====
“We’re making our decisions … or so we think. Yet in truth, ignorance, greed, and the scourge of immediate gratification are often the things that are making them. So if we’re going to truly live well, maybe the first thing we need to decide is who’s deciding.”
Craig D. Lounsbrough====
All of this goes to show that without the initiative that comes from immediate responsibility, ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct. It persists even in the face of the meritorious efforts that are being made to go beyond presenting information and to teach the use of it by means of lectures, classes, discussion groups.
Results are not zero. But they are small. People cannot be carried up the ladder. Thus the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance.”
Schumpeter
====
Technology suffers from nearsightedness. Yeah. I said that even as the technology futurists discuss 5G, metaverse, 
blockchain and more. The trouble is while we get dazzled by some imaginative fantastical futuristic headlines, the reality is most technology business models are driven by lack of imagination and building toward immediate returns and feeding immediate consequences. What I mean by that is every innovative widget they develop is paid for with algorithms that drive immediate returns and immediate consequences. This is the underbelly of an instant gratification economy in that it is fed by (a) drive immediate engagement and (b) exploit human tendencies to engage. In other words, monetize immediacy. This misguided objective setting is exacerbated by purposefully conflating people’s needs and wants by exploiting the wants <not necessarily the needs> and isolating individuals over the collective <i.e., give me what I want even if it may not be best for all’s needs>.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this technology nearsightedness is shared by many industry and policy decision-making leadership. As an example, energy independence today means reaching for whatever energy source exists today. In general, decisions are made to meet existing infrastructure not any future possibilities ignoring longer term consequences with labor patterns, environmental structural issues and even the fact today’s dollars are being invested in structure being outdated on a daily basis. In other words, each dollar is diminishing in investment as soon as it is used rather than investing in future structure which actually increases in value.
But I focus on technology today because they are playing mindbender with time frames to cloak unhealthy short-term consequences. It’s almost like the long-term considerations are too remote in the future <or they are naïve enough to believe “problems solve themselves”> to be concerned at the expense of present-day income/revenue.
The problem with this type of time horizon myopia is that technology is an exponential accelerant versus many other additive accelerants. What that means is yesterday’s 10-year time horizon can often become a 10 month or even 1-month time horizon. This means that time horizons have become so radically altered that having an immediate return/immediate consequence business model simply adds gasoline to an existing fire.
It’s a fault, a shortcoming as it were, in their capitalistic DNA. This fault is an impediment to technology being wholly effective or even truly desirable in a total-value-provided view. This shortcoming infects almost everything they do. Every innovation for the future of technology is cursed with this immediate return myopia. So while they speak of farsightedness and future, they are doomed by economic shortsightedness.
To be clear. This isn’t flawed thinking on their part, it’s a fault, a characteristic of how they think. Flaws suggest 
detracting from completeness <or the best>, fault points to things that actively impair progress from completeness or the best it can be. It is something that exists and inherent to the nature of who they are, what they do and how they think. This fault means technology, and technology businesses, will continuously only offer us empty innovations – empty of real meaningful long-term returns – which will continue to empty, and mar, society as a whole.
Look. They could refuse to think this way. Yeah. Refusal is always an option. It’s just that refusal comes with consequences. If you make a choice, then you’re responsible for the consequences – short & long term – of that choice and they are not willing to accept the consequences. Technology time horizons must be extended but, to be clear, to plan and behave with a more distant future in mind does not mean dictated, prescriptive, strategies and initiatives. I even say that with infrastructure in mind which demands a constructed (efficient & effective) future. Some agility does not demand shortsightedness, it actually demands situational awareness along a continuum of progress points. I would also note that being ‘future-conscious’ is not about having some Purpose. It is actually more likely to contain more transactional elements like integrity to a societal objective and sacrificing some simplistic black & white “cause & effect immediacy” and incorporating some rich & royal hues of expanding thinking and sensemaking.
Anyway.
I believe it was Toffler who stated “every society faces not merely a succession of probable futures, but an array of possible futures, and a conflict over preferable futures.” I would add we should parse this discussion out to ‘want-fit futures’, ‘need-fit futures’ and preferable futures <the latter most likely being some combination of the two former>. In my mind this is not futurism, but rather ‘future-fitting.’ This may sound like I am dancing on the head of a pin, but the truth is we need to fit into a positive possible future and we are more likely to do so if we engage in the belief that getting humans, and humanity, from here to there is dependent upon showing a future they can fit in <a place in which it can feed both wants and needs>.
Regardless. Assessing the possibility, and probabilities, of future states demands assessing all dimensions of the future. What I mean by that is Pace Layering. Leisure patterns are different than geopolitical patterns and energy patterns and, yet, they are all connected <even in some fairly obtuse ways>. I bring this up because if technology focuses solely on immediate returns and immediate consequences, they, well, screw up pacing. This means an asymmetrical world becomes even more asymmetrical. Asymmetrical is actually the norm but the concern on this is that a complete lack of alignment leads to complete dysfunction. So, while it may feel dysfunctional now <society, etc.> the truth is it is most likely simply discordant pacing, not out of whack asymmetrical pacing – but that can change if technology continues to pursue it immediate’ business model.
Circling back, we need to increasingly focus on the interconnectedness of disparate events and consequences and devote increasing attention to the social consequences, to the individual and society, of technology. The mostly negative social and cultural effects of technology are becoming increasingly obvious and while there are likely a myriad of reasons, let me circle back to ‘immediate returns, immediate consequences’ as a mindset.
Look. Business has always been trapped in a short-term mentality and I tend to believe people have increasingly become more ‘immediate return’ focused <by the way, this may be a Halo Effect thing where it a is a looped consequence relationship>. That said. Technology is exploiting this AND amplifying it. We need to change the narrative. Change the mindsets and rearrange attitudes and beliefs. In doing so we can change reality.
In the end, I would suggest the technology elite shortsightedness view of immediate returns/immediate consequences, is a constraint, not just a fault.
As a parallel thought, while removing the constraint within an organization releases value potential/opportunity, the similar is also true in the marketplace itself. Knowledge should always be applied against removing existing constraints in the marketplace and in doing so value is achieved. And, in fact, the higher the order of constraint the higher the possible market value. I would argue, at least for today, an immediate return/immediate consequence attitude is a higher order constraint. This is a big issue and I don’t believe we talk about it in big enough terms. We point fingers, wave hands around and, in general, think of this as some issue too big to get a grip on. It is not. If we grip immediate return and immediate consequence and, consequently, throw it in the trash, we can permit the market, and technology, to pursue a healthier objective and vision. Ponder.
====
“To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
I imagine this metaphor summarizes much of our current public narrative. As we all argue over what we deem the practical questions of the day, it is like we are the house dog munching peacefully on the meat while the entire house is looted. Much of this discussion centers around the role that the computer and technology play in our lives. That is the wrong discussion. We need to know in what ways it is altering our conception of learning, the reality of how we think, our values and, ultimately, how we shape our views of reality. The truth is technology alters the structure of all – our interests as well as the things that we think about. But maybe most importantly is that they alter the structure of how we actually think and what we value.
suggested nature is very parsimonious with energy and that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely converted from one form into another. I say that because technology is an energy user in search of, well, energy to convert TO ITSELF. I imagine my point here is that if we continue to feed it our energy and it keeps on sucking up more and more of human energy, well, what’s left of us after it has done all its work upon us?
Our neural investment is grounded in our formed images of reality and our formed images of reality are typically grounded in experiences. This does not necessarily mean things that we have actually encountered and done, although those things do create deeper memories, but it could be words we’ve encountered, pictures we’ve encountered and opinions we’ve encountered. All of those things subconsciously gather together in certain parts of our brains and create some memories. Many of those memories are not causal, but actually a concoction of disparate experiences which coalesce into some memory. I worded it that way to suggest that sometimes memories are not exactly the most exact things. And they absolutely are not true reflections of reality, but they are the best that we have. And from those memories we find value. What I mean by that is those memories are valued by our brain therefore when we bring these memories to the forefront either when we’re ready to make a decision or reflect upon the present situation; they represent value. That value drives our attention. The sobering thought to end that discussion is, and this may sound odd when discussing very personal experiences and memories, garbage in & garbage out. Effective neural investment is an attempt to manage the garbage in so that what comes out is just a bit less garbagey.
All durable dynamic systems, including our brains, have this sort of structure; it is what makes them adaptable and robust. Navigating the long now leverages longevity to optimize value in the Now through what we pay attention to and, as a result, what experiences we have. I suggest all of that because if your ‘experiences’ are shaped by short term, your memories are a bit more fragile and brittle (and certainly of less deep value) and therefore the memories you lean in on when making choices are, well, more brittle and fragile. If we begin to become a bit more thoughtful with regard to what we pay attention to, to how we engage with our experiences, the memories created will exhibit more robust value from which, when tapped, will make future decisions more robust and resilient.
collective intellectual there’s a solution. We may not have it today but it exists. But, once again, people need to be purposeful because, stated or not, technology is pretty purposeful. It purposefully exploits, often degrades, or even destroys, how someone builds their reality, their mental self-confidence, their trust in processes and systems, and the approaches required for the efficient and effective functioning of communities and societies.
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.
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.
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.
===
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 
culture is not anything persons do, but anything they do with each other we may say a culture comes into being whenever persons choose to be a people. It is as a people that they arrange their rules with each other, their moralities, their modes of communication.” While I (slightly) hesitate to suggest people, technology (software) and information, each by themselves, are simply discernible bits of something that are actually nothings, I will suggest in a Conceptual Age frame of mind those things are nothing until they actually “do with each other” and collectively create progress. a culture forges them all together into something worthwhile.
whatever they do (and how they think), there is continuous improvement, progress is achieved (for the individual and the business), quests are pursued and everyone feels a sense of meaning in having contributed. That is possibly the best summary of what I envision a Conceptual Age Organization is.
While the cloud represents an almost limitless pool of ever-growing knowledge and data, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the cloud, in and of itself, can be just as stupid, if not stupider, than any one individual. More knowledge, used poorly, simply makes one stupider rather than smarter. The collective knowledge is only as good as who uses it.
individual(s) collaboration to command the highest order of value against emergent opportunities. And, in general, technology creates organizational stupidity when the culture does not embrace it’s thinking potential and simply use it as tools to ‘do’. The smartest organizations will be the ones in which there is a strong culture attracted to the benefits of technology and, specifically, an Intelligence Based Software system constantly feeding them predictive and emergent knowledge to assist them thinking conceptually about the business at hand.
This is where your people pursue an objective with tunnel vision which makes everything subservient to the pursuit, & attainment, of an objective. And, while many businesses ignore this greater responsibility by thinking revenue & profit is the only measure of success, all businesses recognize the need to set the parameters on the pursuit of an objective and setting some guidelines for HOW the pursuers actually pursue the objective. In other words, a business recognizes that in some form or fashion it is not only responsible for an objective, but also “how everyone plays the game”.
character and dignity is not sacrificed in the making of business.
always balanced out by some stability or ‘safe place.’ That safe place doesn’t have to be mental but suffice it to say we need, mentally or physically, a safe space or safe time or safe stability in which we feel we have control. It is the deprivation of that safe space, the lack of an anchor, from which I believe our larger feeling of lack of attention and ability to focus arises from. I am not arguing that technology and the internet permits a 24/7 stimulus mechanism, if we permit it, but Life, in general, is and always has been a 24/7 stimulus machinery. If you accept that generalization, then you need to seek another variable from which this feeling arises. Therein lies my premise, an environmental shift in which something as small as the smartphone has disconnected us from some of the stability from which we sense, or have an ability to anchor, clarity and focus.
by every business. Objective blindness, once you have some experience, is a choice. It is an excuse to get shit done, win at any cost or simply any inexcusable behavior anyone wants to attach to ‘meeting the objective.’ It is a safe haven of excuses in a business world which will forgive anyone and anything if they are pursuing “the objective.”
I believe we typically discuss digital transformation in an inherently flawed way. We speak of it as a business objective and a business infrastructure. I know. I know. That sounds inherently reasonable.
First. I bet 80%, maybe 90%, of everything you would like an employee to improve upon & learn is within their comfort zone. Let’s stop telling people they have to be uncomfortable. They can be comfortable AND learn shit.
Institutional debt has obvious problems but the one least discussed is how they create a version of “wicked problems.” This is grounded in the truth the more you ignore it, the more it builds up and becomes impossible to ignore. More and more a business which is less focused on emergent opportunities will build debt in outdated ideas, misguided thinking on what’s important and processes which have seen better days (once worked but are having diminishing positive returns).
augmenting existing wisdom and thinking is a matter of organization. I hesitate to call this “culture” because I believe it is more attitude and intentions. If an organization clearly states its intentions, and attitudinally believe the organization should be continuously making progress against those intentions, conceptual thinking is the pathway forward for a Conceptual Age Organization seeking to insure it sheds its Institutional debt.