All mistakes are not the same

To err is human. We all make mistakes. We cannot get it right all the time. The way we learn and innovate successfully is by making mistakes. Life would be boring if we did not make mistakes. However, all mistakes are not the same.

1. Final mistakes: A mistake is final in a "sudden death" playoff or elimination round of any tournament. We can make fatal mistakes once if it takes out our own life. It's a final mistake if we kill the patient, passengers or victim we murder while living to tell the tale. Final mistakes make for high stakes risk taking that rivets audiences to their TV screens and news updates of their favorite sports teams.
2. Costly mistakes: A mistake is costly when there's continuity with misfortune. We can keep playing, working, participating or contributing. The mistake may have provided a setback could let a rival advance in the competition. It's easy to keep score and know where things stand. Everyone hopes the mistake won't happen again. Mistakes are bad and discouraged under this pressure to perform superbly. The people who make the same mistake repeatedly are believed to be a mistake and are expected to be ashamed of themselves. Correcting mistakes takes time away from making progress, improving processes, reducing costs, or getting results. Costly mistakes call for embarrassing damage control, apologies or recompense.
3. Useful mistakes: A mistake is useful when it identifies a problem. It's helpful to make a mistake when debugging, refining, troubleshooting and error trapping. We don't know what's wrong, being incorrectly assumed, getting overlooked or taken for granted until a useful mistake gets made. Processes of innovation, design, experimentation and improvisation all require useful mistakes to be made routinely. It's nearly impossible to keep score or know where the project stands. The problems are ill-defined and getting revised in the process of solving them.
4. Perfect mistakes: A mistake is perfect when we end up in a better place. We make a wrong turn and discover something new. We add the wrong ingredient and get a better result. We forget what we we're supposed to bring and improvise a superior outcome. Something appears to suppress our conscious reasoning and guide us to an alternative we could not have planned on, done deliberately or favored when given the choice.

While these four categories appear as objective criteria, their impact is much more subjective and psychological.

When we are afraid of making a mistake, no mistake is ever considered to be useful or perfect. Performance anxiety dominates our experience. Our minds are closed and prone to fixate on past practices. We are too apprehensive to experiment, wing it or let go of the last mistake. We relate to mistakes this way when we are in positions with high visibility, lots of power, rivals poised to tarnish our reputation and enormous responsibilities for others. We also put this spin on mistakes when we're feeling victimized, powerless and haunted by bad luck.

When we value the benefits of making mistakes, we downplay the costly ones. We believe "you win some and you lose some" and it pays to chill out. Our minds are freewheeling and open to unforeseen alternatives. We don't want to rely on past practices when a better way could be discovered by messing around. We relate to mistakes this way when we are free agents, creative professionals, part-timers and inventors. We also put this spin on mistakes when we're avoiding responsibility, dismissing guilt trips and scoffing at control freaks.

Thus it's not very effective to adopt a particular approach to mistakes. Every kind of mistake is realistic and worthy of consideration. Some are to be avoided and others to be sought after. In fact it's even possible to make a mistake about making mistakes by avoiding the ones to seek out and pursuing the ones to be avoided. Then it's a question of learning from that mistake or continuing to make it.

Four questions in constant use

I've begin pondering what prerequisites may need to be fulfilled for the reversals I'm anticipating will occur as part of the Tetrad of transitions I explored last week. One of the first prerequisites that occurred to me is an advance to the latter pair of these four questions we utilize constantly.

We always have a question in mind in order to evaluate what we're facing. If we had no question in mind, we could not make a choice, decision or move in any direction. The question we use influences how we filter and bias our perceptions. It gives us a slant to what it means, makes sense as and signifies to us.

Question One: Is it good? Yes or no? It cannot be both. There are no two ways about it. Either it's good or it's not.
This question works great for survival. There's no messing around with value judgments and tradeoffs in the midst of imminent danger. Every potential quandary presents a clear cut choice. Question One functions for "fight or flight" responses. It's valuable when making snap judgments, jumping to conclusions or reacting to the slightest sign of danger. It gets us out of trouble quickly. Question One keeps us alive in the absence of safety, abundance, compassion and unity.

Question Two: How good is it? Rate it on a scale that compares it to others. Score it according to standard measurements that single out the best and identify the worst.
This question works great for competition, contests and spending. It compares, sizes up and sorts out options. It shows they way to improve, do better than others and win at their expense. Every messy situation gets framed in win/lose terms with the possibility of coming out ahead or falling behind, getting upstaged or beat. Question Two functions for being a machine, performing reliably, playing by the rules and conforming to norms. It's valuable when scheming a tactical assault, opposing the opposition or struggling against toxicity. It gets us on top of the challenging situation if we apply ourselves with dedication, discipline and determination. Question Two keeps us from falling in with a bunch of losers, drifters, incompetents or slackers.

Question Three: How is it good? What's there to appreciate about it? How does function, make a difference and provide results in this context?
This question works great for relating, learning and changing our approaches. It gets past appearances to the underlying issues. It shows us ways to express gratitude, show respect and understand value being offered. Every potential quandary offers more to explore, discover and connect the dots. Question Three functions for getting creative, finding more avenues to explore and changing strategies. It's valuable when wanting others to feel understood, respected and included in teamwork. It gets us to be open minded, receptive to contradictory inputs and considerate of complex issues. Question Three keeps us from feeding conflicts, needing to be right and escalating misunderstandings.

Question Four: How is this perfect? What is better for the system that connects us all. How is this a win/win/win for everybody's diverse interests?
This question works great for getting in the flow of one good thing after another. It attracts synchronicities where requests seemed to be answered without any struggle. Every messy situation gets allowed without resistance, fear or intolerance. Question Four functions for forgiving others, letting go of the past and enjoying the present moment. It's valuable when wanting to be free of anxiety, guilt and grudges. It gets us to sense what to do next, to keep our lives in balance and back off from any extreme endeavors. Question Four keeps us feeling connected to everyone of us, eternal in a mortal body and fascinated by what happens to occur.

Obviously Question Four is my favorite, though it's the one I most often forget to ask. Yet it seems essential for the collaborations and transformations I foresee in the coming decade.

Making instruction more inclusive

Neil LaChapelle recently mentioned on LinkedIn that he is "trying to design a new, more inclusive online class structure". With my recent reading of books addressing issues like employee engagement, tribal mindsets, social capital, and crowdsourced contributions, my head is full of ideas for inclusive structure.

I know from experience that an instructional design will appear exclusive and disinterested in the learners when it's "covering the material". The premise of working at content to deliver or expertise to transfer sets up a closed system. Opening it up for any kind of involvement will slow down the pace, drop out some of the material or give the wrong impression by drifting "off message". Formal content and recognized expertise are presumed to already be right, finalized and authoritative. It appears senseless to make the content wrong, incomplete or questionable when considering "how to cover the material".

Inclusion makes all the sense in the world when we start from a different premise. Here's an array of different premises and how each leads to more inclusive structures:

• What if the content is a "beta release / work in progress" getting refined or finalized by incorporating varied user experiences. The design needs to be open to learners inputs that can further the progress, refine the upgrades or redirect an unresponsive approach.
• What if comprehending the material cannot be done heroically, in isolation or by independent study. The design needs to allow for the comprehension to emerge from the complexity of varied voices, viewpoints and frames of reference among the social network included in the design.
• What if the structure is an experiment that uses the learners subjects to study the effects of the content on their mood, motivation, initiative, creativity or other responses. The structure then needs to include the subjects as the real subject matter in order to experiment with different versions of the content to realize the best effects.
• What if the tutoring of individual learners outside of the scheduled times is too time consuming to be feasible. The design needs to scale the tutoring by arranging for peers to help each other with requests for additional examples, restatements of the original idea, clarifications, feedback on trial formulations, working through sample test questions, etc.
• What if the content is known to produce confusion in the minds of most learners. The design needs their input to explain their confusion, tryout alternative clarifications and get feedback on the degree of success with each attempt at alleviating the confusion.
• What if the content is inherently useless until learners take the initiative to apply it in a personal context. The structure needs to be open to contexts provided by the learners where uses can be made of the content, questions about adapting the abstract principles/skills in pragmatic ways and practice thinking through the content in realistic scenarios.
• What if the content is a solution to the learners' particular problem that will get perceived by them as valuable, easy to remember and worth doing well. The structure needs to include the learners as the customers who will takeaway the value, put the ideas to work and test their viability as solutions to problems they face right now.
• What if the content can be learned, but it cannot be taught. The design needs to tell stories, play games and and solve mysteries to see if the learners "get it" without being told something abstract that "isn't really it".

Of course this is only a partial list in beta release that's known to generate lots of confusion when crammed with heroic efforts. :-)

Hacking a third nature

Over the weekend, I've been getting my head around McKenzie Wark's A Hacker's Manifesto. Here are a few of my ruminations from passages that have resonated with me deeply.

There is a realm of pure potentiality, unfettered by limitations or necessities. In this realm, all is possible. Thus any contact with this realm is an experience of abundance and freedom from scarcity. This realm is virtual, not yet actual. It is natural, not contrived by human nature or modified into a second nature. It is living, not dead, inert or rigid.

We enter this realm by going within, by being empty of preconceptions and by waiting for inspirations to come to mind in their own good time. We may label this realm cosmic consciousness, the Universal Mind or some other representation of it's infinite potential. This is where we go when we get creative, inspired, innovative or in the flow of coincidental occurrences.

Those among us who access this realm with elegance and technical sophistication are hackers. We bring what is virtual into the actual. We disrupt the status quo with more of what's infinitely possible and abundant. It costs us nothing to take ideas, answers and solutions from this realm into our understandings, designs and expressions.

Costs, limitations and necessities only come into play when the hacks get communicated and replicated. A material component involves commercial transactions. The world of scarcity enters into the picture. The freedom from limitation and experience of abundance get lost in translation. What felt very much live when accessing it become dead communicable forms to be shared with others.

There's no going back to the original nature of the virtually infinite possibilities. The second nature of limitation, necessity and scarcity offers yet another opportunity to elegantly hack the status quo. The second nature can get abstracted by redefining the problems, reframing the evidence, re-conceptualizing the limitations and reinventing the obvious. A third nature will emerge that better reflects the unfettered and abundant source of the original inspirations.

Choose your struggle urgently

Rather than turn the tables on each kind of toxicity I explored yesterday, most of us get an urge to help others struggle against it. Without knowing the minds of those we oppose, we try to fix them for good in spite of their doing no good. We think we have chosen the good fight. if we are among those who are intoxicated by the toxicity, we are almost no help to our cause. We need others assistance, advocacy and guidance. Our needs can justify the struggle they feel the urge to pursue. When we are:

• excluded by toxic exclusivity, we bait others to join our struggle for legitimacy
• exploited by toxic exploitation, we lure others to fight in our struggle for justice
• manipulated by toxic manipulations, we provoke others to struggle for our control
• deceived by toxic deceptions, we spur others to struggle for the undisclosed truth

Struggling for legitimacy - Whenever we lose our legitimacy, we feel silenced, dismissed and ignored. We struggle to express ourselves against inner critics and outer cynics. We cannot handle rejection because we've already experienced an overdose of contempt. We use artistic, athletic or ostentatious endeavors in pursuit of our elusive legitimacy. We show off and sound off to get attention, recognition and respect. We seek out stages, platforms, walls and halls where it will be difficult to ignore us. Anyone who helps us be on display and build an audience of fans has joined our struggle against toxic exclusion.

Struggling for justice - Whenever we've been exploited by injustice, we feel powerless, persecuted and anxiety ridden. We think we've been singled out, much to our embarrassment. We're convinced there's nothing we can do about it considering how intimidating, huge and overwhelming the opposition appears to us. We're paranoid about how things are going to get worse, set another trap for us or ambush us when we're least expecting another violation of our rights. We use excuses, defensive rationalizations and self pity to accept our fate and avoid a fight. Anyone who frames this challenge as a "class struggle" helps us live with chronic exploitation. We admire litigators, legislators and liberators who fight on our behalf.

Struggling for control - Whenever we've been manipulated by false promises, hype or bribes, we feel cheated, vulnerable and trapped. We think to build a large consensus and introduce contrary spin. We figure two can play this game and use the tactics of the manipulators against them. We politicize the struggle, adopt positional stances and exaggerate our selling points. We explore which arguments get traction, which stories evoke sympathy and which scenarios capture others' imaginations. Anyone who helps us manage our impressions, improve our image and position us more effectively has helped us gain control over toxic manipulators.

Struggling for undisclosed truth - Whenever we've been deceived by hypocrites, we feel alerted to watch for mixed messages, hidden meanings and revelations of hidden agendas. We no longer take people at their word or trust their intentions. We read too much into what they say as they lose credibility by saying too much. We let their actions speak louder than their words while assuming they cannot walk their talk, honor their commitments or earn anyone else's respect. We approach them with questions that reveal our suspicions, crap detectors and hostility. Anyone who helps us pry the truth out of these weasels has helped us put an end to the latest round of deceptions.

All four of these struggles fall short of transformation. They fail to cleanup the toxicity. They feed the states of mind which yield more toxic behaviors. Struggling against toxicity maintains a breeding ground for more toxicity. They merely provide all the more reason to throw the toxicity for a loop.

Turning the tables on toxicity

What if this Tetrad of extending, reversing, retrieving and retiring transitions from our pervasive connectivity can put an end to toxic enterprises and governance? What if we can turn the tables on the toxicity without massive resources, well equipped armies or political power over the opponents? What if we can leverage our interdependent freedom to move the goal posts and disrupt the incumbents with new value propositions. What if we can simply:

• exclude the exclusivity from our new inclusive arrangement
• exploit the weaknesses of the exploitative elite with our hidden prowess
• manipulate the ambitions of mercenary manipulators without ambitions of our own
• deceive the predictions of deceptive hypocrites with disarming appearances

How is it possible to turn the tables on toxicity?

Exclusivity is a defense against getting rejected, abandoned or ostracized. Exclusivity puts up walls, maintains barriers and creates distance to maintain a story of superiority, advantage and privilege. Those who act exclusive have no problems with outsiders getting excluded. In their minds exclusion is inevitable, justified and merely the facts of life. Getting excluded by those who are excluded by necessity does not even put a blip on their radar screen. Those who object to getting excluded will face the facts of life sooner or later. However, being the ones to get excluded is the worst nightmare of those who practice exclusivity. It would seem their fortresses had failed and left them literally defenseless. It's inconceivable that those they exclude could give them a taste of their own medicine. Such an occurrence would change their facts of life, objective necessities and reliable forecasts for staying out of trouble.

Exploitation is a sign of hidden weakness (insecurities, vulnerabilities, inadequacies, inferiorities). Bullies can dish out abuse, but not take it from their victims, because fair fights push their hot buttons. Exploitation is designed to keep their prey on the defensive, intimidated by evidence and apprehensive about future encounters. In their minds, exploitation is justified by their victims' lack of power, control, discipline, rivalry or revenge. They depend on their prey to keep up the entanglement. Getting shown up to be their own worst enemy by those who can exploit their hidden weaknesses can only be devastating. There's no comeback possible when the rug has been pulled out from under their feet.

Manipulation reveals the designs of those overly-ambitious and under-qualified tacticians to be in control, proven right and safe from criticism. They shoot messengers who discredit their propaganda or expose their incompetence. They convince others they really are deviant, defective, or deficient so as to keep them susceptible to manipulations. In their minds, they are really relating, showing consideration, and providing value. They have no concept of being manipulative, trashing relationships, being inconsiderate or destroying value. People who see them as manipulative are clearly ungrateful, clueless or self absorbed. Getting ambushed by their own ambitions leading them astray would burst their bubble.

Deception is a necessity for two-faced hypocrites. In the midst of deceiving themselves about their dark side, they automatically dish out lies, scams and other deceptions as a coverup. They worship false idols, idealize perfection and exalt themselves for their noble aspirations. They assume humility is for those who have fallen from grace, lost their way and abandoned their aspirations. They collude with those who feed their egos and take pride in the same illusions. In their minds they are right without question, providing leadership and raising the standard for those making less of a pretense of pursuing idealism. To be exposed as a hypocrite would come as such a disgrace as to shatter their faith in their ideals and themselves.

Each of these forms of toxicity are delusional states of mind. They are self-justifying without the ability to detect their errors or to utilize discrepant feedback. They cannot stop themselves from doing more harm to others' lives or doing what they always do. They are predictable predators who are easily out-maneuvered by those not spellbound by their toxic illusions. When we can see how exclusivity, exploitation, manipulation and deception function out of necessity, we can take out the shaky ground they stand on. The potential for transformation gets realized by being more complex than these simple-minded delusions. We let this newly formed robust and resilient network to take effect on deliberate disconnects, determinations of necessity and devotions to isolation.

Retrieving that tribal feeling

When we wandered around in hunter/gather mode, we had a tribal feeling. When we settled down into small villages with surrounding farms, we kept that tribal feeling. When we helped out with the mechanized production of goods and scientific methods applied to mysterious conditions, we lost that tribal feeling. We got labeled as irrational, superstitious, unrealistic, and uncivilized if we tried to hang on to that tribal feeling. We were late to work, undisciplined and impractical if we kept feeling tribal. So we got rid of that feeling and took to thinking about everything instead. We kept a lid on our feelings which maintained conditions like chronic anxiety, outbursts of misdirected hostility and lingering emotional baggage.

We're getting that feeling back thanks to the effects of pervasive connectivity. It's different this time around. This new version is compatible with our rationality, objectivity and advanced civilizations. Advances in cognitive neuroscience are showing us how to achieve the best of both: tribal feelings along with disciplined advances in governance, production, societal support systems, cultures and lifestyles. We can realize the integration of rationality and irrationality, thinking and feeling, as well as passions and higher purposes. We can achieve solidarity and cohesion when we bond through online connections. We can feel like we've joined something significant while contributing to and benefiting from the connection.

Our tribal feelings come from a place in our brains that does not keep track of time. It can hold a grudge through generations as if the dishonor happened yesterday. It can vividly recall moments of seemingly magical perfection as if no time has passed. This place also opts for participatory consciousness, losing track of oneself and becoming one with out object of fascination. This pattern makes for intense experiences of motherhood, fatherhood, or brother and sister hood. It makes it natural to stick together, protect each other and sacrifice our lives for the greater good of the tribe. This place responds emotionally to everything that happens and everything under consideration. We speak of this as "listening to our heart's desire" or "going with our gut".

Game designers, movie makers, concert producers and festival organizers already know this. If you're like me, you've had those tribal feelings in many of those experiences. It's also what comes over us when we fall in love with someone or become obsessed with some pursuit. We are "out of our mind" and into our feelings that defy our ability to justify our actions. However, our neocortex can kick in. We can get a grip, come back to our senses and restore our rationality. When we realize the integration, we can enjoy that wonderful feeling while doing something intellectual, analytical or pragmatic. Writing for this blog feels like that on most days. The pervasive connectivity is making it more likely, accessible and common for all of us to get into feeling tribal every day.