Exploring four spaces

I'm becoming increasingly fond of spatial metaphors to communicate to those for whom reading comprehension is a diminishing skill set.  On page six of Cognition in the Wild, Edwin Hutchins describes journeys through three spaces he explores in this book: physical, social and cognitive. Tis possibility captured my imagination when I read the first chapter last week. But something did not sit right with me. I wondered why there were not four spaces instead of three. I wondered if a fourth space was beyond the cognitive or below the physical space.

This morning I realized what was bugging me about the book's characterization of a physical, social and cognitive spaces. It parsed out thinking as a separate space, rather than convey how thinking differs in the different spaces. It also omits an emotional space where patterns of behavioral economics and emotional baggage would operate. Making revisions to accommodate these insights, I came up with a taxonomy of four spaces later this morning: emotional, physical, social and paradoxical.

Emotional space cannot handle the physical space. When in this emotional space, we are in denial, delusional and distorting the facts. We substitute what-if for what-is in ways that those in other spaces perceive as paranoid, grandiose and otherwise unrealistic. We're consumed by uncontrollable urges that demonstrate how little "emotional intelligence" and self control we possess. Our thinking comes from our limbic system which keeps things extremely simple. Networks in this space connect us psychically where dark intentions instantly succeed at finding prey at the perfect time and circumstance to interrupt their activities, abuse them in some way or exploit their vulnerabilities.

Physical space cannot handle social space, but it does overrule the emotional space on occasion. Physical evidence becomes impossible to ignore or dispute. We face what-is and dismiss what-if. This space supports our thinking logically, linearly and rationally with our left side of the neocortex. We prone to over think everything in this space with our new found power over what goes on in our emotional space. We identify with our bodies, appearances and physical abilities. Networks in this space are comprised of physical connections, conduits, paths and/or wires.

Social space cannot handle the remaining paradoxical space while transcending the physical and emotional spaces. Social connections, relations and exchanges redefine how to live. We become insightful about others' interests, concerned with their well-being and sensitive to their issues. Our thinking is far more empathetic, creative and open to new possibilities. We revisit what-if questions as ways to improve what-is without paranoia. Social networks connect us with a diversity of potential experiences and resources.

Paradoxical space can handle all the other spaces. We become vastly aware of patterns and processes underlying what appears in the other spaces. We experience being in those spaces while coming from a very different place. We see so much we react less to what's undesired and accept more as it is. We experience more joy and peace of mind as thinking is no longer required. The networks in this space are nodeless, connecting unknowns, mysteries and empty places for us to explore and fill with our expansive presence.

Migrating out of the primal space

Within the space for Primal innovations, there are many easily accessed innovations. We get the urge to do these things without a moral compass, conscience or ethical framework. We override our thinking, hesitation or self restraint to get innovative in these ways:

1. cleverly making trouble for others without getting into trouble ourselves
2. ingeniously getting even with others for dishonoring us or our tribe
3. cunningly concocting schemes to exploit others' naivete, stupidity or inexperience
4. compulsively inventing disguises, ambushes and baited traps to deceive others
5. imaginatively fantasizing wild possibilites, sexual encounters and nightmarish outcomes to conflicts
6. desperately getting resourceful to improve safety, pleasure or survival chances
7. sneakily tricking others into backing off, pitying us or lending us a hand

Each of these innovations feeds the drama around us. They make enemies out of potential allies. They fuel conflicts, arguments and opposing coalitions.They make it more difficult for others to take our side and align with our interests. They provoke others to stop our progress, punish our misconduct and watch our every move. For all these reasons, and many others, there are always lots of incentives to migrate out of the space for primal innovations.

There are two places to go when we're in the space for Primal innovations: either the Synchronous (North) or Exceptional (East) innovation spaces. Both are adjacent possibles to the space for primal innovations. Both share many things in common which create the immediate adjacency to the primal space.

Migrating North: Both primal and synchronous innovation spaces are natural. Both are shared with all kinds of life forms at every scale of existence. Innovating is done without rational, linear and logical thinking. What comes to mind is innovative without trying, struggling or forcing it. Both spaces utilize some kind of emptiness as an essential prerequisite.

Migrating East: Both primal and exceptional innovation spaces are anti-social. Both make a big deal about the differences between insiders/outsiders or us/them. Both take no interest in outsiders' experiences, outlooks or needs. Both endure a bounty of chronic problems that can only be alleviated by social processes with misunderstood outsiders.

Obviously, migrating North to the Synchronous space is preferable. It's also far less likely given how rare the Synchronous space and how prevalent the Exceptional space are currently. The cultural norm sends us "from the frying pan into the fire". There are several big switchovers I've defined when migrating directly to the Synchronous space from the Primal space:

• Switching from a horrible feeling of emptiness in the core of one's being to a wonderful feeling of emptiness that's innocent, clear of fear and open to receive inspirations.
• Switching from trafficking in human emotions to basking in feelings of joy, peace, freedom and timelessness.
• Switching from urges arising from layers of old emotional baggage to inclinations arising from a fresh sense of unity with every living thing
• Switching from inner torments from regretting the past and dreading the future to inner gratitude from immersing oneself in the present moment

I'll continue to explore the design of support systems for these switchovers and this northward migration to the space for Synchronous innovation from the Primal space. I'll report on my findings here as they come to mind.

Taxonomy of innovation spaces

As I've reflected more on Steven Johnson's latest book: Where Good Ideas Come From, I've realized his greatest contribution for me is the possibility of fractal patterns. I'm thrilled that patterns of innovation could replicate at the micro and macro scales in nature as well as human endeavors. The final chapter synthesizes the ground covered by the book into a four quadrant model of Individual/Network and Market/Non-Market combinations. I've been striving to come up with a synthesis that includes the cellular and ecosystemic innovations in addition to human endeavors. Yesterday, I succeeded. Here's a first look at my four quadrant taxonomy of Natural/Contrived and Social/Anti-Social combinations of innovations.

• Contrived innovations are unique to humans. They require the use of the neocortex which produces our rational thinking. These innovations organize us into institutions and markets which antagonize tribal and networked endeavors.
• Natural innovations occur throughout all scales of living entities. They evolve into greater diversity, complexity and sustainability. They organize any living forms into tribes and networks which take exception to the premises of institutions and markets. 
• Anti-social innovations improve the chances of survival of a smaller thing against the impositions of the bigger thing. They battle, fight, attack or compete against the opposition. They cohere internally for safety and strength in numbers while keeping out the disruptive, turbulent and systemic influences. 
• Social innovations improve the viability, sustainability and resilience of the entire system. These innovation cooperate with the diversity of others. They integrate the disruptive influences into a dynamic balance of continuous and discontinuous changes. 
• Primal innovations get created without thinking. They naturally emerge from isolated urges to survive and thrive. Primal innovations look out for #1 (anti-social) without regard for context or communities beyond those in close proximity providing safety in numbers.
• Exceptional innovations get created by the rare few with unusual talents, traits, mutations or adaptations. Their survival is precarious without a massive substrate of supportive mechanisms, reliably routinized activities and non-innovative contributions. These "protections for pinnacle achievements"  operate in closed (anti-social) systems defended against outsiders. 
• Methodical innovations get created by combinations of thinking and inspirations induced by clever techniques. They come about by working together with a diversity of others who contribute ideas, conflicting viewpoints, critiques and challenges. They serve the larger community by designing to their varied experiences, serving their differentiated needs and responding to their particular requests.
• Synchronous innovations get created tuning into the flow of right actions, timing, proportions and balance. The emergent phenomenal levels of cooperation and coordination defy what rational thought processes can accomplish. They not only serve the larger community, they are the larger community functioning in sync. 

Most of the books about innovation show how how to function in the methodical space. Books about zen emptiness help us realize the adjacent possible space for synchronous innovation. The concept of wu-wei-wu provokes us to stop striving, become one with our tools and let the result come about by "non-doing doing". We can then flow in tune with the all others diverse endeavors. We won't appear like a flock of birds flying in formation. We will appear like a thriving ecosystem.


Here are my other explorations of the seven fractal patterns of innovation in Where Good Ideas Come From by Steven Johnson:

1. Migrating to the adjacent possible (adjacent possible)
2. How do good ideas behave (liquid networks pattern)
3. Where hunches go to die (slow hunches)
4. Setting up accidental discoveries (serendipity)
5. Benefiting from errors (errors)
6. Getting psyched for exaptation (exaptation)
7. Flourishing on emergent platforms (emergent platforms) 

Changing brain states

Over the weekend, I finished reading Laurel Mellin's new book: Wired for Joy - A Revolutionary Method for Creating Happiness Within. I was delighted to discover such an effective use of cognitive neuroscience to solve chronic psychological problems. Her research found a taxonomy of brain states which matches up perfectly with all my taxonomies and relational grammars. Here's a brief overview of her model for varied brain states and how it matches up with mine.

Brain State 5: Stressed Out! - Psychotic

When our brain stem/reptile brain has taken control of our conduct, we are functioning instinctually. Our survival is at stake and our minds are scrambling to avoid falling into a pit of total despair, anxiety and overwhelm. We have no qualms about doing harm to others as they don't seem real to us. We're getting treated like we're not real to them. We're simply nobodies in particular among other nobodies. We seem cold blooded to others and appear to be dehumanizing them. Experts might diagnose us as "psychotic" since we're desperate, unaware of our condition and filled with urges to handle our situation without thinking.

Brain State 4: Definitely Stressed - Narcissistic

When our limbic system has taken control of our conduct, we are functioning emotionally and irrationally. Our safety is at stake and our minds are overwhelmed by anxiety, worries and stress. We cling to others like puppy dogs, take people as our hostages, and treat them like our possessions. We're anxiously trying to appear as a somebody, even though it feels fake because we continue to feel like nobody of significance. We overcompensate for how worthless we feel by showing off, stealing the spotlight and insisting on being the center of attention. Experts might diagnose us as "narcissistic" since we're manipulative, perfectionistic and exhibitionistic.

Brain State 3: A Little Stressed- Neurotic

When the cortisone level in the blood stream moderates, we can think about our situation endlessly. We indulge in over-thinking, analysis paralysis and unfeeling rationality. We make ourselves miserable with "all head & no heart" financial commitments or social obligations. We then overcompensate for such costly sacrifices with pleasures from the material world. We over-consume, over-accumulate and over-spend to our wounded heart's content. Experts might diagnose us as "neurotic" for chasing after symbolic pleasures which offer no real satisfaction or value.

Brain State 2: Feeling Good - Humbled

When feeling and thinking are in balance, our feelings become reliable guides. We've transitioned from emotions to feelings. We realize what we need to feel congruent and then get a feeling about how to proceed and an inspiration for what to do next. We cultivate a sense of others' interests and feelings without merging with them or losing track of our own. It's no longer only about us. We feel good about serving others, caring for their needs and making a difference in others' lives. We've switched from those materialistic, hedonic pleasures to the eudonic pleasures that money cannot buy. Experts might diagnose us as "humbled" since we've abandoned our ego trips, power trips and attempts to exalt ourselves.

Brain State 1: Feeling Great! - Awakened

When the present moment seems perfect as is, we're filled with joy, inner peace and love. Our peptide production has totally switched over to pleasure chemicals from stressors. We're thinking "Yes! Bring it on, Thanks! and More please!" instead of "no, yuk, thanks for nothing and stop it". Time stands still while the moment absorbs all of our attention. We lose our selves and find how life is mysteriously fascinating.

With these five brain states defined, it becomes possible to change our minds significantly. Each state calls for a different tool to break up the routine and introduce added complexity. In other words, there's more to explore in my next post about "Wired for Joy".

Four kinds of comprehension

This morning I've been pondering the possibility of comprehension getting produced by peer-2-peer dynamics. I'm foreseeing wonderful possibilities in collaborative approaches that reduce the expert content to being a mere catalyst. I'll write more about all that in the near term. When I'm exploring different ways to cultivate comprehension, I rely on a framework of four kinds which call for four different production strategies. Here's a brief look at that framework:

• Academic comprehension can be machine graded. The complexity of any deeper or more useful comprehension gets reduced to one right answer on multiple choice questions. Academic comprehension grasps definitions, categories and conceptual abstractions. It avoids those messy gray areas where categorical precision breaks down. Materials designed to cultivate academic comprehension include textbooks, visual aids. study guides and lectures.
• Commercial comprehension can be demonstrated by personal conduct. The skill, method, technique or routine gets comprehended by doing it repeatedly. Comprehension yields reliability, self-correction and consistency. It pays to know how to do these things the right way to comply with an employer's policies, job descriptions, work flows and best practices. Experiences designed to cultivate commercial comprehension include imitation of an exemplar, practice drills and games to be played by the rules.
• Pragmatic comprehension can be demonstrated by successfully troubleshooting a malfunction. The diagnostic protocols, analytical frameworks and predictive models get comprehended by applying them to many varied situations with feedback about the outcomes. Pragmatic comprehension is intended to effect the situation getting understood. The comprehension may resolve, alleviate, de-escalate, redirect, liberate, transform or eliminate the situation. Experiences designed to cultivate pragmatic comprehension include scenarios, immersive role plays and internships.
• Paradoxical comprehension can be demonstrated by knowing when to forego this comprehension. The understanding of the comprehension in context realizes how to keep it in balance with other concerns, time it's application, disrupt excessive pursuits and apply it judiciously. Paradoxical comprehension grasps a whole understanding of it's categorical opposite, reversed application and larger set for which it is a subset. A paradoxical comprehension may show how to get the result by doing nothing and how to solve the problem by making it worse. Experiences designed to cultivate paradoxical comprehension include contradictory valid arguments to resolve and recursive phenomena to explain.

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.

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.

Internalizing entrepreneurial successes

When we're acting like passive consumers, we take what we're given. We do what we're told to do in school and then at work. We buy what's on the shelf at the store. We pay the ticket price the travel agent gives us. We watch the TV show when it's broadcast. We read what appears on the printed pages of our newspaper or magazine subscriptions. We listen to all the music tracks on a vinyl record or prerecorded tape.

When we're acting like active consumers, we shop around and make up our own minds. We get the results we're told to accomplish in the ways we choose. We compare brands, specs, reviews and prices as we shop for the best choice. We time shift broadcasts to watch at our convenience with interruptions at our own discretion. We cancel subscriptions and read selectively. We listen to CD's or MP3 players where we can shuffle play the music tracks and push a "next" button.

When we're acting like prosumers, we identify with successful consumer brands. We discover our strengths and recognize our own talents. We sell ourselves as hired guns who can solve problems, put out fires and deliver results. We expect people to buy what we're selling once we establish our credibility, prove our reliability and display our popularity. We generate content, connect with colleagues, follow news from others and share our latest incidents transparently. We brand ourselves and then invest in the brand, stay true to it and protect it from damage.

When we're acting like collaborators with and contributors to productive communities, we internalize the models that make entrepreneurs successful. We question what we're bringing to the table. We realize our offer is getting compared to rivals with different mixes and specialties. We enter the world of those we expect to buy what we're selling. We see ourselves through their eyes and value our offer on their terms. We look for ways to solve their problems, ease their pain, facilitate their progress, and support their endeavors. We figure out how to be of service, make a real difference and turn our caring for them into results they appreciate. We become a business model as we monetize these impacts, outcomes and solutions. Our value proposition gets bought and buzzed by others without hype, spin or showing off from us. Our brand gets hijacked, crowdsourced and owned by the buyers.

When we realize this fourth stage of personal development, we're ready for the next economy. We're well placed to change in every which way that's getting brought on by pervasive connectivity. We're in a good place to connect at an emotional level with actively engaged tribes.

Honoring four kinds of perceived value

Our tribal instincts honor the value we perceive in other people, their personal conduct and goods we exchange. We feel honored by those who provide whatever we perceive as valuable. For others to successfully provide what we perceive as valuable, they must first get a read on where we're coming from. Otherwise what they deliver will be a hit or miss affair that could even appear insulting, punitive or dishonorable. We're fully equipped with tribal instincts to handle a slap in the face as effectively as getting honored with what we perceive as valuable.

As I've mentored entrepreneurs to get on their customers' wavelengths, I developed a taxonomy of different value constructs. This amounts to a prediction language that anticipates what will sell and why customers will buy it. It helps the entrepreneurs to stay on course, to stop getting upset and to avoid setting themselves up for failure. The more successful they become at providing what others want, the more they can value themselves and honor how they perceive themselves as valuable. This in turn makes them perceived as more valuable by the sales prospects and customers.

1. Some customers are looking to keep their experience to a minimum. They are wary of getting ripped off. They perceive value in bargains, discounts, cost savings and freebies. They are not situated to appreciate higher quality, better services or what else they could get by paying more. They get ripped off often because they lack the sophistication to see through offers that are too good to be true. They relate to providers of goods and services as enemies to guard against. The providers who play at this level circle their wagons too. The customers appear as disheartening enemies who fail to appreciate an added touch, extra effort or better quality. Both sides perpetuate a stalemate like a long standing feud by honoring the perceived value in distance, hostilities and mutual contempt.
2. Some customers are looking for added value, higher quality and better services. They are wary of getting cheap replacements, shoddy workmanship or the runaround when demanding answers. They perceive value in getting the expectations met, demands satisfied and standards complied with. They get disappointed often because they come across as "customers from hell", tyrants who are impossible to please, and bullies who take pleasure in intimidating others. They relate to providers of goods and services as subservient misfits who lack the power, position and resources to get their own demands met. The providers who play at this level raise their own standards to meet the challenge of these demanding customers. The customers appear as worthy opponents in continual contests to win their respect, loyalty and trust. Both sides perpetuate a power game by honoring the perceived value in quality efforts, added services and quick responses.
3. Some other customers are looking for solutions to their particular problems in the context of their current situations. They are wary of getting bombarded by useless services, features and complications that do nothing for them. They perceive value in whatever makes a difference in their experience, on their own terms and according to their unique context. They get disappointed often because they need to get individual attention, really understood and engaged in authentic dialogue with customer service personnel who have gotten burned out by such attentiveness. They relate to providers of goods and services as advisers, colleagues and consultants who can bring their own understanding, perspective and experience to bear on their problem. The providers who play at this level continually discover how to be of service to each customer's set of problems, situational constraints and contextual influences. The customers appear as valuable explorers looking for solutions in ways that make others seem like valuable helpers. Both sides perpetuate a conversation by honoring the perceived value in each other's understanding, experience and perceptions.
4. The remaining customers are looking to collaborate and contribute to the success of their collaborators. They are wary of getting over-served where they cannot repay the kindness, keep things even and join in the producing the outcomes. They perceive value in getting valuable people knowing each other, thinking together and combining their resourcefulness into innovative outcomes. They get disappointed often because the world socializes, educates and employs people to serve those who pay for getting served by unilateral transactions. They relate to providers of goods and services as platforms for contributing and co-creating value. The providers who play at this level continually experience win/win solutions, mutually beneficial arrangements and unexpected outcomes from the complex interrelationships. The customers appear as providers of goods and services, no different from the providers in essence. Both sides perpetuate a collaboration by honoring the perceived value in each others contributions.

Perhaps obviously, this taxonomy aligns with the kinds of market providers and the kinds of tribes I've recently explored. I doubt this framework scales to the enormous scale of entire economies or phases of history. Rather, I suspect that every kind of customer and perceived value exists in every economy and phase of history. Back when wandering tribes encountered the first agriculturalists with surplus food to sell, there probably were bargain hunters and the rest. Likewise when fur trappers traded with tribes on the North American continent, it's likely that the trappers encountered every kind of customer also. As economies have become more complex, the opportunities for every kind of customer and perceived value would increase.

Increasing individuality

Yesterday, I finished reading The Support Economy: Why Corporations are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Captialism: which I had discovered in the bibliography to Dave Pollard's Finding the Sweet Spot. The authors make an argument for the obsolescence of managerial capitalism. Shoshanna Zuboff and James Maxmin see a pattern of increasing individualism that can initially be served with mass customization, many small enterprises in separate niches and the proliferation of media outlets. Yet they expect our living unique lives with our own outlooks will eventually make factories, corporations and the global economy obsolete. We won't want to work there, shop there or identify with that belief system. They expect the emergence of enterprises that provide individual attention, personal services and one-of-a-kind products. These authors joins the predictions of other books like Free Agent Nation, The Rise of the Creative Class, and The Long Tail.

As I reflected on their arguments this morning, I saw a pattern of increasing individualism in all the many changes we're experiencing. Here's a brief summary of the phases I realized:

• Phase One: Prior to World War II, Carl Jung developed the concept of "individuation" as he dealt with the midlife crises of countless patients. He saw people early in their lives joining organizations without their own identities, having no meaning in their lives, and merely doing time as wage slaves. Sometime after their 35th birthdays, they would experience of crisis with a strong sense of something missing, needing to change their lives and being filled with potentiality within that needed to be made conscious. They became unique as they interpreted their dreams, kept private journals or explored their hidden potentials with new projects. Individuality was experienced as a personal challenge in this phase.
• Phase Two: After World War II, the Boomer Generation came along. Individuality was made into a "thing" that created the search to find oneself and the fascination with alternative spiritualities, mythologies, folk music and ethnicities. This brought on the New Age movement as well as a revival of homemade and handicraft items. Individuality was framed as the destiny of everyone to fufilll.
• Phase Three: While John Naisbitt finished writing Megatrends and the Tofflers had written Future Shock, societal changes were occurring. There was a explosion in the number of magazines, radio stations, and cable TV channels offered. There were many more recordings, concerts, films and books being distributed. Products were sold with many more features, options, upgrades and package deals. Individuality could expressed by shopping for, buying and using these consumer items. The marketplace supported the departure from conformity and boredom.
• Phase Four: Nowadays, individuality appears to be a given for members of Gen Y. There's no hesitation in tagging content unconventionally, creating unique profile pages, and uploading their own creative content to the web. Their assimilation of so much technological connectivity has increased the dangers of being anonymous, unexceptional, boring or plain. They have compensated by creating more outlets to express their uniqueness than the consumers of the previous generation. Some even regard their meat puppet as one more avatar to disguise themselves in while traversing this realm. Individuality is everywhere.

With individuality so prevalent, it's no wonder the amount of free, digital content generated every day is staggering. Individuals' lack of fit into cubicles and conformity is not surprising. The phenomenal grass roots initiatives and groundswell of involvement in communities makes lots of sense.

As we're so inclined

When we're inclined to take things lying down, we do our best work flat on our back. We're the best "ho in the hood" for every predator, power tripper and egomaniac. We tell victim stories and throw pity parties because our misery loves company.

When we're inclined to take things as a game to win, we do our best work with opponents and enemies. We get in their face and on their case to win at their expense. We give others a hard time while they do time in our prison made just for their misery. Our idea of justice is get even as we play them for losers in our wicked game.

When we're inclined to take things as a lesson, we do our best work calling timeouts. We get what we're being shown, change our mind about what's too obvious and see beyond the facts to their significance. We give others our attention to receive the gifts they are bringing our way. We sacrifice our ego-trip to get tripped out on deeper insights.

When we're inclined to feel totally connected to each other, we do our best work with no ambition of our own. We act free to be whatever the situation calls for. We bring what is missing, overlooked or ruled out -- for those who are overly: committed, responsible, productive or captivated. What's next is a big mystery to us. Our idea of a good time is this, right here, right now.

Speaking of process

The word "process" means different things depending on the context. It's a favorite word of mine having been a licensed architect, organization development consultant, video producer, strategy advisor and instructional designer. In my contexts, process is open-ended, exploratory, creative and surprising. It's an essential aspect of change models, PLE's and reflective practicing.

This week, Aloof Schipperke alerted me to other connotations of the word "process" in his/her contexts of Enterprise Architecture and large IT implementations. We've been exploring his/her frustration with a lack of conversation in the process of design work and the profession in general. Rather than tackle the issue head on, we've explored revising the Cluetrain metaphor of "markets are conversations". Yesterday, Aloof connected the ways I characterized reflexive thinking to defenses against more conversational processes in his/her post: I won't be wrong if you don't talk.

Of course I've been reflecting on the different connotations of the word"process". This relates to a previous exploration of the word "learning" as a noun or a verb. This morning I related four different connotations of the word to different sized contexts.

Big is a problem: Large size projects, teams, organizations, and markets can be used as an excuse to avoid initiative. Conversations are too much to ask and "not in my job description". Things are "in process", meaning they are on hold or lost in the shuffle. Keeping disclosures to a minimum keeps each pawn free of scrutiny and disentangled from vicious rumors.

Bigger is better: "Size is the prize" when the focus in on delivery of quality products. The mechanisms are scalable because the quality is extrinsic, built into the specs. Conversations are unilateral and defended against contradiction by the reliable use of reflexive thinking. Things are getting processed in push models that make things happen consistently. The process of designing, changing, conversing or learning is procedural. The expansion of scope and production responsibilities necessitates keeping the complexity under control and by the book.

Small is beautiful: "One customer at a time" eliminates centralized control of mass production and merchandising. Factories get reconfigured as customizing service organizations. Markets become conversations where customers relate and reciprocate with providers to support the services they are receiving with their permission. Each participant is processing their experience. Customers are processing what they buy so to make the best use, get the most value and save the most time. Service providers are processing what they are learning from the beta releases, prototypes and customer feedback.

Small is scalable: "Small pieces loosely joined" makes it possible to scale the customized service. Small nodes join expansive networks. Customizing becomes the responsibility of the empowered consumers who are free to combine the solutions of their choosing. Networks facilitate the searching, finding, sharing and subscribing to a personal aggregation of resources. Each provider is a drop in the ocean or cell in the one body of indescribably complex processes. Each component is essential to countless processes that are unforeseen, mysterious and surprising to uncover.

This reflection on the connotations of "process" suggests that authentic, bilateral conversations occur in "small" contexts. Big contexts defeat the essential reciprocities and invoke defenses against conversing, as Aloof suggests.

Framing our constituencies

There are patterns in how we approach changing other people. We come from different places with different assumptions about who gets changed and how change happens. It appears that some patterns work better than others. Some approaches create the resistance they try to overcome. Choosing the way we frame the process of changing can facilitate the transformation of our educational systems, business enterprises and cultural stories.

Pushed vs. pushy: When a constituency appears to be stagnant, the instigators of change become belligerent. Passivity engenders hostility. Obsequiousness is a breeding ground for obnoxiousness. Doormats bring out the bully in those who want changes to happen ASAP. Those wallowing in self pity, powerlessness and victim stories will experience the imposed change effort as disastrous, disruptive and profoundly inconsiderate.

Pushing vs. pushing back: When a constituency appears defiant, the instigators escalate their change efforts. A competition ensues over which side can be the most stubborn, determined and controlling. Tactics erupt to intimidate the opponents, back them into a corner and penalize them for their "lack of cooperation". The struggle for power is self perpetuating with no end in sight. The closed loop learns nothing from the short and long term effects on each side. Whatever is being resisted gets "persisted" with a vengeance.

Pulling vs. pushing: When a constituency appears to voice legitimate concerns and share long-term interests, the instigators let go of making changes happen. They "get off their opponent's case", "out of their face" and "into their corner. They help the others succeed, meet their needs and serve their valuable objectives. Pulling for our constituencies "creates buy-in" to follow our unimposing lead. The followers push for the change while the leader pulls for the new pushers. It's apparent how our serving them comes back around to serve the change process and our shared interests. The set-up is reciprocal. We reap what we sow.

Evolving vs. pulling: When a constituency appears to be continually evolving, the instigators join the party. Both are changing by learning from each other, personal reflecting and significant happenstance. There are times to let the changes unfold and times to help others get their needs met. There are no fears that changing will stop or go off in a useless direction. All reactions, eruptions and agendas are good for the continual process that's evolving. It's all something to learn from, put to use and see from different perspectives.

As you may discern from how I've framed the process of changing, the way we characterize our constituencies may be a fateful decision. We can orchestrate our experience of making changes by how we see others. This suggests that what happens is "all in our minds". "Change our mind and we change our world"; or as Gandhi advised: "Be the change we want to see in the world".

Acting with purpose

A few days ago, Pete Reilly created a post: How Do We Change? where the comment box has morphed into a conversation. My post yesterday: Flying over familiar ground further developed a point I was making on his blog about our sabotage of change efforts. Pete then added a wonderful comment where he said:

I don't think I want to change the "urges that come out of nowhere"...that's just me being a human being. I want to change how I deal with those urges:
1. I want to be aware of them and not have them be so automatic that they are invisible.
2. When I am aware, I want to deliberately choose what to do next. I can break an old pattern or decide that the old pattern might be most appropriate for this situation.
3. I want to practice being deliberate about my new behavior because it will feel uncomfortable for a while and it will be easy to fall back to old "flight plans".
4. I want a purpose bigger than myself to help sustain me on my new journey because it is taking me to new and unfamiliar terrain. I may want to turn back' but if I know that I am not just shortchanging myself; but my family, my school, my co-workers, or my students...I will keep on working for the larger good.

I pondered Pete's strategy of "bringing awareness to urges" and realized how we can be aware of our many urges differing and changing for the better.

Destructive urges: Some of our urges are harmful to ourselves and others. We act destructively when we're feeling desperate, awful about something and afraid of what will happen. Our awareness is limited to an immediate need to stop feeling so dreadful. We act out our frustrations and make the world a worse place to live.

Conflicted urges: With increased awareness, we discover urges to handle our destructive urges. We act to acquire self discipline, make conscious choices, and control those dark impulses. We struggle with the conflicting urges to advance or regress, to respect or retaliate against others, to be helpful or harmful and to grow or stagnate.

Reliable urges: With even more awareness, we discover urges to collaborate and reciprocate with others. We join together in explorations that resolve inner conflicts, deepen mutual understanding and empower disenfranchised participants. We realize these reliable urges come as naturally to us as the autonomic processes of our immune, digestion, pulmonary and circulation systems.

Transformational urges: With comprehensive awareness, we discover urges to live our purpose, as Pete also concludes. We leave the ground of our past history and those struggles to control ourselves. We change our story. We live inside a different world that we intend to bring forth for others to experience.

We incorporate the awareness realized from our interdependence in networks to be here for a particular purpose that makes countless differences beyond our control. It occurs to us how our journey prepares us to make a gift of ourselves. We see the difference we make is the difference we are. We find meaning in the moment and act accordingly. We come from a place that allows all urges to provoke greater awareness, choice and change.

Synching up with the learners

Leigh Blackall has just written a wonderful exploration of the dilemmas created by wanting to facilitate online learning while the learners want content delivered to them by an instructor:

But I have been asked to facilitate a learning community. And although I know the word facilitate is being used more than a little loosely by institutions these days, and that the majority of the participants are encouraged to bring with them expectations AND needs of being taught and instructed, I have this idealist expectation to build and facilitate a learning community.

As I've reflected up Leigh's dilemma, that I've also experienced myself, I'm seeing facilitation as a special case for a particular subset of evolved learners. The robust expectations for "getting instructed" that Leigh articulates superbly, are reflections of how far along the learners have come in putting new knowledge to use. Of course this came to my mind as another taxonomy:

Questions of comprehension: Learners who a new to a domain of knowledge are on unfamiliar ground. They need maps, guidebooks and landmarks. Their hunger for formal instruction is not pathological. It's the nature of lacking familiarity, being unsure of themselves and getting easily misled. Learners at this stage can get what they need from archived material online, a modicum of research skills and personally meaningful questions to guide their search.

Questions of qualification: Learners who already comprehend the terms and concepts want formal procedures to follow. They want to make sure they are "executing the recipe right". They want to be tested by someone qualified to catch their mistakes, clear up their misunderstandings, recognize what is getting overlooked and show them how to successfully conform to the procedures. Their hunger for "click2death" content is not pathological. Learners at this stage can get what they need from sequential modules, games and interactive exercises that score their key presses and monitor their progress.

Questions of application: Learners who are already qualified to execute procedures compliantly are getting into trouble in the field. The recipe does not always work. Sometimes problems get misdiagnosed or made worse by standard procedures. Learners want a community of practitioners they can learn from, exchange concerns with, and gain new insights into unusual situations. Learners at this stage can get what they need from the online facilitation of social learning processes.

Questions of contribution: Learners who can troubleshoot breakdowns and nuance application contexts have a lot to offer others. They are in a position to generate valuable content and respond helpfully to comments, queries and contradictory viewpoints from their readers, subscribers and linkers. Learners at this stage can get what they want by publishing, uploading, and contributing to collective efforts online.

Returning to the dilemma of instructing and facilitating, it now appears to me that the opportunity to facilitate learners must first be created by getting them past the stage of seeking procedural compliance and certified qualification.

Technorati tags: instructional design, interactivity, faciliation

PLEs come in sizes

When we think of Personal Learning Environments as things, we are on the same page as construction workers, factory stewards and warehouse operators. We are dealing with the components to assemble a PLE. We describe the PLE as "what we've got in it" like Web 2.0 tools and archives of our own creations.

When we think of PLE's as processes, we're on the same page as designers of architecture, software interfaces and customer experiences. We're dealing with what components do, how they function, what purpose they serve, and which difference they make. These intangible qualities are more difficult to visualize.

When PLE's are comprised of tangible components, there's a limit to how big they can get. We can only handle so much information before we go into overwhelm, denial or dissociation. When PLE's are appreciated for intangible functionalities, there's no limit to their scope, impact and value. When I speak of PLE's coming in different sizes, I'm addressing these intangible qualities.

Tiny PLE's - PLE's can be limited in scope to a research project. This is most common in academic settings where the PLE needs to "fit under the nose" of the instructor giving grades. The research can be of a personal interest and personal selection of resources, but it cannot get more personal than that. This is the kind of research that journalists do for their next story, legislative analysts use to draft new policies and academics rely upon to create new articles for their journals.

Elongated PLE's - PLE's can last a lifetime if they serve continual competency development. Networks like TENCompetence support personal career changing, reentry to the workforce, closing skill gaps and life long learning. The focus on personal skill development is a much larger scope than any research project. It builds on previous learning and requires more intrinsic motivation to succeed. The personal context involves more issues like financial obligations, social acceptance, personal confidence and family commitments. The PLE reaches into the past and extends into the personal future.

Deep PLE's - When PLE's explore why things happen and what they mean personally, they take on an enormous, new dimension. They becomes a source of anxiety relief, comfort and personal growth. The continual contrasts of personal perspectives with others' frames of reference clarifies one's own voice and gifts for the world. We find how we differ that then serves as the basis for how to contribute in ways that are deeply satisfying and significant. We construct "mental models" that gives us ways to accept, forgive and even utilize what happens in our world. We bring compassion and deeper understandings to dramas, conflicts and breakdowns of dialogue.

Infinite PLE's - When a deep PLE is sufficiently robust, we are set-up to learn from everything that happens. We become fascinated by occurrences and open to life's mysteries. "Life is our PLE" because everything imaginable is welcomed as something to possibly explore, reflect upon or incorporate into our understanding. Our reflective practice becomes more significant than acquiring new information. We learn as much or more going within meditatively.

In discussing portions of this with a colleague over the weekend, we concluded that a deep PLE can be started at a young age. His experiences with elementary school children has revealed the ability to "go deep" after the primary grades. The sooner we establish that tradition of personal meaning, the more likely the learners will develop the habit of graciously  "learning from everything that happens".

Providing appreciative space

Appreciative space is a state of mind that transforms situations. This outlook sees so much good in everything that it all seems perfect. The space allows for anything and everything to happen within it without objections. This context of acceptance and appreciation has a very different effect from intolerance and control.

We cannot provide appreciative space by thinking about a situation. Our thinking is designed to deal with dangers, threats and enemies. Rather than allowing everything, thinking automatically maintains our defenses, attacks our antagonists and colludes with our apparent allies. Thinking resists what appears and has the inadvertent effect of maintaining what it finds objectionable.

Changing states of mind to provide appreciative space has been compared to changing states of H20: solid, liquid, condensed, and gaseous.

Ice: When our consciousness is like ice, we are solidly opposed to something. We are stuck on a position that cannot allow or accept contradictory evidence. Our ability to change our mind and see other viewpoints is frozen like a deer in headlights. In stories we are a blocking character that meets the protagonist with adversity at every turn.

Rivers: When our conscious runs like a river, we have a one track mind. We go after our goal with a vengeance. We stick to the straight and narrow rut, avoiding distractions and detours. We stay on course to make steady progress that opposes stagnation, stability and the status quo. Our ability to change our mind is in flight from dangers of being wrong, vulnerable or misguided. We are not stopped by ice or rocks in our way. In stories, we are the protagonist who heroically overcomes obstacles with determination and objectivity.

Clouds: When our consciousness is permeable like fog, mist or cloud banks, we allow for many points of view. We explore subjective interpretations and alternative ways of relating to the facts. We use metaphors, analogies and stories to capture the variety of perspectives coming into play. Our ability to change our mind is fighting against single-mindedness and over-confidence. We are not stopped by ice or torrents of water. In stories we are the wise counselor that drifts in and out of the plot unpredictably.

Humidity: When our conscious extends everywhere like clear air, we provide appreciative space. We include all possibilities as allowable and understandable. We see the inherent processes unfolding perfectly. We value all other states of mind as the harmless experiences they truly are. We can go anywhere and everywhere in our minds to get what we need at any moment. We give this freedom we found in abundance to others in our space.

Have a clear day!

Escaping narrative fallacies

We can be a sucker for our own stories. We practice bad science and adopt unfounded beliefs. We misconstrue the complexity and assign causality mistakenly. We become trapped in an web of illusions that leave us exposed to the devastation of wild fluctuations in the phenomena we had "scientifically explained and predicted to not expose us to risk".

Let's take an example: Andrew tells a story about "how people learn". His story claims that people learn from authoritative knowledge delivered as formal instruction. When people fail to learn the right answers, methods and explanations, his story asserts that they have learned informally, freely ranging among unqualified sources. Any unqualified source of information provides self confirming evidence that his story holds up. Any indications that people are failing to "get it right" confirm the problems with learner directed, generated and motivated educations.

There appears to be no escape when we have fallen for our self-protective story. We are inclined to be right at all cost. We think we are being objective while our perceptions are filtered by our narrative fallacy.

Nassim Taleb hopes we can escape these fallacies by becoming skeptical of our knowledge. If we consider the possibility of our using flawed reasoning, distorted perceptions and mistaken convictions, perhaps we can escape our self perpetuating stories. In The Black Swan, he offers many different self-delusions to call into question before we assume we are right about what to expect.

I've not had much success with the strategy Taleb proposes. I encounter narrative fallacies every week as I mentor entrepreneurs. Rather than catch the narrative in use, I have more success with "choose your story" interventions. The taxonomies I've shared in this blog are choices between stories. My email address uses the moniker: "storychanging" for this reason.

When we are choosing between stories, we can get down the level of "where did that come from?" or "what's that about?". We deal at the level of story, below the levels of what happened?, what's wrong with that?, who's at fault? or how could they be so stupid? We see the situation as a reflection of how it's perceived and given meaning. The same setback can be seen from the perspective of four different stories. Change the meaning and the situation gets resolved. Escape the narrative fallacy and a different story accesses an unforeseen creative alternative.

Technorati tags: Nassim Taleb, The Black Swan

Degrees of freedom

There are different degrees of freedom in what comes to mind. Creative freedom is not available from every premise we stand upon. One of the significant incentives for changing where we are coming from -- is to experience more freedom right now from a higher ground.

On dangerous ground, we are stuck with no degrees of freedom. We are grounded in denials, victim stories and past history. We cannot change our history and thus cannot move in any direction. We are up a against a wall facing what happened to us that haunts us still. We are disoriented by progress, accomplishments and goals that others demonstrate. They make no sense because they defy the absence of freedom. If we slip off this ground, we experience a disoriented, psychotic break from physical reality.

On battlegrounds, we are free to move in one direction. We can move forward in time and take time to do it. This one degree of freedom creates oscillations in our minds. We have trouble making up our minds because we are free to decide between past and future, persisting or changing, antagonizing and accepting. We are grounded in a tunnel making progress, making things happen, and moving toward our goals. If we lose sight of the destination, get off track or distract ourselves with detours, we're back on dangerous ground. With this one degree of freedom, we are disoriented by meaning, individualized interpretations and self expression. They make no sense because we cannot go there by our freedom to move forward.

On common ground, we are free to move above and below our forwards and backwards oscillations. With two degrees of freedom, we can detach from our conduct, reactions and  interaction patterns. We have access to an overview that sees our big picture, destiny and panoramic options.  We get grounded in a depth of insight that shows us "where that came from" or "what's that about". We can reframe the evidence with a different metaphor or definition of the problem. If we make up our mind to fixate on one right answer, pure objectivity or "the facts mean what they say", we are back on a battleground with only one way to move around. With two degrees of freedom, we are disoriented by unlimited freedom and undifferentiated ground. We cannot go there without going out of our minds.

On infinite ground, we are free to move around in the space where all is possible. With three degrees of movement, we can transcend our subjective interpretations, meanings and differences from others to create any experience we choose. We have access to the source of all convincing appearances to experience ourselves in any way that serves us. We are oriented by all the previous grounds and lesser degrees of freedom because "we've been there -- done that!".

Technorati tags: creativity, cognitive neuroscience

What comes to mind

What comes to mind depends on where we stand and where we are coming from. To have different things come to mind, we simply change our ground. While staying on the same premises, basis or epistemological frame, the same kinds of things will come to mind. It's possible there are four grounds to choose between.

Two grounds are based on fear. They operate on the premise that fears will come true in our experience, because the dangers are so believable and strongly felt. They present life as a struggle that calls for acts of defense and desperation.

Two other grounds are based on love. They function with the premise that one good thing after another will come into our experience because we are open to all possibilities. They present life as the freedom to explore and enjoy each moment.

The first fearful ground is littered with dangers. It presumes we are powerless to change, helpless in the face of what confronts us, and victimized by how we get treated. On this ground, irrational urges, cravings, and emotions come to mind.

The second is a battleground also based on fear. It presumes when can win at other's expense, succeed at all cost, make changes happen and control other people. On this ground, vendettas, conquest strategies and ways to fix others all come to mind.

The third is common ground, based on love. It presumes we are in this together, floating all the boats,  and exploring mutual interests. On this ground, it occurs to us how to get creative about caring for and serving us together.

The fourth is undifferentiated ground, also based on love. It presumes we are free to label it as we choose, make it into whatever we want, and subject it to our subjective whims. On this ground, it dawns on us how everything that happens is perfectly useful and reflective of which ground is being stood upon.

Choose your ground.

Technorati tags: epistemic frames, post-modernism