Getting off the merry-go-round

There's no end in sight when we're going round and round inside a pattern. It's easy to predict what happens next because it's part of the endless cycle. We've seen it all before. It appears that things are changing but there's no difference in how they are changing or what they are changing into. This is what's called first order change. It's a pattern of oscillation that results from delayed feedback. It takes awhile to discover the problems with the latest solution. When the problems get realized, it launches a flip-flop into the opposite solution which eventually reveal the problems with it.

Here are some examples of classic merry-go-round rides:

• A young artist (musician, painter, sculptor, filmmaker, choreographer, poet, playwright, etc) launches off into a new, inspired direction of self-expression which then seems too exuberant and lacking in discipline which then inspires some deliberate practice for honing techniques and acquiring more discipline which then seems depressing and unimaginative which then launches off into a new inspired direction of self-expression -- ad infinitum
• A project team benefits from lots of individual talent capable of impressive initiative and solo efforts that results in a lack of coordination and inter-communication that results in team building to increase collaborative efforts and reliance on team members that results in a loss of initiative and personalized contributions that results in encouraging lots of individual talent -- ad infinitum
• The new season brings a breakout hit (stage production, film, TV show, best selling book, computer game, etc.) that attracts a large audience which results in sequels, copy cat versions and derivative knock offs that kills off the large audience in constant search of fresh, new entertainment which brings along a new season with a breakout hit -- ad infinitum
• The citizens in a democracy elect a new government that enhances social programs, public infrastructure and regulatory protections of consumer rights which results in massive debt, bigger taxes and governmental interference in the free market which results in the citizens electing a new government with promotes fiscal accountability, cuts back on government spending and de-regulates the market functions, which results in a diminishing middle class accompanied by soaring inflation and unemployment, which results in electing a new government that enhances social programs -- ad infinitum

Getting off any merry-go-round takes "non-dual awareness". The exit is paradoxical. It becomes apparent how to "have it both ways" without sacrificing the advantages of either. This winning combination cannot be found at the same level as the "dual awareness" of obvious dichotomies, opposite extremes and polarized alternatives.

When the two poles of the oscillation come to together, a second order change results. There's a change in how the change comes about and what happens next. It's a game changer that disrupts the incumbent pattern of endlessly going round and round. The trouble with either solution is no longer regarded as an isolated problem. The solutions look like the real problems because they disregard the systemic nature of the merry-go-round. When the two sides come together, the question of finally getting it right becomes a question of balance continually.

There's no recipe to follow to come up with a winning combination like this. The change defies predictions and leaves options open "like never before". It's anybody's guess what happens next because the dynamics are complex, self organizing and far from a state of equilibrium.

Predicting the predictable

Once our minds have outgrown mechanistic functioning, we can recognize patterns of predictability in those minds that remain mechanistic. We can successfully predict how they will over-react, take things too personally, and get invaded by their negative emotions. It then follows that they will predictably over-compensate for their toxicity with sweetness. A mechanistic mind is routinely oscillating between extremes on the assumption that it's unpredictable.

When we can see how predictable someone's mind has become, we are in a position to transform their predictability. Rather than be threatened or bored by their predictability, we can prescribe their perpetual pattern. When we share our prediction of their predictability, we have introduced a game-changer in their minds. We have broken their pattern by adding the element of appearing predictable to others. We have changed how change will happen in their minds. We have called them on their false assumption of appearing unpredictable without speculating, going out on a limb or trying to control them. We simply predict what we know from experience is predictable about them and let that take effect.

We give give others permission to persist and prescriptions to do what they're doing, we need to state the pattern specifically. As we deal with the details, we're implying an organic, evolving process like one of these:

• Keep it up until you get a better idea to try out on your situation
• Do what you have to do until you have the urge to do something differently
• Go for it until it appears you've gone too far and need a change of direction
• Run with it until you run out of your conviction that you're right about this

The introduction of a "living system" into the mechanistic mind breaks up certainties, convictions and conclusive predictions. The possibility of becoming unpredictable gradually appears real. The invitation has been extended to get into exploring, experimenting, changing, learning, and growing. The obvious need to escape boredom by thrill seeking no longer seems valid. The organic ability to "predict the predictable" and explore the unpredictable appears within reach. Inconclusive predictions appear preferable, functional and congruent with these recognized patterns.

Appearing predictable to others

When our minds are functioning mechanistically, we are highly predictable to others, though not to ourselves. The telltale sign of our predictability is our negative emotions that we try to keep hidden and occasionally display. We reveal to others how our own predictions work against our best interests by how dark we're feeling. We're entertaining a variety of flawed predictions about how we will succeed with other people. We predict that:

• we can manipulate others' impression of a situation to turn it around in our favor
• we can control other people with their own neediness and insecurities
• we can dominate others who appear tentative and directionless
• we can put down others in order to get them to rely on our evaluations instead of theirs
• we can find fault with others to make them feel guilty, apologetic or desperate for approval
• we can intimidate others who appear uppity and out of control by reminding them who's more powerful
• we can correct others who appear wrong, bad, stupid or sadly mistaken

We predict we will succeed at any of this. We fantasize the outcome where we win at their expense. We compensate for how dark we're feeling with these flawed predictions. We assume the situation will play out mechanistically, like the ways our minds are functioning. We don't allow for complexity, emergent innovations, evolving understandings or growing capabilities. We assume everything is the same as it ever was because our minds are stuck in a predictable pattern. When we find out our predictions are flawed, we experience a crisis. The negative emotions we're sought to escape with our imaginary successes return with a vengeance.

When we can see how others are predictable and recognize these toxic patterns, our minds are functioning organically. Our ability to formulate accurate predictions about others in mechanistic mindsets makes us unpredictable to them and ourselves. Our minds are living systems that are continually evolving. We are always in the process of changing our own predictions of what will work for us and what will make a difference to others in our lives. It's anybody's guess what we'll be exploring or how we'll be changing next.

After the thrill is gone

In our new space of social networking platforms, there are large inventories of inactive accounts. In the space of technological innovations, there's an initial hype cycle with a disproportionate amount of buzz for the small number of early adopters. In the space of new venues for socializing and entertainment,, there's the line around the block during the grand opening that fizzles out to a bunch of regulars and occasional newbies. In the space of volunteer projects and community activism, there's usually a burst of enthusiastic involvement that fades quickly and leaves a few hard core members to carry the heavy load.

This is a recognizable and predictable pattern. The form of the opportunity only functions for a short while -- for most of the people who initially found it useful, beneficial and worth their time. It quickly follows that there is a disconnect between the form and function. It no longer works for them. The process of losing interest, commitment and engagement involves the kinds of predictions in use by the people who are "losing it". These conclusive predictions yield minds that are functioning as "mental mechanisms".

This process has no beginning or end. It's cyclical and self perpetuating. A mind experiences boredom from situations that are highly predictable and routine. Familiarity with the situation breeds contempt for the contributors and self loathing for one's personal involvement. An escape is sought from this condition in a space that defies predictions, expectations and familiarity. The escape is thrilling and successful. The form of the escape is functional. However, one's ability to estimate value, assess character and make decisions is highly skewed. The desire to escalate the thrill results in over-estimating, over-spending and over-committing to the escape. Something then happens that bursts the bubble of delusional predictions:

• The over-estimates get proven wrong and spawns a crisis of self confidence
• The over-spending gets shown to be wasted, reckless and naive which lets loose a tide of self remorse.
• The over-commitment gets repaid with over-taxing expectations and over-burdensome obligations

The thrill is gone. The honeymoon is over. The boredom returns. The escape episode appears to have been as predictable and boring as the situation that inspired the thrill seeking. The need of an escape takes shape again. The attraction of unpredictable, unexpected and unfamiliar distractions becomes more alluring. The cycle is poised to repeat once more.

Revising mental mechanisms

As I explored in Prelude to a prediction language, our minds constantly rely on predictions. Without them, we would be bewildered, disoriented and unresponsive to others. Most formulate and utilize predictions in way where minds function as "mental mechanisms", not as living, growing organisms. The predictions in use are conclusive. People cling to these predictions out of desperation fueled by idealism, perfectionism and avoiding previous embarrassments. It feels like a crisis when a prediction gets proven wrong. These predictions spawn countless excuses, justifications and defensive rationalizations.

Some minds formulate and utilize predictions to function as "complex adaptive systems". The predictions in use are tentative and exploratory. They predict what may prove a fruitful avenue to explore, a valuable interpretation to apply or a useful experiment to conduct. These minds can let go of predictions easily as they remain a "work in progress". The system is not merely complicated or mechanistic. The complexity of the mind yields emergent outcomes that cannot be forced, contrived or derived exclusively from previous outcomes. The system in not already "adapted". It's continually adaptive and evolving from contradictions like living organisims. The complex adaptive system is actively incorporating whatever is disproving its tentative predictions.

When minds function as "mental mechanisms", they cannot support collaboration with others. They do not generate a concept of what others are intending and trying to accomplish. They do not relate to other outlooks besides their own. They do not resolve functional disconnects or discover what works better than what's been tried before. These minds cannot come up with new solutions, insights or revised diagnoses that others would characterize as creative, innovative or inspired. Their use of conclusive predictions necessitates foregone conclusions, previous assumptions and routines that worked before. They value quantity instead of quality, novelty over nuance and thrills instead of depth of significance.

This poses as significant obstacle to every transformation I've previously explored like personal learning environments, disrupting higher ed, mentoring others, reflective practice or the next economy. However, minds that function as "mental mechanisms" are extremely beneficial for industrialized mass production and consumption. People relying on conclusive predictions have very little going for them. What little works for them is highly repetitive and boring. They cannot fix what is not working in their relationships or own minds. They do not experience variety from really learning, creating, changing themselves or relating to others. They seem reliable and compliant as employees, customers or audience members. They are eager to fill seats in huge arenas, consume the same broadcasts as sixteen million others and follow trusted news sources. They keep the industrialized, materialistic, meaningless economy going great guns.

Of course this obstacle calls for disruptive innovations that better serve the job the dis-served customer is already getting done. Mental mechanisms are inherently "people pleasing" and "approval seeking". A transition process designed for replacing mental mechanisms can give approval to these patterns in use. The transformation can emerge from the complexity of speaking a living language of inconclusive predictions.

[Note: I have revised the term: "complicated adapted system" to "mental mechanism" 6/17/09]

Prelude to a prediction language

Before I explain the approach I'm developing of a "prediction language", there are four facets of predictions that lay the groundwork for my explanation.

In his book: On Intelligence, Jeff Hawkins reveals his extensive research into the neocortex. He's found that the brain cells are the same throughout the entire surface, even though regions appear to specialize in particular capabilities. Experiments have shown that portions ordinarily used for one function like vision, can be used for another like hearing without complications. This uniform sheet of cells is comprised of several layers which organize processing into levels. This neural structure dismissed understanding regions of the brain as dedicated processors hard wired to particular inputs. Our intelligence appears to use the same processing pattern for every kind of input. Jeff Hawkins has concluded that pattern makes predictions, checks for accuracy and revises those predictions as required. The Wikipedia article on his Memory Prediction Framework goes into great detail about the functioning of our neocortex regions.

In their book Made To Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, Chip Heath and Dan Heath suggest making things memorable for people by "breaking their guessing machine". Relying on the research of Robert Cialdini, they suggest that it really gets our attention when the thing we were expecting to be said or shown to us does not happen. The Polynesian winters are usually fragrant with blossoms. We instantly wonder "where did that come from?" and "what will happen next?". The fact that we are constantly making predictions and expecting what's familiar, continuous and coherent creates opportunities for getting others' attention. We can either defy those expectations, lure people into making false predictions or give them a tease of what's essential to make an accurate prediction. This is the art of creating hooks, captivation and suspense in storytelling.

In his book: How We Decide, Jonah Lehrer shares lots of research findings in a very readable prose style. Our continual use of predictions makes more sense in light of cognitive patterns like these five:

1. Our domamine neurons develop recognizable patterns which then trigger a "funny feeling" when something is off that we're not consciously aware of
2. We learn by getting familiar enough with something to form an expectation of how it works, (relates, makes sense, etc.) and then revise those expectations if they get proven wrong.
3. We can get a feeling faster than thinking about a situation in flux that accurately predicts how to respond (throw the pass to a receiver not yet in the clear, look for an engine fire, etc.)
4. The anterior cingulate cortex prevents erratic and ineffective behavior by detecting prediction errors and keeping these predictions up to date as things change
5. When we're faced with erratic returns (gambling, news watching, gaming, shopping, social networking, etc) that defy forming reliable predictions, we get thrilled by it, misjudge the evidence and likely get addicted to it.

In the book I reviewed earlier this week: Management Rewired - Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science, Charles Jacobs explores how we desperately cling to some of our predictions. When we're getting pressured or rewarded for changing our mind, we will likely balk at the opportunity if it generates cognitive dissonance. We predict that we will lose face, respect, confidence, justifications, or even deeply held beliefs -- if we go along with changing our mind. We will resort to subtle maneuvers to sidestep the confrontation by giving it lip service, sabotaging it later or lying about it. This dysfunctional drama gets played out in reaction to most conventional management methods that are designed to control, intimidate or manipulate employees. It won't stop until we respond to what others are perceiving, processing and insisting on with their predictions.

From all this reading in cognitive neuroscience I've done, I've come to the following conclusions:

• Just as our minds seem hard wired to comprehend stories, they also seem equally predisposed to get oriented by predictions.
• Since we're constantly making, verifying and updating predictions, a framework that supported making better predictions would be perceived as inherently useful and understandable.
• A framework for making quality predictions could keep us out of the trouble we get into when we cannot make reliable predictions on our own.
• Our brains already speak a language of predictions in the process of handling sensory input, recalling memories, making decisions and responding to situations.
• Speaking that language could quickly enhance decisions and responses that are essential to working more cooperatively and collaboratively in the next economy.