a competitive market and the consumers will inevitably choose what is ‘right.’

I end with that thought because it is intellectually lazy to suggest this is all about profits, fundamentally it is a lack of accountability, and responsibility, tied to an incredibly flawed perspective with regard to what a ‘free market’ is. Freedom, in any form, even in business offerings, comes with responsibility. Ponder.

===

“This is the threat to our lives that we all face today. Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?”

Joseph Campbell

===

“Technology is a great servant, but a terrible master.”

Sherry Turkle

===

“It is a matter of understanding that society is both very, very good and simultaneously very, very bad. Reality is rich. It has room for plenty of extremes. It has multitudes of contradictions. We must increasingly learn to live and deal with such paradoxes. You don’t have to choose one side. Both are true.”

Hanzi Freinacht

===

For a variety of reasons, I seem to be consistently disappointed in humans these days. I say that and I believe in human kindness, believe most people are smarter than we <the system> lets them be and believe most people try and do the right things. But at the heart of my current disappointment resides technology and how we appear to be thinking technology is gonna fix, well, humans and humanity.

• ** note: if you would like to restore your belief in humans, I highly recommend reading Humankind by Rutger Bregman

We appear to live in a world with a misguided boundless optimism tied to an absurd belief that numbers, or some version of twisted math, can explain anything and there must be a solution for every problem (technology is inextricably tied to numbers). I begin there to suggest that technology has tended to bring out the worst of us as more and more of us adopted it. This is odd because it started as a good thing with flaws and now it has simply become a flawed environment which amplifies our worst flaws. Technology, simultaneously, makes us smarter and dumber.

Which leads me to the fact we often view technology as the future and, yet, paradoxically, want it because we seem to think it has the power to change the past. We keep looking backwards and developing technology to attempt to fix old arguments, conflicts and mistakes. I would add we even use it to attempt to change the present (see beauty filters that reshape our images). It’s a race to fix something unfixable. I would argue it’s a race to fix somethings we shouldn’t even attempt to fix. Sometimes it’s enough to make anyone doubt the human race. We have received a gift, and, yes, technology is a gift, one which we alone of all the species on this world have the ability to use to explore the past, present and future. We could build on our triumphs, learn from mistakes, discover things that were once undiscoverable, and instead of regarding it as a wonderful gift, we time and time again simply use it for nothing more than exploitation in the pursuit of a buck or, maybe even worse, for nothing more productive than some incredibly unhealthy social behavior.

Which leads me to Marx and Engels of all people. They grounded their thinking on a belief the country was an uncivilized place populated by idiots (I don’t agree). I would note that same distinction occurs in today’s thinking – leaders treating employees like idiots as well as city ‘intellectuals’ thinking rural idiots abound and politicians, in general, just being idiotic. This simplistic divide is timeless. But they have a larger point lurking in there. Engels thought cities were “something against which human nature rebels” speaking in terms of intellectual and spiritual/moral aspects. But what he was really suggesting was that capitalist cities were becoming devoid of ‘humanity’, homes to human poverty, where individualism prospered. But it’s not just the cities, its everywhere now. The zero-sum game has crept into every community and for the most part business lacks any sense of solidarity with society encouraging each person to pursue their own self/selfish interests (note: businesses actually believe this is the way to ‘optimize productivity’). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out if you remove collective meaning, or relegate it to a lesser value, than there really is no reason to treat someone WITH humanity <except as window dressing>. Circling back to the topic at hand, I am disappointed people allow this to happen. We have permitted the tragedy of commons to be, well, common.

===

“However, even if we accept that citizens are not primarily causally responsible for our poor information environments, it could be argued that they nonetheless have a remedial responsibility to mend them.”

Solmu Anttila

Which leads me to staying involved.

Look. I understand that in a complex uncertain world where it feels like you are constantly under attack (senses being bombarded and cognitive overload), and that everyone else is going to do something and if you do not you will be at a disadvantage, so a seemingly reasonable response is to seek to minimize your ‘attack surface.’ This is where you attempt to reduce your exposure to shit. And this is where technology really is a sonuvabitch. It seems like this would be a common sense, if not sane, tactic just to survive mentally. The problem is the technological weapons in today’s world improve exponentially faster, in effectiveness, when focused on a smaller target. It’s the conundrum of the complex world in which technology increases exponentially against you as you decrease your involvement space. So while I understand why most people retreat, I am disappointed they aren’t attempting to fight. Yeah. Technology has created a fundamental restructuring, and connectivity, of the relationship between an individual and society. And, yeah, technology is using tools to manipulate us on almost a minute-by-minute basis. But retreating isn’t really an option. Here is where I will lose some people. I am all for trying to change the system itself, but I think individuals need to embrace the battle – and the future. I believe to combat the emergence of AI people will have to aggressively augment themselves in terms of intelligence, skills, and expertise. This may sound like science fiction, but within this conversation is the exploration between brain-computer interfaces which could connect our brains directly to any computer to enhance our brains, critical thinking and general awareness (I would also toss in bioscience – embedded chips – but that is another topic for another day). This certainly has risks, but also offers rewards. In combination with the individual augmentation, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out smart cities and infrastructure augmentation. This is structural value creation of which all individuals could and should benefit and combined with my first point it offers a deeper individual connectivity to context/environment to augment our thinking and awareness. In order to get onboard with my thinking many of us would need to shed the concept of some ‘ideal of self.’ Look. Through technology we have reshaped the world, for good and bad, which as a consequence has made us in and of this world. “It is no longer possible to adopt the aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner,” Marshall McLuhan wrote in 1964. We are all direct participants now. In addition, we now better recognize that each human has a multitude of different intrinsic incentives, desires, instincts, and biases. We need to be in and of the environment in order to be involved enough to shape the future let alone even understand the present. The only way I can see to do this is to amplify our senses so that we are capable of sensing what we need to and the only way I can see doing that is augmentation through technology (because technology is the ally and the enemy). None of this is easy, but I am disappointed so many people will not even consider this path.

Which leads me to how rationalizing everything is killing us.

Continuing my last thought, we can rationalize ourselves out of anything – good or bad.

“However society might wish to make scientific progress efficient, the truth about complex systems is that trying to simplify them doesn’t guarantee that they become more effective; it risks making them less effective. They function best when they are robust, throwing off a vast array of insights whose value may be realised over time. That means they can look wasteful, producing more than what is needed. But when you don’t know what’s needed, you’re safer with more.”

Margaret Heffernan

What I just said sounds, well, irrational. We often do not think about irrationality of behavior and its relationship to attitudes and beliefs. Sometimes something seems like the right thing to do, or ‘the thing to do,’ and when asked someone will reconstruct the beliefs and attitudes to “rationalize” it. To the outside world that person will appear irrational (doing something based on emotion), but if you ask them, 99% of the time they will create some fairly rational looking and sounding things to explain it all away. I say that to suggest we should be wary of rational explanation for seemingly irrational behavior (and vice versa). My point here is that we use rationalization as if it is some superpower when in reality it can talk us out of doing a shitload of good things. Mostly I am disappointed that humans always seem to be grasping about for some rational reason to not do something that really have no single answer to do – particularly with technology. In that fumbling around we inevitably grab onto whatever ‘feels’ right if we can convince ourselves it puts our feet on the path to an answer we can live with. That rationalization gives us a faux superpower to uncover what is the ‘right thing to do.’ Needless to say, no one on earth has this superpower.

“Life is not primarily a quest for pleasure, as Freud believed, or a quest for power, as Alfred Adler taught, but a quest for meaning.”

Viktor Frankl

What’s a little more dangerous is that belief in this superpower almost becomes an ideology. Ideology is a highly communicable social contagion that exploits the universal human longing for social validation and fear of being cast out. This ideology is amplified by social and news-media feedback loops that now fill the vacuum left by the loss of shared sustainable values. We are going to have to do some wrong things, and we will as humans do, to finally get it right.

Which leads me to how we can stop being disappointed with humans.

I believe it was Albert Camus who said that he was pessimistic about the human condition and optimistic about humankind. While technology is racing ahead at an exponential speed, I sometimes wonder if we humans have gone as far as we can go. Our general stupidity has curbed our progress to a point where the only things it seems we can do is bludgeon each other in the here and now and pursuing wealth with a self-interest focus. That said. It was John Maynard Keynes who said humans are not economic entities striving for subsistence. They are complex beings who face a new problem: “the permanent problem of the human race — how to use one’s freedom, “how to live wisely, agreeably, and well.”

Maybe if we want to be a little less disappointing, we should stop focusing on economic trends and instead tap into human nature. We are not doomed to the lowest common denominator or what could be called the tragedy of the commons. The truth is humans, left to their own devices and not squeezed by a zero-sum world view, actually work well collectively and for a greater good. There is an abundance of evidence that show humans still cooperate and work well with each other and that the tragedy of commons is not a certain fate.

Maybe if we want to be a little less disappointing we should embrace our inner-Adrian Bejan: “For a finite size system to persist in time, to live, it must evolve with Freedom such that it provides easier and greater access to What flows”. The laws of physics suggests the evolution of any type of flow system is its inclination to liberate its stream and remove any type of obstacle to keep moving and, as a consequence, survive.

Maybe we should see the pathway forward as enabling a flow system to prosper (and survive) and stop continuously building walls and obstacles within this flow system.

“Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature.”

Tom Robbins

Maybe we should stop rationalizing all the reasons to not do something and begin doing some things that make us uncomfortable.

We are living in a highly competitive multi-polar trap world in which we will inevitably face a far greater variety of problems than ever before which will demand collective action – or we will be disappointed. That said. We will also have a greater variety of alternatives than ever before. And maybe if we would like to be a little less disappointed in humans, we will embrace some of the alternatives and shape the future we desire. Ponder.

====

“At the end of the year 1492 most men in western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future.”

Samuel Eliot Morison

====

“Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations.”

John von Neumann

====

“Technology no longer serves as a tool to improve human life, but is a prostitute to the drive for profits. Greed drives technology as businesses compete to develop new technologies in order to generate more profits.”

Dorothee Soelle

====

While Marshall McLuhan tried to tell us how technology would shape us, it was Toffler who pointed out that technology was going to be the tool which would push our cognitive limits. In Future Shock predicted that environmental overstimulation would not only impact our physical and social worlds, but also our psyche. I would, and will, argue one of the consequences of this  overstimulation is doom and gloom (dystopian feelings).

Which leads me to say we should be talking more about the asymmetry between technology and the human brain particularly in reference to our overall sense of doom and gloom.

To be fair. People have been consistently gloomy about the present and the future since the dawn of time. That said. I would argue the present, say the 2020’s version, is a bit different and maybe a little more uncomfortable. It’s a bit more uncomfortable because we are constantly being bombarded with either dystopian imagery or fragments of harbingers of doom narratives are tossed at us. I do point my finger at technology and social media. The invention of the computer, AI, and, consequently, the worldwide web marked the end of a shitload of familiar, comfortable, features in everyone’s life – whether it was perceptions or reality. It was at that point where, Jurgen Moltmann said “we are setting developments afoot that are getting out of control. We are making free decisions through which we lose our own freedom. If the decisions are final, irrevocable, and unrepeatable, then we are not dealing with experiments anymore. This is a point of no return: all or nothing.”  In other words, technology began reshaping mindsets, attitudes and beliefs (whether we liked it or not).

The wierdish thing about it is as technology becomes more ubiquitous, we begin to use it in what I would call ‘symmetrical sounding narratives” (craft neat stories easy to grasp) which are actually asymmetrical in consequences. Globalization is a perfect example of this. If globalization sounds inevitable, it then suggests technology will somehow determine our future, i.e., worldwide web makes globalization inevitable. It’s a nice neat story, if not exactly true. Let me be clear what I mean. This does not mean technology somehow progresses on its own in a vague process over which humans have no control. Technology does not create itself and humans participate in the decision making, and crafting, what technologies are developed. I say that because the idea technology is equitable and consequences are symmetrical, similar to the mythical ‘invisible hand of economics’, is fairly absurd, therefore, believing the idea that technology itself is moving humanity forward in an inevitable process is fairly absurd. I would suggest giving technology the power to determine the future of society not only ignores human responsibility in forming and shaping technology, but also ignores the limits of the human minds. I would also suggest that the nagging narrative that technology IS determining our future only increases a sense of doom and gloom.

Which leads me to suggest technology has impacted by not only its ubiquitous nature, breadth and depth of usage/connectivity, but also by its inherent exponential nature.

Marshall McLuhan pointed out technology has created impact as a medium and a message/messenger. It has shaped us, but by nature, technology is not additive, can be multiplicative, but arcs toward exponential. And therein lies the subcurrent issue – exponential against finite (Azeem Azhar has authored a fabulous book on this topic: The Exponential Age).

Generally speaking exponential growth rates cause serious problems. In fact, in business, exponential growth cannot be sustained, let alone maintained, for any meaningful length of time. Sure. Some technology companies have navigated this (under the guise of ‘scale’), but at any time humans or real resources are involved (not technology feeding on itself) exponential growth will exhaust finite resources.

Now. It is true technology positively affected many aspects of the existing working world offering ways to eliminate some of the never-ending grind of labor and create the possibilities of a thriving connectivity of workers, but it also, simultaneously, empowered a small class of people to inordinately benefit. While technology became ubiquitous, its effects were not. Technology offered us possibilities and then took them away from many of us almost immediately. I would love to say technology has transformed society, but it really hasn’t. The embedded aspects of traditional society, and business operating principles, remain and elements have been amplified and other elements have been tamped down. And while it would be easy to suggest society and business is fundamentally shaped by information (usually transferred through stories and narratives) the truth is that our reality is just small amounts of information, drawn from an almost infinite pool of information, plodding along the progress highway. Simplistically, the world invented on-demand information and brains are wired with land line technology. What this means is that an information/knowledge revolution should have occurred, but it didn’t. And maybe this is where we need to be a bit harsher on, well, us – humans. The explosion of information should have expanded the minds and mindsets and critical thought of humankind, instead it ran face first into a humankind incapable of using the information. As a consequence, the small minds gathered up the portion of the big information that (a) they were capable of absorbing and (b) they wanted to absorb (it appealed to what they already thought). What I will suggest is that whether we recognize our failings as humans or not, we feel the consequences of our failings in terms of doom and gloom feelings.

“Because of the digital revolution, our lives are being transformed by three grand bargains. The intellectual bargain: we have more knowledge, but less capacity to concentrate and focus. The social bargain: we are much more available, but much less attentive. The emotional bargain: we are much more connected, but much less empathetic. When we trade away skills for power, attention for availability, empathy for connectivity, and quality for quantity of relationships, we sign up to a Faustian pact that we do not even know exists – one that gives us more control over the outside world, but less control over our inner world.”

Our Technology Sickness

What I will suggest is that computer technology actually gave us some idea of the scale and sheer magnitude of the information universe.

You do not need a degree in math to estimate how many books/printed items people had typically read in the past to know it is significantly, maybe even exponentially, less than what the computer technology information blizzard drops on us. We got information at scale. The brain isn’t built to accommodate this blizzard of information. This is not to suggest people are stupid, just that even the most normal, critical thinking human being, has to choose what to ‘experience’ in the infinite pool of information computer technology offers. For example. Think about print. The way we grasped the magnitude of information before was maybe the Sunday New York Times newspaper (who could work their way through that?) or maybe the library. It was graspable knowable, i.e., there is information and I can’t absorb it all, but I can selectively choose what I can, or want, to assimilate. Computer technology put an infinite sized library with dozens of Sunday NYTs every day in front of everyone. The ability to assimilate didn’t change, but now we couldn’t ignore the sheer magnitude of the information universe – it became real. It would be silly to ignore the truth that most minds are staggered by this new reality. It isn’t that people cannot assimilate information, but the sheer amount bombarding everyone from the totality of the universe is simply too much to assimilate. I state it that way to emphasize this is not one thing to be fixed, but rather the universe needs to be rearranged. I would argue that while not many people may suggest ‘the universe needs to be rearranged’, many people will say there is something wrong with the universe, therefore, there is a sense of doom and gloom.

Which leads me to the future.

We are just now exploring the limits of the mind and what our limits are, or are not, regarding learning and unlearning and reeducation. What we humans are capable of is, well, yet to actually be defined (I certainly do not believe we have found our limits yet). Sure. There are futurists and prognosticators espousing what the future will be, but they are guessing. We have to accept the fact that some of the most far-reaching consequences of technology revolution are next to impossible to foresee at the moment – or even in the near future. Many of the features that may appear inconsequential in today’s world could have drastic implications, and consequences, long term. That said. Once again, the future isn’t technology, but humans. Computer technology represents a level of power which is hard to not want to wield at some point – for good or bad. Combine that with the fact some people will simply be better at tapping into the infinite information world with highly qualified finite brains. This is where it all gets a bit tricky (but quite human in nature). The best thinking, developed for the best of the world, will fall into the laps of someone who can use it in a ‘power’ fashion. I explain all of that because, once again, people are not stupid. They may not know the mechanics of how technology power is wielded, but they do know the information universe is too fast for their minds and they seek to wield some power of their own. How? By NOT traveling the infinite information universe, but rather seeking to find a planet they can plop their mind on and know as much as anyone on that particular planet – all the other planets be damned.

• ** note: part of the problem with the information universe is it is too easy to actually create an alternative universe planet for someone people to plop their minds down on and inhabit).

“Thus the difficulty is not just that nonlinear problems are more difficult to solve. Nor does it reflect our lack of cleverness in finding solutions. The problem does not lie in limitations to our technical and intellectual capabilities, but rather in the characteristic properties of the solutions themselves.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that a sense of doom and gloom is only natural if (a) people are wielding infinite power seemingly beyond our own control and (b) if we look around and see people living on different planets within our own planetary society.

But let me end on a hopeful note.

While human minds are finite, the world’s resources are finite, and, for the most part, our skills are finite, we are nowhere close to tapping into the full potential of any and all those things.

While the education system has been incredibly effective in the past, its biggest shortcoming is it truly only develops an insignificant fraction of the abilities of almost every person. The objective should be to optimize each person’s potential and abilities and discover how ‘full’ it can become when fully tapped. In other words, expand our finiteness to limits we can only envision.

The world’s resources are finite, but we are nowhere close to untapping the true potential of all our resources – to date we have extracted & exploited resources and in the future, we should be seeking to expand existing resources as well as rejuvenate that which we use (this includes minds).

To be fair, technology is also attempting to help. There is an increasing amount of new technology that could help us contextualize all the information coming in. For example, Are.na is an online platform for bookmarking items you find online and making connections across them. Roam Research is a similar platform, a notetaking app allowing complex interlinking between pieces of content/information.

I would suggest, societally, it would be beneficial if these types of technologies become a standard for everyone. I would even suggest that these types of technologies should be embedded into social media platforms. My point on technology here is that there are people attempting to craft solutions to the issues technology begets. I would suggest while that is a hopeful thought, it is within this relationship that many people feel gloomy about the future because while I believe we all know there is no ‘going back’ (to whatever you envision ‘back’ is) we also do not know what the future will be and the present feels a bit overwhelming. Anyway. Technology is here and, as Toffler said, the great growling engine of change (technology) will continue to growl on. But. Humans and humanity will also growl on. Ponder.

==

“We don’t want to be known for creating brilliantly crafted failures.”

Don Perkins

==

In business, one of the difficulties in caring about what you do and how you do it is that solutions are rarely just a, well, solution. Inevitably you desire to craft a brilliant solution. This is particularly true in advertising communications, but communications in general. Sometimes elegant, sometimes brutal, sometimes sleek, sometimes ponderous, but always brilliantly crafted.

That said. Here is an unfortunate truth. While simplicity is always nice, it is more often not practical <or reality>.

Business is complex.

Therefore.

Solutions tend to be complex.

Therefore.

Solutions often need to be brilliantly crafted to summarize the rich and royal hues of that complexity.

And, yes, there are some extremely qualified people, not advertising hacks, who get so caught up in building beautiful solutions that they lose sight of reality and purpose, but they are truly in the minority.

We are truly not in the business of building brilliantly crafted failures, but we are in the business of crafting smart work that works. In fact, the test of intelligent work isn’t the output, but the correct input.

Which leads me to Chatgpt and the wayback machine.

Let’s go back 40ish years ago. I would go to a local market and 80-90% of the advertising communications I saw was crap. Unprincipled, trite, the kind of stuff a good Creative Director or Communications leader would have thrown out in a first round. It was maddening as a classically trained communications person to see the crap that was running. More often than not you would find it was someone’s child, a friend, maybe the neighborhood kid who was good at drawing or writing who was creating the crap (and the businesses thought it was fine). This was that time’s “training from experts is overrated” tier of advertising and communications and, circling back to an earlier thought, their input wasn’t the most intelligent therefore their output could be kinda stupid. It was horrible and there was a lot of it.

Let’s go back 20ish years ago. The internet and smartphones snuck into culture. What happened? Not a whole shitload in terms of quality. In fact, all it really did was highlight the local gems of communicators (that 15%ish) and, to my dismay, harden the hacks. What I mean by that is the hacks did what almost everyone does now, they sought out likeminded hacks and confirmed their beliefs or maybe they simply cherrypicked some good thinking (usually under the guise of simplicity) to buttress up their hackedness. Circling back to an earlier point, the hacks just didn’t google the right questions therefore the answers they got weren’t the most intelligent and therefore their output was kinda stupid.

Let’s go to the present. Chatgpt. I am no futurist, but let me tell you how it is going to fall out. The brilliant crafters will most likely use Chaptgpt as an additional tool for ideation (not creation). The hacks will use it for creation. and within that wretched hollow in between, which has existed as far back as I can see, will reside the conflict of the future of communications. I tend to believe the brilliant crafters will inevitably win mostly because the test of intelligence isn’t the output, but the correct input and brilliant crafters ask great questions which typically lead to great answers.

Which leads me back to brilliantly crafted.

The internet squeezed everything, what I mean by that is the depth and breadth of information available narrowed the margins between brilliantly crafted and just crafted; and crafted and hack. The lines got a bit vaguer and the hacks took advantage of that. And they will do so with Chatgpt. And you know what? You will still go to local markets and see maddeningly stupid trite uninsightful work. And you will still see the classically trained principled crafters of communications creating, for the most part, brilliant communications. Yeah. I will suggest if you believe you are in the brilliant crafters category you are gonna have to work even harder to create the distinction between you and a hack (no matter how frustrating that sounds), but I would be remiss if I didn’t repeat that distinction is found in intelligent input of which principled craftmanship has the market on.

Which leads me to intelligence augmentation.

I have purposefully harped on ‘intelligence isn’t the output, it’s the correct input’ because any output is only as good as what is put into it. This is a universal truth when it comes to humans and minds. Once again going back into the wayback machine, 1962 in fact, Doug Engelbart wrote a piece called “augmenting human intellect” thus beginning the thought process that technology is built to augment people.  The concept was revived not too long ago in “How to become a Centaur.”  The point is technology is not to replace things, but to augment people. Advertising people, as will all people, will either intelligently use it or use it as a dull axe. And maybe that is where I think advertising and communications people really need to spend some time looking in the mirror and assessing what they believe they have to offer. Well trained professionals understand the craft of communications. There will certainly be some better at bringing that craft to life than others, but generally speaking, implementing principles will elevate the communications of any work. The hacks may stumble into principles, but for the most part they work off of ‘feel’ and ‘instincts’, the main characteristics of people making up shit as they go. Once again, they may hit the pinata even though blindfolded, but they ain’t gonna consistently outperform the principled crafter. Is Chatgpt going to help the unprincipled? Maybe. Maybe not. But it can’t solve the largest issue which is “its not what you say, its how you say it” and, well, that is a human’s job. Chatgpt is only as good as what you say to it.

To end.

Here is a truth. We, humans, actually do our own version of machine learning and algorithms in our own heads. And maybe that is why I feel so confident that hacks, or unprincipled amateurs, will not win because Chatgpt is optimized almost like if you can sync the individual machine learning with the Chatgpt machine learning – maybe call it an alliance of mental technology. This may sound weird, but the brilliant will find a healthy symbiotic relationship with Chatgpt while hacks will become parasitic to it (the former is better than the latter). And therein lies a Marshall McLuhan thought. The medium shapes us and if it is shaping something built to be shaped, i.e., “I am aware of my own internal Chatgpt, the more likely good shapes occur”. As a corollary, the stupid become stupider (or their output just seems more off & off) and eventually the non-stupid will notice. Yeah. What I am suggesting is a bit counterintuitive, Chatgpt will make the stupid stupider and the intelligent intellegenter. Ponder.

————

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

Emerson

===

“Work, when its right, is a chance to collect the best sides of ourselves into something that is slightly more solid than the more fragile parts of our lives.”

Alain de Botton

===

Let me tell you what’s on my mind as we head into 2023 and whether we, as people and a society, have any chance of “pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society.”

Which leads me to say I worry the world is getting stupider on a daily basis.

Ok. Not really. I imagine we are actually getting smarter every day, yet, the overarching public narrative just seems stupider every day – I mean that on a macro and micro level. It sometimes feels like smartness is whispering and dumbness is shouting. All of this dumbing down seems to center around real feelings of uncertainty, lack of answers, a cacophony of opinions suffocating facts and a general tension, and conflict, between the reality of complexity and the desire for simplicity. The consequence of all that is while the world is complex and dynamic and confusingly interconnected, we have become convinced simplicity is the key to, well, everything. We wield “simplicity is elegance” like a dull axe in a world demanding a scalpel. The truth is almost all hope, and possibilities, resides in managing complexity (if not the complicated) while fear and misguided action (including non-risk taking) thrives on simplicity. Within the wretched hollow in between resides much of the current narrative, and thinking, conflict. At this rate we have zero, null, nothing, maybe even less-than-zero chance of contributing any meaningful benefit to society.

Which leads me to my hope for 2023.

We should have more hope and possibilities than we could ever imagine. The more complex, the more uncertain, the more opportunity to not only imagine, but hope that what we imagine may truly be, is actually possible. Yes. Increased connectivity and interdependence actually increases the likelihood that we can shape a future we desire. We should be striving to inject more hope and possibilities into life, lives and society. We should be stripping away the fear infringing upon the possibilities.

The answer to this challenge, at least to me, resides in some intellectual aspects, i.e., what is going on in within mindsets, how we think and how we approach these things. So let me share what I believe would help us moving forward in 2023 to improve upon our hope and possibilities.

• Issue one. over-simplification

Suffice it to say we have devolved into a society of sound bites, binaries, memes and over simplification.

In business it seems to be all about simplicity.

In everyday Life it is ‘summarize it for me’ or ‘it’s simple <insert some explanation here>.’

In leadership it is just, well, dumb. Say some dumb unnuanced shit about things that truly demand some smart thinking and nuance.

In the end I can’t figure out if should be pointing the finger at us or them.

• Them because they think we are not capable of understanding some form of complexity and therefore they only offer up simplified versions of what needs to be done.
• Us because we either <a> demand a sound bite under the guise of ‘we only have time for the headline’ or <b> we only latch on to the fragment of the whole which we convince ourselves summarizes the whole.

Pick your superficial poison because I will point the finger at all of us and them.

Here is a Truth everyone really knows <albeit hesitant to admit>. Most things are just not that simple. An effect can have multiple causes and a cause can have multiple effects. I say this despite the fact naturally we would like all the dominoes to line up one after another and when one falls the next naturally is impacted and falls. We like linear “if this, then that” stuff and in today’s world if it doesn’t equate to that we begin thinking someone is hiding something from us and we begin to get suspicious about everything. Add in that we have convinced ourselves that we need to start by doing one thing and just do that one thing well. All of that is not only absurd, but unhealthy for a working society.

Life and things don’t really work that way. Maybe in a controlled test environment, but, in real Life, events are typically bombarded from a variety of directions and while not all ’causes’ are created equal <some can impact more than others> most things are too complex to be simplified into ‘one thing’ and I can unequivocally state no solutions can be simplified into ‘one thing.’

• Over simplifying simply means ignoring complexities.
• Over simplifying simply means being consciously, or choicefully, ignorant.
• Over simplifying simply means trouble in the long run.

Heuristically this simplistic bullshit (often just some fortune cookie wisdom) eases you through the moment only to have to doubly (or exponentially) invest energy later on to deal with the mess you ignored in the past. Instead of dumbing things down to some simplistic sound bite we need to raise the level of general understanding & knowledge (sensemaking) to the level of complexity of the ideas & systems and <frankly> the world in which we live within. I mean, seriously, Life isn’t simple so what makes us think over simplifying will offer solutions?

Anyway. Factually, seconds of involvement <sound bites> versus minutes of involvement <deeper complex discussion> has a direct relationship to degrees of real knowledge,  i.e., seconds leads to shallow knowledge or let’s call it ‘less knowledgeable’ and minutes lead to something deeper. This suggests our love of oversimplification is a direct result of our ongoing belief there is not enough time to do everything we want to do. This is crazy. Nuts in fact. Oversimplification only gives us the appearance of effective time management and certainly doesn’t translate into effective progress. Why? Oversimplification under-assesses complexity, rarely demystifies uncertainty and is not particularly helpful in creating a foundation so that we can successfully rethink that which ‘is’ to find a path to “what we would like to be” (which is kind of a version of ‘future-proofing’ your Life).

Look. What I am suggesting is difficult, but it is certainly more effective in creating a better world. This means less ‘The Secret’ philosophy and more real thinking. Less positive attitude inspiration and more hard work behavior aspiration.

The fate of hope and possibilities lies in balance if we don’t invest in the hard work of ‘non over simplification’ because I can guarantee we will not solve any of the problems through simplicity.

“A game is a machine that can get into action only if the players consent to become puppets for a time.”

Marshall McLuhan

• Issue two. being intellectually insightful is about hard work.

Generally speaking, I don’t think people – including the younger generations – dislike working let alone hard work. Most people know work demands, well, working hard (at least occasionally). The issue we begin to run into is “doing the work” (rote, replication, doing what is asked) and “thinking through the work” (being smarter about what we do). Thinking and ideas are a dime a dozen, but good thinking & good ideas take hard work. I would suggest that good ideas cannot be decided by number of tweet votes in favor of.

Life and ideas is not American Idol or even some twitter poll. We are not all judges <and probably shouldn’t be on American Idol either>. Good ideas are rarely popular. In fact, as Howard Aiken said: “Don’t worry about people stealing an idea. If its original, you will have to ram it down their throats.” This really means that being intellectually insightful requires more than a surface ‘this is what I think’ tweet popular vote. If we really want to do what needs to be done to maximize hope and possibilities, we have to hunker down and work hard. Work hard in that we need to reassemble the present (knowledge) & rethink things by using all aspects including economic thought and philosophy and the past – all of which means dealing with ambiguity and contradiction. To be clear. I am not suggesting using what worked in the past. I am suggesting the future is yet to be designed and it will take all of our knowledge – past, present, possibilities/imagination – to create the future we desire.

And while you may balk at something like ‘intellectual insightfulness’ as too far reaching, suffice it to say, we just need to be smarter, less ignorant, more enlightened <open to additional thoughts> and more involved in the difficult and uncertain work of demystification of things and, well, just plain rethinking shit.

• Simply talking about world-changing ideas will not make the world change. Changing the world takes work, really really hard work.
• Simply having a positive attitude ain’t gonna work. Hard work will work. And in this case, I mean hard thinking.
• Simply ‘doing’ aint gonna cut it. We need to be smarter. And whether you think about thinking this way or not, it ain’t about staring off into space doing nothing, thinking is a blue collar job. It’s about work.

Issue three. innovation is not <just> technology.

Innovation is the lifeblood of not only business, but society & Life. It is the path to bettering lives. Period. Therefore, it demands we ‘consent to the highest thought.’ That said. For some reason we seem to be associating innovation with technology and just technology. Maybe worse we have begun thinking technology will solve everything <in some distant future>.

This type of thinking is lazy, not consenting to the highest thought.

This type of thinking leads us to possibly believe technology innovations will eventually solve all problems and maximize everyone’s Life as some point.

This type of thinking is called “technological determinism” and it is a very very dangerous path to walk on.

It’s a very dangerous idea because in reality if we focus just on technology as the solution, we may be preventing the real change we need and are certainly subjugating people, and human needs, to something – technology – that has no emotional investment in us as a human race.

Minds need to innovate too. Thinking and attitudes need to evolve and innovate.

New thought systems, economic systems and systems in which people live, eat and breath all need to evolve and, yes, that happens through innovation <whether technology is involved or not>.

Technology is simply a path that runs parallel to culture <or society> and each needs to be run at the same pace <or at least be run side by side on occasion>.

A truth is that technology outpacing society simply exacerbates the flaws and limits of the slower runner. If a problem is endemic to a system, then we run the risk that technology simply amplifies the problems. Technology and culture are entangled. Technology and people are entangled.

Technologies may enable new ways of doing things (not just doing but thinking) and this effects culture. I would suggest we flip that equation and say if we want to maximize technological innovation, we should innovate cultural/society structure and seek to augment it, to maximize its potential, through technological innovation.

At the moment it seems like we respond to technology rather than proactively drive technology.

Technology has certainly dramatically improved the overall quality of life. The paradox is that the system we have now may make amazing new technology possible, but at same time is creating such cultural conflict that maximizing technology toward a societal ‘what could be’ seems impossible.

We need to innovate the systems in which technology exists: economically, culturally, and philosophically. We need to intellectually innovate as a human race.

“Their most hopeful vision of the future is centred around compassion not convenience, emotional not artificial intelligence. The path towards this vision seems to require little technical innovation; it demands simply that people care about people – an idea so laughably naïve, yet so radically transformative.”

Kai

So. 2023.

Businesswoman changing reality of drought to spring season

Look. Hope and possibilities abound in today’s world, but they are rarely just given; they need to be earned and they demand consenting to our highest level of thought.

We need to begin rebelling against simplistic binaries and embrace the complex and nuanced truths that will move us forward. We cannot afford to be lazy thinkers. For in this type of laziness lurks ignorance and it is ignorance we should fear — not any ideological argument or technological innovation which inserts itself into our daily lives. And maybe that would be my hope of a cultural resolution for the new year: consent to avoid lazy thinking. For somewhere within that maybe we begin to create the fountain of energy that pulses on with waves of benefit to the borders of society. Ponder.

——-

“Consent yourself to be an organ of your highest thought, and lo! suddenly you put all men in your debt, and are the fountain of an energy that goes pulsing on with waves of benefit to the borders of society, to the circumference of things.”

———

==

“The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for a free and independent life.”

Claude Bernard

==

“The accumulation of machines transforms the economy.”

Jean Marchal

==

Losing access to water for 3 ½ days because of a burst pipe reminds you of how dependent one’s life is to many structural things of what we may call “the machine of life”. It also is a harsh reminder of the fragility of the everyday structure of life. Yeah. I have clearly understood that everything is connected with everything and is kind of banal to suggest everything is reciprocally dependent, but when it becomes reality it makes you reflect a bit more about the dependence of ‘things,’. You ponder just a bit more that everything is a piece, of a piece, and consequently, when one piece slips everything is modified and can actually threaten the whole structure and activities.

It was Marx who stated the more we advance into the new world, the more is economic life dependent on technical development. Life has almost become dependent upon the machines of life; kind of an insane skunkworks of progress. This gets exacerbated with the uncomfortable truth that as we, humans, derive our lives through increasing independence (skills associated with our economic progress) that farther our skills, focus and understanding draw AWAY from the machines of life. Our lives have become almost completely independent of the machines which, cruelly, are the origins of our independence. Yeah. Our own power and success and growth has no direct relationship with use of the machines. In an odd way machines offer the structural value from which we leverage our ‘transactional value’, but as we pursue our Life’s transactions, we have devalued the structure in place – until the structure is gone or broken. It is at that point that many of us, useless participants in the fixing or running of the structural machine, realize our value creation is threatened or modified and we are dependent upon (a) the machines and (b) the managers of the machines. Our relation with the machines of the world comes into a harsh light of reality and, well, its not pretty.

Everyday social and economic applications are made possible by technology, which is part of the machine structure, as well as the machine infrastructure in totality which makes life chug along. The machine is the most important unspectacular aspect of all of human’s activities including, but not exclusively, productive activity.

The machines, and the mechanization of life, are maybe not only the enablers of existence, but I imagine one could argue every advancement in the machine structure is existence itself – at least in most modern societies. Everything the machine structure touches transforms the humans and the human world. Machines and the machine structure have become a social necessity. but they also structure labor and has economic repercussions. The water flowing into every home and every apartment and every business is, well, planned, therefore, its lack of flow has become unplanned. Human freedom to pursue wealth and their lives really has no existence except to the degree that we are subject to the degree that machine conditions permit the means to be discovered. Which leads me back that ‘unplanned’ thought. To neglect the machine context of humanity is to live in a dreamworld, yet, we do so – all the time. Freedom is a condition of the machines. Yeah. Me. The guy who talks about humancentric and humans driving progress just said that. It is a bit humbling to be reminded that while many of us espouse that humans are at the center of all progress, that humans are often not the dominant variable in that progress and the reality is much of or existence can exist only in relation to not only other people, but the machine infrastructure. And maybe that is my point today. Water, computers, the internet, electricity … they provide us certain degrees of freedom to pursue many of the things in life. Let’s call them “the condition for a free and independent life.”  When they get modified, even maybe in some smallish ways, everything else gets modified – even us, even daily life. Ponder.

===

“The coming struggle for power will increasingly turn into a struggle over the distribution of and access to knowledge; not just consumption. Power seekers’ will use this struggle to further their power ambitions. While mass media could have been seen as sweeping generalized manipulation of attitudes and beliefs, technology is using fragmentation to have those with power divide and conquer.”

Alvin Toffler, 1981

===

It is too simplistic to suggest any society, or nation, is divided. The reality is that society, and communities, have become fragmented, each isolating into its own cocoon of mindsets, attitudes, beliefs and even performative metrics (proof). If we step back, this is a natural consequence of years of rhetoric and unhealthy narratives. What else would we do after years of businesses suggesting business was a war and the other businesses were out to get us and it was a battle of us versus them, kill or be killed. Or your church is telling you only you will go to heaven and everyone else is designated for hell (or heathens). Or some Cause suggests it is Armageddon if you do not agree with them and if you don’t you are part of the problem. Even issues like climate change, abortion and vaccinations have become battlegrounds of us versus them. And the politicians, well, they are an onslaught of ‘the other party is evil and will destroy this country” or “that country is evil and out to destroy us” or whatever us versus them derivative they can create. Each, individually, divides, and each contribute to fragmentation. There are two main consequences to all this which leads to the creation of smaller groupings, communities, of like minded people:

• –         The more dividing issues occur, the more complex the world seems and the more inept, or unable to contend with, any centralized center of power is, which leads to decentralization (of everything) which only compounds the sense of lack of coherence.
• –         From a whole cloth perspective this cacophony of dividing creates an overall sense that everything is out of control and the world is spiraling downwards into the depths of despair (this is the roots of cultural despair).

But then we get too technology.

Technology, in and of itself, is nothing. Without people, without people generating content, it is a passive tool regenerating itself to its own purposes. Yet. Once humans become involved technology begins to amplify – amplify divides, fragments, communities and tribes. It is within the fragmentation aspect in which we begin to pause on the benefits of technology with regard to society. The fragmentation, the phrasing of ideas, ideologies, values, norms and actual ideological commitments just begin to blur the greater truths associated with each. Fragments get emphasized to strengthens pieces of views all the while blurring larger issues and societal coherence. The extension of technology into our lives has only seemed to accomplish the fact that people everywhere sensing their control over their lives slipping away as the world becomes increasingly complex. With that mindset/belief people begin discerning specific scenarios within which they can find meaning, self identification & success and then go about creating a subsystem, a likeminded community, where desired actions and direction are created, further intensified by a sense of their own survival within the larger system. There is a general feeling of remoteness from the centers of decision making so they create their own decisonmaking centers. These choices are supported by a feeling (which becomes a belief) that those in power don’t care what “people like me think” which only increases an increasing sense how little capacity individuals, alone, feel they have to shape events. Individuals recognize they cannot flex power to manipulate any meaningful levers of control, they end up groping around almost desperately for ways to bring back some order and sense to their lives, and inevitably smaller likeminded communities are forged. What ends up happening is that society becomes an interaction between these likeminded communities and their changing micro boundaries at a community level all trying to exist in a macro larger system attempting to shape boundaries and pull levers itself for the collective good. The consequence of this conflict/tension tends to make the likeminded communities only double down and increase close identification with those within that particular group. This means that society has become fragmented and not divided.

To state again, a major part of the issue is that people have come to believe that whole systems are simply too complex to meet their needs or serve their wants. So, they’ve sought to regain control by turning to subsystems, in likeminded communities, less complex relatable groups, in the hope that their interests can be better served and some control is regained over the distant impersonal forces that intrude upon their daily life. Simplistically, people have simply given up on the distant big structures of power striking a “big is threatening” and “small is effective/beautiful” pose. Technology has simply taken a gentle sloping trend rising towards skepticism and doubt, laced with some conspiracy theories, and exponentially made it a steep climb.

This has become a period of cultural despair and creation of likeminded communities is an active response to fight despair. I say that because this smaller group creation is an adaptive response to the problems of complexity; not an abandonment of responsibility. The creation of likeminded communities should not be equated with indifference nor is it an expression of apathy or cynicism. Development of smaller communities is simply a search for new structures around which to organize scenarios and which the individuals’ micro needs can have macro consequences. I highlight this to make two points:

• –         This is active participation in society, not a passive reaction. These people are not retreating, they are going on the offensive toward things they actively care about. This is important if we attempt to engage with a collective future in mind. As with any self-decentralization if we seek to regain some centralization or, at minimum, coherence, the fragmented communities must be solicited with sincerity, not disdain or a belief they are not ‘smart enough’ to know better.
• –         Technology feeds on active participation. This is more a warning than it is anything else. If a likeminded community ‘feels’ something, the internet will feed that feeling until it hardens into a belief. It will also actively feed other likeminded people into that community. Contrary to opinion, technology can create blindness and will actually encourage people to go blind.

Which leads me to proof in a complex world.

In order to have some legitimacy and just survive within the larger system the likeminded communities construct scenarios, assume responsibilities, and assign analytics to everything they are involved in. In other words, likeminded communities have their own analytics, they have their own narratives and, unfortunately, sometimes they have their own facts. In fact, the larger the macro societal crisis the more likely it will involve a shift at the subgroup level performance criteria that they will attach to their own legitimacy. This expanded use of metrics may dispose people to rethink what has long been taken for granted and decide to shape their own performance criteria themselves. I would be remiss I remiss if I didn’t point out that media plays a role in subgroup performance criteria development. For example, what Fox News cites is important can often become a community criteria. This criteria becomes a measurement for the larger system – even if the larger system may not have the same criteria. So, while the larger system may actually be quite effective in totality, if not the very specific issue at hand, the performance analytics are not aligned and the conflict only creates further dissonance between the groups and the system.

Technology is the ally and the enemy.

Information should be intrinsically beneficial to society and, yet a fragmented flow of information and communication results in increased knowledge AND fragmentation. Technology plays a role in where we go from here, but first, people need to think about the future they desire which, typically, rests on the most fundamental assumptions we make about reality. In the present competitive view of the world, we often think that the most capable are those who are the most competitive, and accordingly that competition creates and secures long-term viability. On a societal level, we have essentially adopted a zero-sum dynamic behind most of the things we do. This separates everything, and everyone, into a binary 0/1, yes/no, good/bad, this way/that way design world (software, algorithms, business individuals and even countries). This current design belief has only made the divide between winners and losers constantly grow and this polarization leads to radicalization (of ideas, opinions, behavior) and, well, society does not benefit. A fragmented society is not one that will effectively build a future good for the collective whole.

We do need technological advances, but our humanity and society must develop at the same speed as technology develops. As our technological ability to impact the world is radically scaling up, our human ethical choices as to how to implement that power must scale up accordingly.

The solution resides in being able to see clearly.

It may be difficult for a likeminded community, from all views within a healthy community, to recognize that humanity – even theirs – is lagging our technology. It may be difficult for a fragmented society, specifcally the smaller communities themselves, to see beyond their loose talk about obsolescence and the rot at the core of our society and institutions and business when the existence of that community may be grounded in some apocalyptic view about every systemic crisis. It would behoove each of these smaller communities to understand it stretches credibility to extend each individual systemic indictment to the entire structure of business, government, justice, and institutions. Every debatable action does not demand some mandate to destroy the entire system and every disappointment or concern about the larger system is not a mandate to shrink away to a smaller community mindset. We need some optimism, not just in humanity, but in the grander systems and institutions. Not blind faith, but optimism. I always recommend reading Rutger Bregman’s Humankind to remind everyone about humanity. I recommend for the ‘We’, those who seek to find solutions to what seems like a dysfunctional society, we need to recognize the difference between fragmentation and divided because the solutions are different for each. Divided is about building bridges and fragmentation is about building coherence. Ponder.

—-

“There is a mysterious cycle in human events.
To some generations, much is given.
Of other generations, much is expected.
This Generation has a rendezvous with destiny.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

—-

In 2009/10 I developed an idea called Project Global Generation which was an online education initiative for 4-8ish year olds. The idea was grounded in some behavioral trends I believed would guide this cohort of young people:

• Global generation: as a group inextricably linked to smart technology and the web they would tend to incorporate a more global view on issues (understanding, awareness, etc); I named them the Global generation
• Community individualism: as a group more aware of the entire world they would learn to optimize the importance of self and the importance of community (or being part of a collective, which impedes or inspires progress); I named this mindset Community Individualism

I am revisiting what I wrote in 2010 in this piece <the bulk of this is exactly as I wrote it in 2010> because I have become increasingly confident that ‘community individualism’ is at the core of many discussions taking place with regard to the future (of business, of society, of humans).

Which leads to me to where both of those above ideas began.

It actually began with the fact I do believe generations are cyclical (this is the 4th Turning analysis from Strauss & Howe) and a personal analysis of past generations in which I came to my own conclusion of what I believe the next generation will “look like.” To be clear. This is an attitudinal idea and not some marketing mumbo jumbo wherein I suggest targeting some age group with some simplistic platitudes. I do believe in generational cohorts shaped by events and experiences of which constitutes actual events as well as attitudinal aspects of other generations (shaped by what they experienced). Any discussion of generations almost has to incorporate some cyclical aspects from which you can see some similarities in etrms of experienced attitudes and differences based on actual event experiences. Oddly, despite naming the Global Generation before GenZ arrived on the scene I now find myself stuck in odd arguments of what GenZ is and is not. Why call it The Global Generation?  Globally there should be an exponential growth in creativity (toward environment as well as science and thinking) as the “global mind” seamlessly shares ideas and thinking. While I will never suggest this ‘global mind’ won’t have conflict, I do believe there will be unprecedented knowledge sharing (which should lead to some version of Enlightenment).

I call it the Global Generation because while I believe current generations are paving the way for the capability of sharing global innovation & thinking <and at certain times & places it is actually happening quite successfully> it will be the upcoming generation which will benefit – and be global in attitude & behavior.

Which leads me to “The Global Generation and Owning a Contradiction: Community Individualism.”

To make this idea be its most effective, the concept has to embrace the contradiction. Community, a pluralism type idea, and Individuality of choice, a strength in “one” to make a difference type idea. Therefore, this concept needs to enhance the sense of global community and encourage local individual choice to encourage belief that a global community is actually made from the strength of individual choices (and the global community respects local choices as long as it stays within an overall respect for life & environment construct).

The strength of this concept lies within the circular strength of the global/local relationship. The premise behind community individualism resides in one word: Convergence. Convergence of the right generation with the right mindset being in the right place with the right enabler tool.

The Global Generation, and this mindset, will occur as the synthesis of the convergence between an enabler (the web) and an attitude (the right generation). The Global Generation will arise from the momentum of smaller generational variables (the attitudes and beliefs of the boomers, genXers and Millennials) with the added impact of a technological innovation. I believe this generation will be Individual voices raised to a collective “global roar” of not social pluralism, but rather a values/principles based global pluralism.

The current older generations spiraling divisiveness (with its vocal extreme niches) will provide an opportunity for the Global Generation to attain a balanced belief profile (or assessing the truth).

To me, the Global Generation is a fulcrum generation (or call it a transitional one if you prefer) for future generations. In the existing generational environment, there is a growing abdication of individual responsibility as we fall back into a consensus mindset (this is reflected often in a growing concern or interest in community and localness). As events unfurl and the Global Generation has the opportunity to grow up within this environment, we should see a shift into “empowered individual responsibility” (of which we see signs of it creeping into the tail end of the Millennial generation).

Which leads me to say why Millennials are not the ‘global’ generation.

I don’t think Millennials CAN be truly global because of too many existing attitudes as well as technology is still advancing and they are still embracing the innovations. That said, here is why I believe it will be the generation following Millennials.

The Global Generation is the crossover, or transition, generation in the swing between “me-ness” and “we-ness”. I believe this generation will own a contradiction: Community individualism.

And they will bring about a cultural change in the way we perceive and use our natural environments and how we treat each other globally. To give them credit, Millennials and GenXers have set them up to be in this position.

• Why I believe this: Tapping into the Subcurrent

Just as Strauss and Howe outline generational cycles I believe there are also subcurrent cycles. The one most relevant to the Global Generation theory is that of cycles of community and individualism. And this cycle relationship creates a multi dimensional aspect by existing as a focus within a generation as well as a within a lifetime of a generation. What I mean by this is that on one dimension generations on a whole swing back and forth between a comfort in collective or community culture and individualism (or “me” focused). On another dimension or the dynamics of that same feeling within the life of a generation (meaning maybe it was all about me when I was younger but ‘me’ starts looking at ‘we’s’ and our collective experiences as elders).

Strauss and Howe articulate this concept much more intelligently, but I have dumbed it down for my purposes. Interestingly, as 4^th Turning outlines, this individual/community relationship actually converges to create a mindset/attitude within this post-millennial generation and appears to have an opportunity to balance them. This balance, should it be achieved, provides the potential for a global ‘values’ platform (value everyone’s different values) for the generation.

The post millennial generation (The Global Generation) will have been preceded by the two extremes of community and individualism.

• GenXers are the “me” generation. Focused on maintaining the strength of their individuality (maybe without the rebelliousness as they get older) borne of their youth. As they “grey” they will better understand the importance of community strength in addressing big issues, i.e., “maybe those big issues are better solved by the larger group then by us few extreme voices” but their individuality is at the core of their being.
• Millennials are the “we” community generation. Consensus and group dynamics and openness are attributes of this generation. Having seen the power of the group/community in their youth they will begin edging into understanding the voice of individuality as they ‘grey’.

Both prior generations will have explored global issues and both will have lived thru ignorant conflict (and felt there had to be something better). In addition, the continuing unrest & seeming imbalance globally <and in some cases regionally> will make the concept of balance a topical issue in Global Generation households (therefore it will be a known concept). The Global Generation will benefit from what the prior generations couldn’t figure out how to do on their own.

• Why I believe this: The converging aspects: the enabler and the enabled (vocalizing versus learning)

As suggested earlier, I believe the web is the key tool which will enable the Global Generation. Each prior generation has been progressively more understanding of the web as a knowledge platform and progressively better at maximizing the platform (I actually believe Millennials will probably demand some knowledge or accuracy standards as they get older and take on the reins of the web). GenXers will have seen the power of the individual voice or minority voice (both good and bad) and will be receptive to an accurate and accessible knowledge platform.

If you combine the physical asset (or infrastructure to support a global transfer or platform for knowledge and information) with the behavioral aspects of generational tendencies, you see the potential for a convergence where individual/country cycles converge to sync into one time and one place. Similar to a sun being blocked by the moon this may be a once in a long while convergence before spreading out again into individual orbits. It just appears to me that we have an opportunity to influence attitudes before everyone goes back to their “orbits”.

I believe it is clear the advent of the web globally (and by globally I mean access to all or the majority of local populations globally) has created a common platform that has never existed before. Lastly, while the internet will never create a turning <or have the ability to create a revolution> it certainly has the potential to influence/amplify “turnings” and impact ideological desires.

You can see even now how different generations are attempting to use the web to influence how people think and act. For example, the web has given voice to the minority or splinter groups, allowing voices of divisiveness (or maybe better said voices of the extreme positions) to be expressed and heard on a larger podium/stage. But this also presents an opportunity for the future and the Global Generation.

While other generations will use the web to ‘vocalize,’ I believe the evolving generation will use the web (or at least if someone uses it properly) to “learn”. This collaboration of attitudes, beliefs, mindsets & thinking enables a higher level of intimacy/empathy between cultures and globally dispersed local communities (or maybe, more specifically, individuals). We see this emerging even today (it just has not matured). Not surprisingly, new technology has transformed our worlds – empowering people with access to extensive circles of population as well as connecting in surprisingly personal and intimate ways.

Which leads me to say that I may be putting a lot of pressure on the internet as “the convergence factor” (or the enabler) to create this Global Generation.

Generations are typically impacted by innovations <think Electricity, the Engine, the Car, the TV, Dwarf grain and now the Web>. An innovation can exponentially affect an existing attitude. And innovations “lag” (immediate impact on early adopters who provide input to refine and ultimately majority adopts) so the timing works out to Global Generation being the knowledgeable majority.

So. The thought is that each generation has been progressively gaining more understanding of the web as a knowledge platform and progressively better at maximizing the platform.

An important aspect is that I also believe it will be the Millennials who will (eventually) demand some knowledge or accuracy standards as they get older and take on the reins of the current missing web standards. GenXers’ role will be that they have seen the power of the individual voice or minority voice (both good and bad) and will be receptive to an accurate and accessible knowledge platform.

Once again, the Global Generation will be able to take advantage of a prior generation’s preparation.

To be clear, Millennials will be open to a global community (which is the reason why I believe the Global Generation will be successful as they follow in their footsteps), but they will be the cohort that navigates the mosh pit of the cultural transition issues.

Which leads me to speculate on even the next generation, the post-Global Generation, and what I call the Enlightened Individuality Generation.

If I were to guess <sticking with the turnings and archetypes> I would guess the generation after the Global Generation would begin the “separation” aspects seeking clarification of geographical community versus global community. I believe the Aftermath of Convergence, or The Global Generation Legacy, will be how their mindset will affect behavior, i.e., Community Individualism leading to Enlightened Conflict.  This balance of community and individuality will permit this generation to better accept and respect the choices made by individuals globally and yet strengthen local communities (I actually believe that will be represented by strengthened country patriotism). The community aspect will definitely lead to some cultural or geographical driven conflict yet the respect for individual choices elsewhere will balance the conflict within a “values set of rules.” I believe all of this is a good healthy thing. Especially if the Global Generation has sought out and wrapped their arms around a common respect and a larger sense of tolerance or common “rules of the road” to conduct interaction – or conflict – as more distinct geographical individualism reemerges.

Which leads me to what does all this mean?

Assuming I am right alignment of all these factors creates a window of opportunity. Generations are not set by birth, but by accumulated experience over a lifetime. As Millennials will deal with all the crises we have and see, the Global Generation will deal with the aftermath. I also believe the uncertainty/angst we are current experiences will clarify some things, in particular the importance between ignorant conflict and enlightened conflict, for the Global Generation. Therefore, I imagine it comes down to what we want to do before the window closes and what we do to enhance “accumulate experience.” In my mind with the promise of this Global Generation we need to foster the intercultural dialogues, lessons, transferal of ideas and beliefs and feed a globalized intellectual curiosity and awareness.

In our thrust to be analytical, impartial and scientifically rigorous we may have lost the values based pluralism aspects for educating future generations to ensure the protection of humanity. The reality is that anyone in almost any country can see or meet through the internet with anyone anywhere and I believe this Global Generation will increasingly recognize the differences between us simply stepping stones in trying to get to the same place with similar dreams. Access to technology will create a situation where children globally will have access to similar information and knowledge (and will be communicating with each other in a fashion where country borders are irrelevant).

We need to ensure that generation in its youth is not overwhelmed by the enormity of the global problems and insure they understand their actions will have an impact.  This “understanding” encompasses environmental responsibility, social resilience, community connection and actionable knowledge towards a sustainable future (environmentally and societally).

In the end.

To be clear. I do not believe I, or anyone, could manage the moment of this scope, but it may be possible to influence the moment. In other words, take advantage of the convergence & confluence of factors and influence future behavior and mindsets before the alignment opportunity is closed and cultures begin vectoring out on their own.

At this convergence point in time this Global Generation will begin to truly understand, as a generation and not an underlying minority, it doesn’t matter who believes what, but that we all believe in the preservation of the Earth and its people so we can all continue live comfortably in the future without having to kill each other or kill our resources and that society is made up of individual choices with collective benefit in mind.

Children comprise approximately twenty per cent of the global population, but represent one hundred percent of our future. We should be seeking to create a Global Generation of resilient children who are motivated, have high self esteem and respect for others, basically, seek to foster an enlightened community individualism mindset. I believe in this time, and this place, this Global Generation has a rendezvous with destiny. 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.