===

“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.

===

“Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you.”

Carl Sandburg

===

In a world where we so often talk about time being money I am surprised we don’t see this quote more often.

Oh.

Sorry.

I know why. Because it suggests you control your time and popular wisdom suggests that our time is out of our hands (and that there is not enough of it).

Carl suggests a different perspective.

Time is currency in your wallet and just like that ten dollar bill you have a choice how and where and when to spend it.

I am sure there has been a book written suggesting this, but suffice it to say thinking about time as money in your own wallet that you have to spend (and earn) is actually a useful thought.

It’s bigger than “time management” and closer to “time budgeting.”

Anyway.

A similar thought <which I liked> is time spent is not distance covered. I don’t know who wrote this, or said this, but it seemed appropriate here.

How we use our time is a discussion I am fairly sure we will never tire of.

Well. We may tire of it but we will never stop discussing.

Mostly because we worry whether we are using it wisely, or efficiently or whether we even have any control of our own time at all. In addition many of us assess our time investment by ‘distance covered’ <distance being defined by any variety of something tangible so that we can have some type of ‘measurement’>. In fact, we use measurement in some fairly absurd ways to judge time.

Look. I see many <many> people spending the coins of their life, not flippantly for sure, but I question whether they do so wisely. There is more time spent on … well … time … than almost anything else I can think of. People, websites, apps, far too many other things to list, all telling you how you should spend your time, on what, and how, and for what. So many people being told HOW to invest their time.

But it’s your money. Do you really want others spending it?

Sure.

We all have responsibilities but at some point, I admit this may be a selfish perspective, if I only have ten dollars of time I sure as hell do not want to let someone spend all ten dollars for me.

To be clear, whether I really know what I am talking about what I do know for sure is that Carl makes a valid point.

One which I believe is worth thinking about. Ponder.

======

In the scenery of spring,

nothing is better, nothing worse;

The flowering branches are

of themselves, some short, some long.

Ryōkan

==

1st day of Spring. I have always had this crazy idea that we should celebrate the first day of spring instead of New Year’s Eve.

I say that because I sometimes find it odd we celebrate new year’s day which seems to be associated with regrets and leaving ‘things’ behind and ‘starting anew’ as if you completely throw out the old and start with a clean slate <which sounds good but is not really possible>.

And, yet, Spring is actually all about new from existing, growth from that which is and, well, hope <not regret>.

To me, as nature begins to throw off the cold thoughts of winter and days get longer, it seems natural to think of possibilities. And <returning to my crazy thought on ditching new years’ eve> it seems like it would also be much easier to become the change we seek in ourselves in Spring than when you are in the dead of winter and you have to fight off not only last year’s regrets but the grayness and coldness of winter days.

Spring abounds with, well, a life to come.

==

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;

Man never Is, but always To be blest:

The soul, uneasy and confin’d from home,

Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

==

Spring begins what could be called the narrative of hope.  The narrative can be religious or philosophical or both intertwined. Regardless. The narrative revolves around a speculation of what could be.

This I am today.

That I will be tomorrow.

I say this knowing full well that speculation is not an end in itself.

Speculation must involve some meaningful application.

While you have hope for growth in a belief of freshness and emerging growth from what already exists, you have to water the plant <you get the metaphor>. You have to do some shit in order for all the ‘hope shit’ to happen.

Spring isn’t about putting aside old habits and things it is about using them as stepping stones to grow and move forward.

I would argue that Spring helps us with hope because it suggests possibilities. This is good because far too often hope tends to stunted in pragmatism.

In other words, fulfillment of hope is much much easier in spring then in the dead of winter.

Behaviorally speaking, the pragmatic constructs of life and improvement seem much colder and stricter and harsher and less attainable in the winter.

And, yet, those same pragmatic constructs of life seem more open and warmer to adapting to change in the onset of spring and, most importantly to attitudes & behavior, more attainable.

And, yes, I do believe pragmatism and possibilities have a symbiotic relationship.

Now.

While you actually have to do some shit to make change and growth happen, Hope is a pretty powerful thing. Hope, which actually offers nothing more than mere speculation, actually provides us with the very basis of living.

Seriously.

Think about it.

What is existence without the hope for a better tomorrow or expectation of things to come?

<answer: not much>

We long for meaning which is certainly intertwined with hope — a hope for being as good as we can. A hope for being better today than I was yesterday and better tomorrow than I am today.

All that said.

“Dum spiro spero”

(While I breathe, I hope)

Alexander Pope

As long as we breathe, hope breaths.

Spring is about, well, breathing. Breathing life into hopes & dreams.

I would argue New Year’s Eve is about suffocation and is grounded in the despair of past dreams.

Ponder that a bit.

How often have you stood on the threshold of a new year looking to discard things <to start anew> and felt this?

                   “From where you are you can hear their dreams.

The dismays and despairs and flight and fall and big seas of their dreams.”

Dylan Thomas

Conceptually, for New Years to exist it means some dreams have died. Yeah. On New Year ’s Eve we put to rest some of our dead dreams … and create new ones.

<please note: I do not believe any dream should die>

On the first day of spring we let the seeds of our dreams burst forth from the ground and grow.

Now that, my friends, is something worth celebrating.

Spring is here.

Hope lives.

Think of the possibilities.

====

“All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.”
Aristotle

===

I am both a complexity person and a “cause & effect” person. I believe all actions have a stimulus in some form or fashion. Yes. All actions. That said, I also know unwinding a usual complex interconnection of things to isolate a specific cause is often a fool’s errand. But the truth is that something always gets the ball rolling and it is often quite useful to spend some time thinking about causes of things. specifically, I rarely think “man, was that a stupid thing to do” when I see someone do something. Instead my first thought is almost always “gosh, I wonder what made them think that was the right thing to do.” To me that is a useful reflection of cause.

So. If I take that type of thinking and put Aristotle’s thought in place every time you see or hear someone say something, and rather than going ballistic or laughing or shaking your head or whatever,you place one of these into your head:

• Chance
• Nature
• Compulsion
• Habit
• Reason
• Passion
• Desire

Maybe, just maybe, you will generate a more reasonable response to the situation than doing or saying something silly.

I will tell you that I wish more managers (or people managing people) in the business world would try this thinking out when managing people.

Too often I have seen ill considered responses to people’s actions in business environments and it becomes more of a “slamdown” rather than a teaching moment. Or are just plain stupid with regard to this topic (although I like to err on the side of “not investing the energy to teach”).

Cause and effect is any easy thing to grasp and I wonder why managers forget it. Maybe it is because we seem to often get caught up in the “blame game” versus “teaching game” (probably because of the alliteration). Or maybe we get caught up in the complexity narrative and begin thinking there is no cause for any of the effects happening. Either of those two beliefs are less than useful if you want to foster an effective business.

Anyway. There is a Law of Cause & Effect which states that Every EFFECT has a specific and predictable CAUSE and every CAUSE or Action has a specific and predictable EFFECT. I do not buy into that ‘law’, but, as a concept it is useful in exploration. It can be useful because it means that everything that we currently have in our lives is an effect that is a result of a specific cause (or groupings of causes). Simplistically, in a business world, these causes are the decisions we make and the actions we take on a daily basis. Whether our decisions seem small and rather insignificant, or whether they are significant and transformational in nature, does not matter. Each and every decision we have made and action we have taken has set events into motion creating some predictable and specific effects, and some unpredictable and specific events, that we are now experiencing in our lives.

Which leads me to Chance.

The Law’s premise is that life (or any personal action) isn’t built upon accidents, chance or luck. It is rather built upon Cause & Effect. While I think that is a bullshit, absurd, less-than-realistic, thought, I will suggest that for business it has some usefulness. In business you have to believe you can shape your future and destiny in some way or let’s say “nudge chance in your favor” or why be in business at all.

Lastly.

While I simplify cause and effect down to a sound bite “stimulus-response” when teaching high school kids, this thought is really overlooked in personal relationships.

It may be that in long term relationships there becomes such a comfort & routine that you stop paying attention to details or maybe better said “cues” as to what is really going on. Let’s call this “the slippery slope of indifference to stimuli.” In other words, ignoring (or simply overlooking or even being simply oblivious to) the cause ‘cues’ to specific actions and effects. And once you begin to overlook things you run the risk of beginning down that infamous slippery slope.

In the end.

While I began with Aristotle I will end with Harry Potter.

“Humans have a knack for choosing precisely the things that are worst for them.”

Albus Dumbledore

We do have a knack for doing what is worst for us.

We should invest at least a bit of energy wondering why because we aren’t stupid.

I believe it is because we don’t invest enough energy asking “why did this happen?” when we do the ‘worst.’

Instead we choose “precisely the things that are worst for them” and shake our heads and move on.

Maybe if we seek to understand the cause for our actions a little better we could make good ole Dumbledore a little less insightful. Because, well, the answers to our actions are everywhere if you look around a bit. Ponder.

==

“Life is a test of endurance, strengths, challenges and patience.”

Kim Hoth

==

We all have an inner strength that is difficult to assess until you actually have to access it. But we ALL have that inner strength.  A source we would rather never have to tap into, yet, we do — or we will.

It is inevitable in life.

Because Life is nothing if it is not consistent in that it challenges us.

Constantly.

And I also believe most of us are surprised not only by our own capacity when tested, but also certainly when seeing the capacity of the others around us.

I was reminded of this several years ago. The experience reminded me that Life gives each of us different tests and the experience reminded me of perspective — perspective on what is truly a Life challenge versus what we sometimes believe is a ‘challenging life’.

And, once again, in self-reflection, the experience made me wonder “would I be that strong?”

Or maybe more importantly “would I be strong enough?”

In other words, would it pass my limits?

Ok.

Here we go.  Envision this scenario.

(WARNING: this is short … but tough)

Your oldest daughter passes out in the shower at home.

She isn’t breathing.

You, the father, frantically give mouth to mouth while someone calls 911.

She is brain dead on arrival at the hospital.

She is dead the following day.

A blood clot in the brain in a healthy 15 year old young woman.

Dead at 15.

No warning

Your daughter is gone.

And you, the father, couldn’t save her.

—-

(I am taking a break here)

—-

I typed that fast.

I had to.

I type things out of anger.

I type things out of thought.

I type things out of frustration.

I have never had to type anything like that ever before.

And I had to do it fast and not dwell.

The words?

That is what my friend Mike actually experienced several years ago.

Ok. He experienced significantly more, and still is, but from me, someone looking in from the outside that is all I believe I had the right to write.

I cannot envision being in his shoes.

I cannot envision the pain & emptiness.

I cannot envision the depth of helplessness.

I cannot envision the burden.

I am not a godly man.

At least not in the traditional sense.

I say that before I use this quote:

“Life’s a test. I was taught in church that the Lord wouldn’t put more on you than you can handle. But it’s getting heavy.”

Dusty Baker

I used Dusty Baker because Mike & I are not close friends.  We are ‘within work environment’ friends.  And we would seek each other out for our shared love of baseball.

And I imagine that the heaviness he feels today is close to more than he can handle.

“It’s getting heavy” as Dusty suggests. It tests the limits.

I believe we all think life gets heavy on occasion as we face our day to day issues. I know I have faced some things and I know I have felt the heaviness of life. But I have never faced anything like this.

I know, for sure, we shouldn’t measure the heaviness on day to day stuff.

Maybe heavy is this scenario.

And that is the standard. Anything else is just light or a lesser burden.

He and his wife have three more daughters.

Will that lessen the burden?

Shit.

I don’t know.

I don’t know how a father ever leaves the helplessness of not being able to protect, and save, his child.

I am not going to preach here.

I am simply going to remind.

No matter how hard you try to protect someone you love, sometimes you just can’t.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try, but it does mean you should value every day you have.

Regardless. Life is going to test your limits. I am unclear we really know what our limit is until you have to face it. All I know is any time your limits are tested it is something serious. And serious things that test limits do not go away. What I mean by that is the situation may, but the consequences lurk forever. Ponder.

====

self-care is creating a life you don’t routinely have to escape from

===

the words you speak become the house you live in.

===

I’m both better and worse than you thought.

====

“I need to escape for a while.” Yeah. How many times have you said this, heard this or read this? Well. Let me say I have heard this a gazillion times. It becomes the impetus for staycations, mental health days and luxurious vacations. In fact, it has bred a humongous industry (industries) offering solutions to this simple statement (basically leeching off your desire to escape).

Maybe we should take a minute and ponder this simple statement of ‘escape for awhile.’

Should people have to escape and is “awhile,” if you actually do need to escape, even a worthy objective? I imagine the answer to the latter is obvious. It isn’t. It’s not an escape, it’s simply a break. But this isn’t about what is a worthy break and what isn’t, this is about why we believe we have to escape at all.

To be clear. Vacations are fun. Family vacations to Disneyland, Pigeon Forge, the mountains, an event, are all good things. They aren’t really a ‘break,’ they aren’t really escaping, in fact, they are more about leaning into life. Getting engaged with aspects of what makes like meaningful. And maybe that is where I begin making my point.

Leaning in because it is meaningful and escaping because, well, maybe meaning has become a bit more difficult to find if not even just discern. Somewhere along the way, in business, people began needing to escape. I honestly do not know when that began. I struggle to believe it has always been this way. Sure. A shitload of people wanted to escape their lot in life. And many of those people truly should have aspired to being a in a better life than the one they were currently living in. But they didn’t want to escape life, they just wanted to get somewhere else. That distinction seems important.

But isn’t there a deeper problem in society, and in business, if more people are seeking to ‘escape’ life?

Speaking personally, I have maybe only had two professional existential periods where I truly sought to escape. I never needed alcohol or drugs because I can honestly say that I loved working and most of what I did. Sure. I needed breaks, but I never needed to escape. I only share that to say business and society may need to do some serious navel-gazing if a shitload of people are ‘escaping’ through increased addiction, increased depression and increased escapism activities. Maybe the problem isn’t people, but the system itself – which means we should stop offering people ‘ways to improve’ and start offering ways the system could improve. Once again, I point out I am fairly sure this particular type of escapism didn’t always exist. And, yeah, its quite possible that industrialization and specialization (a consequence of industrialization) shifted the systems in ways that made feelings of escapism increase, but I also tend to believe that industrialization itself could be crafted in ways that don’t actively encourage escapism. I also believe that industrialization could be designed in ways that don’t actively encourage the need for some of the radical escapism shit that gets thrown at us to fill in the escape gaps – mindfulness mumbo jumbo, life coaches, retreats, motivational exercises and maybe the worst – “productivity hacks” which are this weird “if you work to be more efficient you will have to work less and have more time to escape.” Once again, I would point out that the seemingly unending system coping mechanisms that have arisen are indicators of a larger issue and that maybe we shouldn’t have to embrace the never-ending lists of “things we should do to be better” and rather rebuild the system so we don’t have to seek some unhealthy solutions or always feel a nagging feeling of needing to escape.

Look. I believe the system is a bit screwed up and I believe society doesn’t really have its head screwed on right at the moment with regard to some priorities. And I know the world can be a shitshow sometimes and I know people can be pretty shitty sometimes. Given that escape can seem like a pretty fucking smart thing to do. But maybe, instead, you lean into the shitshow a bit instead of escaping it. Maybe that is the only way the system changes. That said. What I do know for sure is if all of us escape, the system will not change. Ponder.

===

“The human condition can almost be summed up in the observation that, whereas all experiences are of the past, all decisions are about the future. It is the great task of human knowledge to bridge this gap and to find those patterns in the past which can be projected into the future as realistic images.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

===

This is about measurement in business, specifically, about learning and developing a learning organization.

First. Let me say I am dubious of almost all measurement. Why? Because in today’s world everyone is (a) incentive to make a specific measurement usually at the expense, with no cost, of other things that could be measured, and (b) measurement creates objective blindness.

Suffice it to say, if something is going to be measured people will figure out a way of gaming the system to attain whatever is to be measured. Sound cynical? Not really. Its just reality. If you have a system that rewards attainment of things measured you create a culture, society and civilization believing only what is measured is important.

Second. I believe most of the truly important things in business and in life don’t need to be measured because if they are truly important, they will trigger the intrinsic energy with everyone to go out and make those important things happen. As a follow-up to that, yes, there are unimportant things that need to be done. And, no, they don’t need to be measured to make sure they are done (and done well). if you have a system in which intrinsically people attack important things, they will do the unimportant things simply because they know they need to be done.

Third. As Arie de Gues said: “Institutional learning is much more difficult than individual learning.” The individuals know there must be a better way to do the business of doing business and what ‘growth’ should be and, yet, the institution, collecting all that may be important, i.e., what is foremost to the institution itself, warps its ‘directed learning’ toward its wants, not the individuals, and seeks to shape the individual TO what it wants.

Which leads me to learning cannot be measured.

Judged perhaps, but not measured. But that has never stopped us from measuring learning. We try and try and try and then claim it has been measured. I would suggest we do this as part of some devious command and control ideology. What I mean by that is we use those measurements to dominate others and control their actions and behaviors under the guise of “intelligent leading” when it really is in the pursuit of institutional objectives. Regardless. Measurement, or let’s call it ‘performance management’, cause some real issues:

1. Gaming 81% of the time
2. Information manipulation 74% of the time
3. Selective short-termism 55% of the time
4. Give an illusion of control
5. Negatively affect social relationships 81% of the time

While measuring learning has all the appearances of being critical to the learning processes it more often creates results counter to the objectives of the business, i.e., agility to meet emergent opportunities and adaptability to optimize situational needs. In other words, measurement tends to stratify, not make the business more elastic. That said. I would argue you can only ‘measure’ through direct observation of performance or by examination of a ‘conclusion of activity’ that required use of acquired learning (that’s more individual-activated self-learning rather than some L&D initiative).

To make a distinction. While I tend to believe how we measure learning in schools (mostly below college level) is fucked up, I do believe measuring young people’s learning progress, retaining of knowledge and usefulness, is good.

• Source: Measuring Student learning, Cornell Center for Teaching innovation

Anyway. The truth is business learning and rational thinking demands a bit a setting aside the ego; and measurement almost always triggers ego. Learners be open to include a changing, overlapping knowledge of minds/thinking which can come from anywhere at any time. Since a person cannot collect all relevant information if they are to be competent at identifying relevant actions/possibilities, they must to some extent know where to look for the apparently most useful information as well as be open to connectivity within a community of people who knows things they do not.

Which brings me back to business.

Most businesses fear unmeasured learning not because of wasted time, but more so wasted efficiency. What I mean by that is business fears anything that could create a complicated and time-consuming process that less-than-efficiently stitches together all the necessary knowledge/data to decide or do something. The fear is that reality is vague if there are no numbers to create an outline to see (and business fears vagueness). The fear is that any actionable learning is too late to make the optimal impact on financial performance. Look. Learning shouldn’t be judged on efficiency only effectiveness. Learning has no need for logic other than learning is good and therefore learning has no need for measurements other than “am I consistently providing an environment which encourages people to pursue learning.”  I know that sounds like heresy in a business world religiously attached to measurement.  I think of “intelligence” as less to do with “knowing a bunch of stuff” and more to do with figuring stuff out in new and uncertain situations, but that skill is only developed by actually being in uncertain situations full of unknowns. So maybe measurement should be reflective of ‘effective navigation’ (financial performance is an outcome of this done well consistently).

Which leads me to end with Mary Parker Follett.

Follett offered 3 core concepts and five principles to support what she called the “circular reflective learning arc.”

Concepts:

1. thinking in terms of wholes
2. harnessing the creative power of self-organized integrative thinking
3. enhancing our ability to respond to what she called “the law of the situation”

Principles:

1. engaging our internal sense of intention and purpose
2. engaging and learning from the intentions, values, and purposes of others who are different or who think differently
3. designing change through a process of co-creation informed by those differences
4. enacting and acting on those designs where experiences meets experiences
5. adapting and learning from those experiences, the doing, learning about, and living of life itself.

Basically, at the core everything Follett suggests is connective and as part of a community – I AND We. None of it is solely individualistic except possibly self-awareness. I imagine I end here to point out that learning, driven in direction and interest of the individual, combined with that learning forged against other’s learning, is about the only thing truly measurable – outcomes of various situations navigated. But. You don’t measure learning because, well, who knows what learning will be most important in future situations? You don’t. Ponder.

• postcript: there are a number of highly qualified people in my network of friends and acquaintances who absolutely are wrapping their heads around this measuring issue. in particular, Rachel Happe and community measurement, Hilton Barbour on culture, and Jeppe Haansberg on internal networks. I imagine most of them, if not all, would debate me on this issue. And that’s a good thing.

===

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute will overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient.

Edmund S. Wilson (1895-1972) U.S. author, literary and social critic.

===

“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.”
Henry Brooks Adams

===

Back in 2010 when I developed an online children’s education platform, I spent a lot of time defending online education for young people on a variety of levels. One level was passive learning or what I called “learning by lurking.” I argued then, as I still argue, that any web-based platform has the ability to create learning through a unique aspect of web based collaboration which is that given the ease of access there will be active participants as well as passive participants, but all participants are learning. At the time I also suggested that this belief assists in reducing the children out of school numbers, increase literacy and most likely reduce future conflict all through the collaborative aspects of a web-based platform. I still believe all of that.

Which leads me to talk about learning by lurking again because of this article in Neuroscience News, latent learning, where they say “it has been very difficult to diagnose when latent learning is occurring, but this research was able to differentiate between latent learning and what people learn during explicit teaching.”

Let me get a thought out of the way.

I have written a variety of articles on how collaboration is misused in the business world. Misused in that I believe ideas are driven by individuals and collaboration often dulls the edges of individual ideas (under the guise of improvement). On the other hand, the traditional education system is ignoring the benefits of collaboration for learning or maybe better said “the gathering & sharing of knowledge” particularly with regard to the global youth. What I mean is that there is an opportunity within this context where children, utilizing a web platform, could be driving the ideation (versus the current system where teachers facilitate learning and ideation). Yeah. I am suggesting a version of self-directed learning.

Anyway. A web based children’s education, where physical is wrapped around online rather than vice versa, collaboration represents an opportunity because:

1. The existing way we view the education system, based on brick & mortar, is archaic. For a variety of reasons, collaboration included.
2. The existing education system is archaic from a sociological perspective (creating a healthier collaborative mind).

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

unknown author from an education article

It is possible archaic is a strong word, but maybe we should be using stronger words as we discuss education children (and improvements). What I know for sure is the current global education structure misses the opportunity to globalize socialization of knowledge/education. What I mean by that is the existing brick & mortar inherently diminishes some education opportunities because of the face-to-face “clique” challenges. I will come back to that last thought because it is a humdinger of a thought.

• Collaboration and education

Collaboration when discussing the internet is obvious. I am going to avoid the obvious and utilize a twist on the idea by taking advantage of global consumer trends.  Two trends called Casual Collapse and Mass Mingling.

1. Casual Collapse and Education

Casual Collapse is the current seeming ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that have defined specific societies.   And it continues to collapse because of the internet (to be specific – the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge empowered by the internet) and all this is happening without causing any apocalyptic aftermath. This is important because people grow up immersed in consumer culture, but as everyone becomes savvier about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking through a more global perspective. Casual Collapse is not a negative trend (although some people may feel it is), but rather it is indicative of a variety of things. Let’s just say the web is a layer on a natural progression happening – the urbanization of emerging countries.

There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally (in Africa alone in 1980 28% lived in cities while today its 40% – 40 million people). As new arrivals find themselves distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to these alternatives grows, as does their interest. The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone becomes overwhelmingly liberal as soon as they move to the city, but there is a clear trend for urban populations to have more socially liberal and tolerant views on a wide variety of issues.

2. Mass Mingling and Education

I am certainly not suggesting a Global mind nor is the intent to create a “global mind” or even a “Global society.” I am discussing the benefit of a global collaborative education, therefore, I am discussing collaboration as an extension of having a global perspective in solution-seeking.

This is a big difference then creating a global mind. This is about fostering innate curiosity and sharing knowledge where children are then empowered to create their own ‘mind’ within a broad perspective.

So how the heck does that lead, or encourage, collaboration?

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

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

Most dictionaries define curiosity as something like “a state in which you want to learn more about something”, but it is also about being comfortable with uncertainty and not knowing, whilst at the same time being motivated to explore and discover more. It is a human characteristic that as soon as you think you know something with certainty you no longer want to learn more about it, i.e., you are no longer curious. But children are endless vectors of curiosity and it feels like tapping into the infinite online information world permits us to tap into an unfillable well at this age (as long as we nurture it) and expand the finite mind.

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

Einstein

Mass Mingling thrives on curiosity:

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

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

This curiosity needs to be nurtured by teaching children that mistakes are just information and feedback from the real world, letting us know how things are in the real world, and telling us what’s working and what’s not working, what the blocks and obstacles to progress are, and offering cues to opportunities to solve problems and meet needs that other people might have. In this global world children will be exposed to the idea that their mistakes can be the very things that lead you in the new direction that turns out to be way better than you’d previously conceived. To be clear, reprising the theme of this piece, this can be done passively or actively. A child can learn these lessons by lurking or they can learn the lessons by active participation. I would argue permitting children to choose their learning path enhances intrinsic curiosity without dampening it with external forces. But ideas & innovative enlightened thinking does not arise out of a vacuum. It must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment with ideas and products. Original thinking and novel ideas should be affirmed and honored and cultivated. Even if it is simply original/novel in the eyes of the young. Learning shouldn’t be viewed as “difficult and frustrating” and we should have less focus on tests because it equates learning with results.

• The value of Casual Collapse & Mass Mingling

A collaborative group of kids who have learned together, made mistakes together, learned FROM each other and maybe even laughed at, if not with, each other creates stronger respectful individuals within an interacting global community AND local community. It is a fact that education at an early age is indispensable in equipping citizens with the abilities and skills to engage critically, and act responsibly.

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

==

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

(note: this can actually be found in my Global Generation how to make it happen & fund write up).

• Socialization and a web based Education

Beyond collaboration ‘missed opportunities’ let me go back to how brick & mortar is archaic from a socialization perspective. Existing education systems are a breeding ground for a caste system. Kids are brutal in a face-to-face system and, yes, online can be just as brutal in a different way. That said.

Who you are and how you dress and what you say (even the language you speak) becomes secondary to “what you say and what you think” in an online learning community. Sociologically this means that ideas and thinking create the caste system; not physical presence.

• The natural anonymity of online tools frees us from tacit biases or self-doubt and encourages individual leadership.
• Asynchronous tools allow global work teams release from the bonds of time zones to tackle projects with increasing effectiveness and productivity.
• Social networks now become visible through community tools allowing financial, time, human and other organizational assets to be redeployed toward developing innovative approaches to unique problems, rather than reinventing solutions to problems that have been previously solved.

And before someone begins slamming on “decreasing social skills because of the internet” take this factoid:

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

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

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

Which leads me to Learning by Lurking.

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

Such places could even be more than just schools, but genuine hubs for related activities for the entire community. With a global connection to the net – maybe not the net but another layer (along the lines of facebook which is also another layer of net) an education/informational platform awaits to be activated by a mind. Another ‘lurker’ (or maybe better says ‘anonymity’) aspect of the web enabled platform  is that it permits mistakes, maybe some spectacular mistakes, with little or no social repercussions.

Now. Am I suggesting face-to-face social skills aren’t important? Nope. They are. But I would still argue a collaborative learning environment teaches additional social skills. In addition, at its most basic level we are teaching our children the way they need to act within a learning construct at such an early age that when they grow up they will not depart from such behavior because it is ingrained (positively).

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

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

Even prior to a child entering a traditional classroom (should that opportunity exist) there are opportunities to teach them how to interact and ideate with other people in a positive way – actively or passively.

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

When collaboration takes place between people who realize the benefit of smooth working relationships then higher creative achievement and productivity is accomplished. Healthy cross-functional teams working in concert for the greater good eventually translates into efficient operations, regardless of whether in an academic, work, social or home environment. In the end, society benefits from groups performing productively with another. Of course, teaching the basics of all of this at the preschool age means a greater likelihood of kids continuing positive collaboration abilities as they progress in life. And I do believe that the structure of web based schools/schooling with children as young as five or six in which they can express their opinions, share thinking & ideas and ultimately propose their own solutions creates a solid foundation for a ‘community individualism drive/intent’ generation of citizens. It is this kind of attitudinal construct which offers unlimited opportunities for leadership and engagement.  And it is this type of education structure which, by the time those five- and six-year-olds reach an appropriate graduation age, they will have a profound and enduring understanding of what it means to be in a collaborative society and have the ability to contribute within their own community as well as a global level if given the opportunity.

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

And by doing so it mitigates conflicts and adversarial interests without oppression and injustice but rather through expanding brain power. I imagine I am suggesting that even if young only ‘lurk’, and learn passively, the world will benefit. Ponder.

=

“I am not a speed reader. I am a speed understander.”
Isaac Asimov

==

One of my biggest gripes with the world is its obsession with intelligence. This gripe gets compounded with society’s traditional assessment of intelligence tied to traditional education, books read, accomplishments, degrees, awards, etc – and IQ of course. The entire intelligence discussion seems based on the assumption that intelligence is fundamentally intrinsic exposed by being goal-directed, i.e., a feature in and of the individual. We tend to view intelligence as a box everyone walks around with. But what if it isn’t? What if intelligence is subservient to the environment?

Which leads me to speed understander.

It was Alvin Toffler who said “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” In other words, literacy is an ability to absorb learning, and understanding, and adapt. So maybe you don’t do it at ‘speed’ , but you are an evolving understander. And then this is where speed comes into play. I do not believe the world is actually moving any faster than it has ever, even in business, but I will say that the faster you understand something; the faster you can do something. So the only reason the world may appear to be moving faster is that with the ubiquity of most information, the ones who ‘speed understand’ just move faster. Circling back to my opening question, the reality is that their intelligence is contingent to the environment.

Which leads me to reasoning.

‘Reasoning at speed’ is a skill, art and is the fulcrum of bad or good decision making. The human issue isn’t really making decisions, it is more about reasoning. We are always in a finite predicament of having fixed finite limits on our cognitive resources. Sure. Computers and technology can actually augment our cognitive resources (most typically by absorbing some of the data information mashing), but ultimately any speed understanding an individual is capable of isn’t constrained by their intelligence, its constrained by their cognitive limits. Go beyond your cognitive limits and even by reasoning, you can be wrong. This doesn’t mean that we should abandon reasoning, but rather understand the limitations of what we call reason as well as understand the limitations of our, or an individual’s, ability to reason. I tend to believe everyone can reason given enough time, but there will be a spectrum of reasoning abilities based on different time constraints. Circling back to my opening question, the reality is that their intelligence is contingent upon time.

Which leads me to reality.

Reality is unlikely to be as we believe it to be which means that we should approach everything with just a bit of skepticism. When someone says “I understand” maybe we don’t immediately assess intelligence over that. Maybe we see intelligence as a shifting objective as well as shifting asset. Maybe we accept there is a spectrum of ‘understanding’ in that at its most foundational level it is an understanding that the logic ability simply must satisfy the minimal inference condition. Reality IS understanding. In fact, understanding kills false perceptions uncovering reality (which I could argue we need in today’s world more than ever). In fact, understanding is at the core of, well, intelligence because intelligence cannot be captured in any IQ, intelligence is excellent reasoning applied in reality. Circling back to my opening question, intelligence is contingent to reality.

Anyway.

The world is complex and it most likely will not get any less complex and no matter how much we attempt to analyze the complex system hoping to attain some version of singularity (some true alignment) I seriously doubt we, or anyone, will get there. It seems like the best path forward is to increase our diversity of knowledge and skills necessary to adapt in a dynamic, often emergent, fashion. In other words, increase our ability to understand. I do believe the world will be run by speed understanders at some point. Not the speediest, per se, just a spectrum of speed understanders. The people with the ability to absorb emerging knowledge and information which reshapes what they THOUGHT they understood and shapes a new ‘understanding’ which begets some choices, actions and creates progress. But. That’s me. Ponder.

===

“People think of education as something they can finish.”
Isaac Asimov

===

“The big breakthroughs in the history of ideas have been caused by a shift in fundamental assumptions. What tends to follow these shifts is an avalanche of new ideas. This move to a new set of rules is called a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts are often as much about sub-cultures forming around the new assumptions as any abstract ‘truth’.”

John Grant

===

assumptions are sneaky

===

Assumptions are key to managing life. They range, metaphorically, from lily pads to concrete foundations. Regardless of your own definition they offer the basic abilities to craft some ‘certainties’ upon which everything rests. I would argue we are barely aware of most assumptions, but they craft the basis for some inevitability. This, of course, creates a tendency to forecast future events through approximations. For many people that ‘approximation’ steps onto the slippery slope of ‘prediction.’ These ‘predictions’ are premised upon certain spoken or unspoken assumptions which imply some sense of enduring continuation which, as a consequence, imply continuation expectations. If the assumptions get shaken, the expectations get shaken.

Which leads me to the unseen assumptions.

Assumptions as they change are often like tectonic shifts (without the earthquakes). Unseen, and unfelt, a paradigmatic shift creating a fundamental shift in the way that something is understood or approached. It is not simply an incremental change, but rather a change in the underlying assumptions or theories that form the basis of how we see, and believe, about things. These shifts have far-reaching implications to society and how we thrive, or struggle, within that society. Circling back to a prior point, if duration expectations are affected, the general sense to an individual is lack of control and chaos. That said. The majority of assumptions are found below water, not above, and 99% of the time what is above water gives very little indication of what is truly below the water. The majority of people will scan what is floating around and assess that way. The more thoughtful want to know at least something about the parts they cannot obviously see. And the most thoughtful are interested in everything they cannot see even if it takes a lot of time and it is less than simple. I could argue that in Life or in business what we actually do is spend a shitload of time focused solely on the assumptions we can see so we are often late to see the assumptions below changing.

Which leads me to experiences.

One of the most important consequences of fundamental shifts is shifts in experiences – outcomes of the shifts. While fundamental assumptions are tectonic shifts, they actually scramble the details of life and things. They scramble some of the intangibles that are equally important in shaping experience, the information we use and the organizational frameworks within which we live. In other words, they scramble the definitions of things. And once definitions are scrambled experiences become less definable beyond some fairly simplistic abstractions. Ideas that once were clear their outlines become a bit vaguer. A shift in assumption leads to a shift n details which leads to a shift in definitions. Oh. And some people shift slower to new definitions than others.  This is a fairly important point because “experience” is actually a mechanism for the consumption of emotions.

Two apparently contrasting images of the future grip the popular imagination today. Most people to the extent that they bother to think about the future at all … assume the world they know will last indefinitely. They find it difficult to imagine a truly different way of life for themselves, let alone a totally new civilization. Of course they recognize that things are changing. But they assume today’s changes will somehow pass them by and that nothing will shake the familiar economic framework and political structure. They confidently expect the future to continue the present. This straight-line thinking comes in various packages. At one level it appears as an unexamined assumption lying behind the decisions of businessmen, teachers, parents, and politicians. At a more sophisticated level it comes dressed up hi statistics, computerized data, and forecasters jargon.

Either way it adds up to a vision of a future world that is essentially “more of the same.”

Alvin Toffler

Which leads me to emotional reclassification.

I don’t care if you read this as thinking shifts, belief shifts, attitude shifts or even mindset shifts, there is always a cost involved in reclassifying assumptions-to-experiences. Some people will lead the way and some will lag along the way in this reclassification design. New systems will be created for the ‘new’ even while the old systems remain in place for the ‘laggards.’ And while we talk a lot about the limits, or unlimits, of people’s ability to re-educate themselves, maybe we should talk a bit more about what limits systems have. I say that because if laggards lag too far and builders build too far, the systems gets split in an ugly tug of war in which no one wins and the system becomes to fail on its most basic duties. Emotionally, and experientially, we begin to feel the repercussions of the fact fundamental assumptions have shifted – and we haven’t.

To be clear, everything I have shared can be viewed from an individual level, a group/business level and a society level. Why? Because fundamental assumptions are the stepping stones of Life. So, when they shift, everything in the world tilts a bit. Ponder.