Think Wider

Uw chat met de MS Klantenservice - lol

2010-05-06T11:53:00.001+02:00

Is dit niet typisch?

Me: Initiële vraag/commentaar: Sharepoint - Advies aan onze klanten

Ralf Tinnefeld is de sessie binnengekomen!

U bent in contact met Ralf Tinnefeld. Your reference number for this chat session is 2330161.

Ralf Tinnefeld: Welkom bij Microsoft. Mijn naam is Ralf. Wat kan ik voor U doen?

Ralf Tinnefeld: Goedemiddag

Me: Dag Ralf

Me: Onze klanten vragen ook advies over de implementatie

Me: Sharepoint is een belangrijk platform, maar we weten er te weinig van

Me: Kan iemand van Microsoft ons een demo geven zodat we onze klanten beter kunnen adviseren?

Me: ?

Ralf Tinnefeld: U kunt een testversie downloaden via de volgende link: http://sharepoint2010.microsoft.com/try-it/Pages/Trial.aspx

Ralf Tinnefeld: Meer informatie over Sharepoint kunt u ook vinden via de volgende site: http://sharepoint2010.nl/

Me: Is het mogelijk om een gesprek te organiseren hierover, waarin we specifiekere vragen kunnen stellen?

Me: ?

Me: ?

De verbinding met de klantenservicemedewerker is verbroken, u wordt teruggestuurd naar de originele rij. Een moment geduld alstublieft.....

Ralf Tinnefeld heeft de sessie verlaten!

U bent wachtende (2) in de wachtrij.Geschatte wachttijd is 0 uur 12 minuten 46 seconden

How to write a good story

2009-08-24T19:46:00.002+02:00

I found an article about writing good stories. There are plenty of howto's around the web, but this one seemed particularly short and practical:
- Write about what you know, get close to the subject
- Think of a subject and don't deviate
- ...but keep the plot open
- Details bring your character to life
- ...but they slow down the action, so don't exaggerate.
- Know your character very well so their actions are logical
- An exciting story is like jazz: rhythm is essential.
- Chronology is boring, use time jumps a lot.

The article then links to http://www.schrijvenonline.org/, where I found nice writing exercises. Will do them!

Design for Conversion Confernce

2009-06-14T22:50:00.004+02:00

Last friday I visted the Design for Conversion Conference in Amsterdam. A delightful day out with lots of like-minded people. And not only web dudes. Some ladies too!

This is what the speakers had to say:
Karl Blanks compared conversion with creating an effective robot salesperson. He also used this equation: Conversion = Usability + Persuasion. He told some funny stories of how he always tries the sales processes of his customers with his own credit and discovers stuff they've never seen. And he goes even further: to really learn where the barriers to a successful sale are he goes out to the shop floor and tries the selling for himself. He can the quickly try out different strategies and different banners. It is something I usually do for myself too, nice to see my principles confirmed.
The business case he builds for his customers consists of a virtuous circle: better conversion means less ad spending, better bottom line results, more sales, more customer visibility and again less ad spending and around you go.

Hannah Donovan looked especially good on the stage and discussed principles we already know and use for a long time: let people experience the magic before you ask them to login. Make sure you over deliver on the expectations you create.

Eric Schaffer is hardcore researcher and psychologist. He says that usability is invaluable, but if you really want to sell, you need to add persuasion, emotion and trust - PET. For instance, if Eric has to decide how a list of products is sorted he researches how people spend more money. He shows that if you sort descending on price, people spend 19% more money than when you sort ascending. Similar to Robert Cialdini he has a wide range of principles for persuasion. He calls it a 'Dark Art'. The nice thing is that he is hard at work for his Dark Art to promote sustainability.
His mission was to people that it is cool to live with less stuff and more fun. I'm a fan!

Paul Hughes had by far the most impressive presentation of all: he drew on a piece of paper and projected on the beamer to support his talk.
Two concepts stuck with me:
1. You can design on different levels, where level 1 is about form & function. Level 2 is about system and process and level 3 about strategy and policy. He illustrated that concept with a beautiful example that started with the redesign of a thermometer and went on to the rethinking of the hospital concept. Made me remember how crucial it is to agree with customers on what level you are going to design before you begin.
2. A good example of (re-) framing: "It does not matter who votes, it's who counts the votes." Joseph Stalin, noticed that. And the Iranian prime minister is trying it too. Maybe not such a positive example, but a clear one.

The day ended with some delightful drinks in the setting sun in Amsterdam. A worthwhile day.

Peopleware

2009-04-08T20:50:00.005+02:00

In 1999 Tome Demarco en Timothy Lister published their second edition of 'Peopleware'. Their insight is that software development projects fail not because of technology, but because of communication. Yet what managers do is manage technology, not the communication in the team. Why? Technology, stuff, procedures, and such are tangible, orderly and easy to influence. When comes to communication the problem becomes hairy, impossible to analyze (because analysis changes the situation) and chaotic. Hence the title of the book: peopleware, as opposed to software.
I really like their basic insight, though many of the "solutions" they suggest are a bit dated or not well researched. For instance they suggest switching to email for all communications, because it doesn't interrupt your work. In the meantime everybody knows email leads to a lot of misunderstanding. And with the blackberries and outlook tray icons email too is interrupting your flow.

Some ideas, though, I found really valuable:
- Noisy, windowless workplaces are a waste of salaries.
About a third of the book is a crusade against noise. Open space is the worst for productivity. People need quiet to do thinking work productively, and a window. The symptoms are that people work late "in the quiet hours", book meeting rooms or just call in sick to get important work done. From my own experience I really recognize the loss in productivity. My philosophy was already not to give precedence to the phone when I'm talking to somebody live, but now I also reduced the number of rings of my phone to 1. And I require of my people that they turn outlook off during the four hours of the morning.
- Productive hours vs. hours of bodily presence.
We all have experienced a state of flow: deep productive concentration where time seems to fly. It takes at least 15 minutes to get into. So the real productive hours are the uninterrupted hours. It is amazing how little really productive hours we have if you start looking at it like that.
- Give high performers what they want
Some people don't want more money for their performance, but just the means to perform even better. They are highly intrinsically motivated and should be supported in that. The book tells of a company that sponsored a complete home office at the request of a high performing employee. That made me think. I now put much more effort in providing the high performing people reporting to me with the tools they ask for. I don't care if it's company policy, or "what would happen if everybody started to ask for that" - an often heard objection.
- Music makes you perform better on focussed tasks but makes you miss out on the big things.
A nice experiment with two groups of programmers. They were asked to write some number manipulation algorithm. Groups working with and without music both completed the algorithms within about the same time and with the same performance. But only the group without music noticed that the net result of all the manipulations was the same is the input! To this I also can ascribe. When I do production, stuff I know from experience I put up music. When I need to think wider, shift paradigms and integrate a lot of ideas I need absolute quiet.
- Let people move in the office
There is a lot to say in favor of letting people choose their place in the office. They can collocate with the people +they+ feel they need to work most with. It creates real short communication lines. But the extreme version of that, flexible offices, where nobody has a fixed desk but only some drawers on wheels doesn't work either. Here you have no place to ground, to install yourself, feel at home and get stuff done.
- Change and creativity is born out of chaos
Now that is an obvious one. But the insight here is to see brainstorms, pilot projects, war games, trips, conferences celebrations, retreats, training experiences is injections of chaos, as breaking out of the ordinary.

Other than that the authors frown on burocratic procedures and the high disregard of human capital with high turnover rates or downsizing. And they touch on the subject of teams and communities as means of making work fun and productive. Much better work on the subject of teams is my previous post 'Effect' and Blanchard's situational team leadership.

Effect

2009-03-26T11:16:00.009+01:00

"Effect", by J.O. Koss and B.M. Ihlen, makes you conscious that your intuitive or automatic reactions don't always have the effect you desire on other people. It gives great insights in needs and motivations. Originally intended as a coaching manual, the relevance of this book is much wider.
A story to illustrate this: John is taking a communications and team building course. He says he doesn't like his job because his achievements go unnoticed and when he's in trouble there's no one to help. He needs support and recognition. His case is thoroughly investigated during the course until a certain point where another student says: "Well, John, the trainers are giving you a hard time. Why don't we take a break?" To which John replies: "You've got to be able to handle that if you come to a course like this." Now the effect John has on his fellow students is exactly opposite of stimulating them to give support and recognition.

Next I will explain some key terms from the book: the belly, the head, unequal substances, the platform, the tapestry, making competent, stamina, victim vs. actor and teams. They come together in a nice frame of human communication and effect.

The Belly and the Head
How did it get to all this? People all have a 'belly' and 'head'. The belly stands for all our wants and needs. The head for the shoulds. When you're born, you're all belly and gradually you learn to show socially accepted behavior. But the belly and it's needs never go away. It counts every unmet need and insult. This can lead to depression or explosive situations. Now the trick is never to loose sight of the belly and to create some room for negotiation between your needs and what is socially acceptable.

Heterogeneous substances
Another thing to train yourself in is distinguishing between people's reactions and their intentions (the reverse mechanism). This will keep you from being hit hard in the belly. If someone gives you a grumpy remark, try to investigate it calmly, find out the intentions behind it, before letting it hit you in the belly. This is what the authors call the law of heterogeneous substances: Someone's reaction and the needs behind it *seem* the same but are not the same upon closer investigation. How people perceive you has nothing to do with who you are.

Platform
Before you (or anyone) can handle criticism, you need a 'platform'. An acknowledged base level of performance. An anchor for your self esteem and personality. So the way to go if you are blown away by heavy negative feedback is to ask for the stuff that went well, build your platform and from there investigate the rest of the feedback.

The tapestry
Imagine your life as one of these medieval tapestries, telling long sagas in minitious detail. If you are unhappy with the whole, or some part, you can always pick up your flash light and lighten some positive detail. This helps you find bricks for building the platform and feeling competent. As a simple trick, for instance, I always focus on some positive experience before a presentation. That makes the whole thing go better.

Making competent
Making someone competent means you give the other the feeling of being accepted by you, so he is able to handle the difference between you. Why is this important? Because acceptance carries criticism. The more you are accepted the more you can take. Making someone competent happens on their terms.

Stamina
When someone needs your time or attention you need some stamina, some positive attitude towards him or her. As soon as someone bores you, or tires you, you know you are losing it. It's time then to build up your stamina again. You can do this by asking for the value of your time.

Victim vs. Actor
You can undergo a situation passively or actively strive to set matters to your hand. And it's all just a state of mind. If you feel like a victim, it's impossible to bring about change and you will keep suffering. Try to be the subject of the situation. Be yourself, know what you want, and you'll be in a much better position.

Teams
We are more often in a team situation then we are inclined to think. If you buy a nice bouquet for your wife, you and the flower seller are a team. Make sure she feels competent, you have your platform and you know what you want. Be the subject, not the object.

Conclusion
A lot of ideas come together in this book. Situational leadership, intrinsic motivation, Dream Dare Do. I think it is a must-read for everyone. It reads easily with simple language and a lot of examples. The tough part is bringing it in practice consequently and changing your old habits. But the payoff is huge.

Made to Stick

2009-01-07T21:51:00.003+01:00

Here's a book every designer should read. It helps you to go past aesthetics to make your (or your client's) message stick. By “stick,” the authors mean that your ideas are understood and remembered, and have a lasting impact — they change your audience’s opinions or behavior. This is not to say that every communication should be 'sticky'. As Chip and Dan Heath say: “At this point, it’s worth asking why you’d need to make your ideas stick. After all, the vast majority of our daily communication doesn’t require stickiness. “Pass the gravy” doesn’t have to be memorable.”

After reading ‘The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference‘ by Malcolm Gladwell two brothers Chip Heath (a Stanford Business school professor) and Dan Heath (a corporate education consultant at Duke) were inspired by Gladwell’s top selling book. After extensive research they found that the ideas that ’stick’ all share the following six principles (with a chapter dedicated to each principle):

PRINCIPLE 1: SIMPLICITY - Find the core of your idea.
This is done by finding what is the essential part of your message to the target audience. Think what their stakes are. Ask yourself what motivates them, ask yourself what part of your message will capture their attention. A successful defense lawyer says, “If you argue ten points, even if each is a good point, when they get back to the jury room they won’t remember any.” To strip an idea down to its core, we must be masters of exclusion. We must relentlessly prioritize.

PRINCIPLE 2: UNEXPECTEDNESS - Stand out of the noise.
How do we get our audience to pay attention to our ideas, and how do we maintain their interest when we need time to get the ideas across? Get peoples attention. Attract it. Hold it. How? Through surprise. Break people’s ‘guessing machine’ and then repair it. We need to be counterintuitive. Here's an example from the US FDA: "A bag of popcorn is as unhealthy as a whole day’s worth of MacDonald's" It makes you wonder why, doesn't it? Well, both have the same amount of hydrogenated fat!
But surprise doesn’t last. For our idea to endure, we must generate interest and curiosity. “The most basic way to get someone’s attention is this: Break a pattern. Humans adapt incredibly quickly to consistent patterns. Figure out what are the unexpected implications of your core message.

PRINCIPLE 3: CONCRETENESS - Make your ideas actionable.
Make your idea like Velcro. Hook them through concreteness. We must explain our ideas in terms of human actions, in terms of sensory information. This is where so much business communication goes awry. Mission statements, synergies, strategies, visions — they are often ambiguous to the point of being meaningless. Naturally sticky ideas are full of concrete images — ice-filled bathtubs, apples with razors — because our brains are wired to remember concrete data. In proverbs, abstract truths are often encoded in concrete language: “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.” Speaking concretely is the only way to ensure that our idea will mean the same thing to everyone in our audience. “Abstraction makes it harder to understand an idea and to remember it. It also makes it harder to coordinate our activities with others, who may interpret the abstraction in very different ways. Concreteness helps us avoid these problems.” Make sure that your message contains a concrete call to action. And make the action as easy as possible with opening times, maps, everything.

PRINCIPLE 4: CREDIBILITY - Help people believe.
Honesty and trustworthiness should be glorified. Use authorities and anti-authorities. Vivid details boost credibility. If possible, use statistics that generate a human context. “How do we get people to believe our ideas? We’ve got to find a source of credibility to draw on. A person’s knowledge of details is often a good proxy for her expertise. Think of how a history buff can quickly establish her credibility by telling an interesting Civil War anecdote. But concrete details don’t just lend credibility to the authorities who provide them; they lend credibility to the idea itself.”

PRINCIPLE 5: EMOTIONS - Make people care.
Associate ideas with emotions that already exist in others. Bridge the emotional gap between your idea (that they don’t care about - yet) with something they already are emotional or care about. Place emphasis on benefits! Research shows that people are more likely to make a charitable gift to a single needy individual than to an entire impoverished region. We are wired to feel things for people, not for abstractions. Sometimes the hard part is finding the right emotion to harness. For instance, it’s difficult to get teenagers to quit smoking by instilling in them a fear of the consequences, but it’s easier to get them to quit by tapping into their resentment of the duplicity of Big Tobacco. “How can we make people care about our ideas? We get them to take off their Analytical Hats. We create empathy for specific individuals. We show how our ideas are associated with things that people already care about. We appeal to their self-interest, but we also appeal to their identities-not only to the people they are right now but also to the people they would like to be.”

PRINCIPLE 6: STORIES - Build the shared mythology.
Firefighters naturally swap stories after every fire, and by doing so they multiply their experience; after years of hearing stories, they have a richer, more complete mental catalog of critical situations they might confront during a fire and the appropriate responses to those situations. Research shows that mentally rehearsing a situation helps us perform better when we encounter that situation in the physical environment. Similarly, hearing stories acts as a kind of mental flight simulator, preparing us to respond more quickly and effectively. Get people to act. Use stories as stimulation (tell people how to act). Use stories as inspiration (give people energy to act). “A story is powerful because it provides the context missing from abstract prose. This is the role that stories play-putting knowledge into a framework that is more lifelike, more true to our day-to-day existence. Stories are almost always CONCRETE. Most of them have EMOTIONAL and UNEXPECTED elements. The hardest part of using stories effectively is make sure they’re SIMPLE-that they reflect your core message. It’s not enough to tell a great story; the story has to reflect your agenda.”

If this gets you interested, I really suggest you read book. It's many examples help you make the book's ideas stick. My conclusion: making an idea stick is an essential part of creating critical mass for change, so I'll work on using the principles in my design practice.

Correction vs. evaluation

2008-12-30T00:33:00.003+01:00

My Tai Chi teacher says: "Don't correct your foot once you put it down. It's the only way to learn to put down your foot correctly at once."
My sketching teacher used to say: "Don't correct wrong lines, sketch lightly and clarify with color. In the end you will learn to put down a line correctly at once."
My saxophone teacher used to say: "Don't stop playing when you go wrong. The band is not waiting for you."
Benjamin Zander says: "Don't wince when you make a mistake. Smile! And say: How interesting!"

Would there be a larger truth here about learning and creativity? It's better to evaluate afterwards than correct all the time...

A Haiku*

2008-12-25T13:59:00.002+01:00

A glimpse of life's origin
the intrinsic non-linearity with pseudo stable phases
the fringes of physical phenomenae

* A Japanese poem composed of three unrhymed lines of five, seven, and five syllables. Haiku often reflect on some aspect of nature.

Does the haiku style require simple poetic words? Still reading Critical Mass and my mind wanders of wildly.

Influence

2008-12-20T22:45:00.006+01:00

Robert Cialdini infiltrated with so-called compliance professionals to compile his book on the psychology of persuasion. Humans have certain strong psychological mechanism that help in decision making. Usually. Unless they are exploited with false information. This book investigates the weapons of influence and give some tips to protect against them. There are broadly 7 ways to gain influence: Contrasting & Low-balling, Reciprocation, Consistency, Social proof, Liking, Authority and Scarcity.

Most examples are in literal selling, but the insights can be used for the figurative selling of, for instance, ideas.

Contrasting & Low-balling
It's what you compare it to, that sets the perspective. Consultants compare their fees to the monthly cost of an office copy machine. Autombile dealers wait until they negotiated the price for the car before selling the options, which seem cheap in contrast. Suitmakers sell the $500 suit before trying to sell the $75 sweater. Realty salesmen keep one or two run-down houses at inflated prices. They show them before showing the home they want to sell, which seems a good deal in contrast.
Low-Balling is variant of this where you first ask an unreasonable request followed by your real request, which will seem reasonable in contrast.

Reciprocation
Give first and take,... and take and take. Somehow this force is so strong that even people we dislike can take a favor back. Krishna's have earned lot's of 'gifts' by pressing flowers into the hands of unsuspecting passersby. "Just a gift". Then they kindly requested a donation, and almost nobody could refuse. Even better: when they woke up, people put their flowers into a trashcan which were then handsomely recycled by the Krishna's. Actually, low-balling is a form of reciprocation and contrast combined: when diminishing your request, this can also be seen as a gift.

Commitment and Consistency
People feel an urge to be consistent with what they say. Some examples: in a telephone 'survey' people were asked what they would say if they were asked to spend three hours collecting money for the Cancer fund. Not wanting to seem uncharitable people would say yes. And when - oh coincidence - a recruiter showed up at their door, the Cancer Fund saw a 900% increase in volunteers. The power is even stronger when people are asked to commit in writing. That's why door-to-door salesmen let people fill in their request for samples themselves. Another example is large companies running testimonial contests. You have to complete a sentence like "Why I like brand x...". Guess what the power of consistency does here. The commitment is strengthened by the effort you put in (writing). But the effort could also be an initiation rite. Student groups or even the military let new members go trough the most awful initiation rites and the most important result is that people are committed to their new group. Another strengthener for this power of influence is the public. People are more consistent with what they declare publicly. An energy conservation program in Iowa, for example, saw a consistent saving of 12.5 cubic meters of gas per person when the people partaking were promised to have their names published as public-spirited energy-conserving citizens. Without that promise the program had previously been unsuccessful on the longer term. Even stronger: when the participants were told, after one winter, it was not possible to publish their names after all, they still kept conserving energy!

Social Proof
Whether the question is what to do with an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to drive on a certain stretch of highway, or how to eat the chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us will be important in defining the answer. That's why canned laughter works, that why beggars and bartenders "salt" their money jars. That's why advertisers inform us that a product is "best-selling".

Liking
Liking is pretty simple, really but surprisingly powerful. You are easily influenced by people you like. People who dress like you influence you more. But you might also like a star actor and therefore be persuaded to buy products he or she endorses. Or just pretty women in general, for that matter. The strength of word-of-mouth publicity is also an illustration of the power of liking. Or the all-time classic good cop, bad cop. This one is a strong combination of liking and contrasting.
But the effect is also used in more subtle and cunning ways in advertising. Smart marketeers can program your lizzard brain to associate their brands with positive events. Radios play their jingles right before big hit songs. And on Tupperware bingo parties you have to yell "Tupperware!" instead of bingo, before you can rush in and claim your prize.

Authority
There is one famous experiment with regard to authority that shockingly shows the extreme power of this principle: the Milgram shock-learning experiment. It's all over the net, so I wont describe it in detail here. But isn't it absolutely completely shocking that humans are prepared to shock their fellow humans to death under the influence of authority?
A funnier example is by a graffiti artist who painted a huge tag on a very busy crossing in Tokyo, in broad daylight. His trick? Wearing an official uniform!

Scarcity
The last principle is applied in many disguises. The simple formula is that things which are in low supply, which might run out any moment instill a feeling of urgency and need in you. So of course many compliance practitioners artificially create scarcity. In Holland store owners like to claim op=op. Or: sales season lasting only a few more days... But you can also think of making products and services really exclusive to increase desire. Like night clubs. Or Vertu phones. Or limited editions. The possibilities are endless.

There are some more tools of influence, I noticed in my career, not described by Cialdini. Like the asymmetry in assigning value to losses and wins. People hate to loose more than they like to win. Or using codes of association. Like dumping a lot of product in a big basket at the store entrance to make them look cheap. Almost nobody checks prices on those articles. But that's all stuff for a new post.

And the weirdest thing? I can post about this, you'll be conscious about all of this and still won't be able to resist the influence of these principles...

Consciousness and Movement

2008-11-01T11:05:00.010+01:00

Check the link in the title! Rodolfo Llinas says that a major step in evolution is the origin of multi-cell organisms. With that came the possibility to move. That is when intentionality and prediction originated. It is the will (and possibility) to move away from problems or towards food. So thinking is in fact internalized movement. The only output of the brain is the activation of motor cells.

He thinks animals and people are not driven by rewards. There is an internal pull to explore to do things because we can. So free will is some kind of illusion, linked to prediction. "If I know that's it's going to happen then I think I intentionally did it." You actually take posession of something that doesn't belong to you... In other words: Free will is knowing what you're going to do.

On a sidetrack he also notes that education wastes your brain, since it teaches you (useless) things instead of concepts.
On another sidetrack about religion he asks: Why should I have to pray to a God who knows everything? He sure must know what I want or need? God is more like a much desired friend in a high place. Shaped in man's image and not vice versa.

He goes on about his work with nano wires and creating neural interfaces, much like the Matrix or ExistenZ. To be used for connecting really closely with other people, or connecting artificial limbs. I'm looking forward to his first prototypes.

Design quotes

2008-10-25T22:19:00.016+02:00

I heard some nice one-liners on the last conference I went to.

"Mass Communications has become so expensive that design is a much better priced alternative." - If design is used as a tool to communicate, and not as a sauce. Design in this sentence means design thinking. Unusually simple solutions with talk value.

"It's faulty if a door handle needs to have a push or pull label. [It should be self explanatory]" - Oscar Peña, head of Philips Design. Mr. Peña called great designers 'translators' since they translate an idea into shape and material. They express the product identity in material qualities. And the best translators, translate ideas so powerful, they change society.

"I know I've designed an icon when I don't get the discussion about marketing etc. when launching the product," said Erik Tjepkema. I guess all designers wish they'd design icons all the time... Erik went on to compare design to Jazz (it's a similarity I've seen before). He didn't go into details but I think there are comparable concepts.
song theme = brand&identity
improvising = assocaiation, creating new outings
groove = ambiance
scales/chords = input, brainstorm methods, aesthetic rules of thumb

Erwin van Lun said "Brands love to build relations with people, but if you ask them people don't want relations with brands!" Still he demonstrated that relation building is an automatic process whether we want it or not. People build relations wih aibo dogs, electrical dinosaurs, tamagochis and their iphone. The core of a relation is relevant responses. If you have to explain your name address and occupation time and time again: no relation. If you are recognised, treated as a person and get relevant reactions, responses in your own language, a relation starts to build. With all the emotions that go with it. This is a double edged sword since those relevant answers should be accompanied by enough trust or you get the Orwellian Big Brother feeling.
His presentation is online for download...

Jean-Pierre Raes started off with a small statistic in the room: "Where did you have your latest brilliant idea?" Nobody mentioned the office. :D He went on talking about the creation of new new business going from Insight to Idea to Plan to Business. The hard part is getting relevant insights, you can do research for that or talk a lot to your friends about what they run into. I believe the best insights come from people solving their own problems like the people at 37signals or someone with a Seth Godin-style otaku. If you need to do research, qualitative and observative is best in my opinion. Statistics aren't usually very inspiring. Although a friend of mine who recently discovered pivot tables and used that to ask questions to a huge dataset said the opposite was true.
Jean-Pierre's own personal insight was that many people have a lot of ideas, but they fail at writing and implementing a healthy business plan. He set up his own company to help them.

Erik Kessels showed some work with a lot of humor and great communication power. I should book a night at citizen M at Schiphol, the pictures look great. He collects peculiar photo albums from flea markets. They contain really funny stories and some great amateur photography. He explained how he looked for funny details, authenticity and the man in the street for inspiration. To illustrate that he showed for years of ad campaigns for the Hans Brinker Budget Hotel and some really funny videos. My favorites are these: Goal! and Rugby.

H&M had a pretty monotonous presentation about their history, way of working and all the great names they worked with. To find out what they are experimenting with, check out their concept stores at Collection of Style.

All in all this was some good inspiration again.

If everything seems under control...

2008-10-25T22:07:00.003+02:00

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough." Although Andretti was a successful Formula 1 and Indycar pilot, the same holds true for organizing a design practice and playing jazz music.

Things I learned so far

2008-10-17T10:15:00.007+02:00

A nice metaphor!
Words like 'nice' and 'beautiful' just don't cut it. You need to be able to talk in words expressing emotions or style. You need to talk about the context and the occasion. And the discussion has to be anchored. This means you should always have a baseline to compare your comments to. More 'serious' than competitor A. Or less 'classical' than poster X. I was planning to create a one pager with the core idea for each project, but I never executed it. I'll make them today.

Purple Cow

2008-10-13T21:19:00.009+02:00

Many of my friends were talking about it, I had noticed many of them as successful innovation, and now I finally read it: the Purple Cow by Seth Godin.
The book hammers down one key point: just good doesn't cut it anymore. A product can't be sold by advertising. It should sell itself by being remarkable. Or as Mr. Schurman of Herman Miller says: "The best design solves complex problems but if you can weld that to the cool factor you have a home run."
Simply put: Safe is Risky and Very good is boring. I you design something that appeals to the general public you won't be able to sell it, since they are very good at ignoring you. You have to target the lead user, the niche, the people craving for the new, the better and the remarkable. The sneezers who start spreading the virus, who can create critical mass.
The good thing is that not many people will try to launch purple cows, so the playing field is all open. In good times, they say: "Safe is good enough." In bad times: "Let's play it safe in these bad times." We should take a break to produce a classic. Sit there don't just do anything. Marketing departments want to justify themselves.

So what I will implement in my design practice is this:
- I will devise a process or service to help clients find lead users
- I will use purple cow examples to convince clients to divert money from advertising budgets to the design budget, because it will be the better investment.
- Purple Cow questions are nice triggers in brainstorms: "How do we make this idea so remarkable it gets on the news? On leading blogs? How do we make this idea collectible? What would happen if we told the truth, like McDonalds France?"
- In my design practice we also have ambassadors, people who love our work. I'll invite them for brief sessions in strategic meetings and give them my home number if they're on to some business...
- Since remarkable products come from otaku's (some kind of deep fascination) I will be more alert on them and the people who have them, so I can call them for advice. I'll start with finding out all about the otakus of my collegues.
- I'll invite a couple of marketeer guest speakers to introduce our designers to the marketing practice.
- I'll set up a product or service teaching our clients 'design thinking' or visual thinking. It should help them identify better opportunities and it will help them to work creatively with the identities and websites we design.
- We also need a smart way to do research, since focus groups are a waste. How can we release prototypes to the interested public? How can we find them? How can we create an incentive to talk back to us? A point saving system?

Working at Warp Speed

2008-09-30T12:48:00.003+02:00

I remembered Barry Flicker’s ‘Working at Warp speed’. Sadly only +after+ the deadline of the last stressful project. I have to stick his four core ideas on the wall again.
- “We’re in this together.” Stress in the team leads to adversarial positions. Before I slip into the uncreative defensive mode, I have to remind myself of this. Some ‘Aikido in everyday life’ can help me with this. It helps me to keep centered and creative even under repetitive verbal attacks from stressed out colleagues.
- “Slow down before you turn.” I have to make sure to be inclusive when taking the project trough a major curb into a different direction. Turning to fast leads to a lot of confusion. Also in review meetings I need to stay better focused, take time to take a step back. Otherwise things get sloppy. Would it help to change the music from hard rock to relaxing, to influence my state of mind? It is what Norman suggests in ‘Emotional Design’…
- “Am -I- the best one to do this?” I got pretty good at delegating the right stuff, but I have to coach the others.
- “Take time to plan.” I really appreciate those short daily kick-off meetings! Much better than diving right in. But again we didn’t plan in user and consumer feedback. This can be so powerful, but always gets crushed in the rush of tight deadlines.

Barry Flicker didn’t give any ideas on how to break away from old solutions and doing something really sexy when working at warp speed. I have to find a way get this in the process…

Influence pt 1

2008-09-28T19:40:00.004+02:00

I'm still busy reading Influence by Cialdini, and I came across an article about the same subject. It has less depth than the book, but it's interesting nonetheless.
1. Mirror your conversation partner is an old and proven technique (posture, tone of voice,...). Just don't make it obvious.
2. Change the context. For instance, arguments against a proposal are stronger than arguments pro.
3. Less arguments (max 3) are stronger and more believable than more. So let other people give you many arguments, they'll make themselves less believable. And refrain from giving to much yourself.
4. Exhaust your adversary. Children are champions at this. They whine your ears off until you admit.
5. Live or virtual? Virtual communication hinders women in the bonding and agreeing process, but it also successfully blocks male turf fights. I personally don't know about this one. I always prefer live over virtual.
6. Have a firm and convincing attitude and quickly close. Instead of exhausting the adversary you can also hinder the rational thinking by disallowing time for it. Eerrrmmm is killing.
7. Get people emotionally engaged and angry for your cause. Unleash that energy!

Mastermundo 08

2008-09-28T18:49:00.002+02:00

Things I learned at Mastermundo 2008.
Make easy what you want people in your company to do. Make difficult what you don't. E.g. At amazon its easy to say yes at amazon but difficult to say no. Hard to raise prices (trough a lot of forms), easy to lower them - single click. When you hear customers pain the drive to improve is great. Easy to remove the buy button on defective products.

Max kisman is experimenting with youtube on dsgntv. Rekindling his vpro animation experiments with Jaap Drupsteen.

The future is for xenophiles: they build bridges in a world that isn't flat. Xenophiles have grown up in an alien culture and yearn for the strange and unknown. Many communities are still quite closed unless you are family or speak the language. The world is not that flat, but it is flatter for xenophiles.

Uncertainty leads to creativity, and intenser life, black swan style.

There are quite some things to unlearn. The things that you think but should think differently.
-internet is good for democracy, but returns power to the mobs
-commercial people can earn money, so why can't people working for charities?
-new stuff doesn't kill existing stuff. There are always niches and symbiosis
-iphone is not the jesus phone for everyone. No copy paste, no exchange and no blind texting. Pretty short battery life too.
-in the 21st century, illiteracy is the incapacity to unlearn

Fons schiedon designs great characters and animations. Kika and bob the fireman, and a music video for VOICST. He is now experimenting with different materials (oil paint) which lead his hand to new inspiration.

And an interesting comparison of conductors. Some are very directive, some are more passionate than others, but the real stars create space for their star musicians to fill. They create a process instead of using direct control. They lead the dance without dictating. Maybe I need to change my function description to conductor.

Large group interventions

2008-07-03T22:12:00.003+02:00

Barbara Bunker & Billie Alban propose a method for organizational change involving at least half the organization in the analysis and planning process. The underlying idea is that this kind of change is more sustainable than the traditional vision, cascaded down trough the organization, because the vision will be created and endorsed by the whole. This usually is a 2 to 3 day event where the whole large group gets together and works in subteams on creating a new future. Since today organizations are very dependent on their environment, it is highly recommended to invite also core suppliers and clients to this kind of events. Work is done in small groups with rotating timekeepers, recorders, facilitator and reporters.

Typical parts of such conferences are:
- Scan/analysis of the environment
- Overview of the history. This creates a common basis.
- Analysis of the current process/situation (value stream mapping). A dump of most common tasks then ordered chronologically.
- Discuss prouds&sorries or glads, sads & mads.
- Defining a most desirable system/discovering common futures
- Action planning, where people can choose to work towards the goals/on issues that interest them most.

As formula for effective change Gleicher uses C = D x V x F > R. The will to change (C) is influenced by the dissatisfaction (D), a clear shared vision (V), and clear (F)irst steps to be taken. It should be larger than the (R)esitance to change.

Overall one should consider the fact that in large groups the speaking time per person is the length of the meeting divided by the number of participants. It’s usually not much so you need creative ways to work around this. Also the amount of structure to workshop is a careful balance. Too little structure creates anxiety and unfocused work, and too much structure can be limiting creativity and working on unexpected priorities.

In a way it reminds me a bit of Gladwell’s tipping point: these tools allow you to create a tipping point for organizational change.

Vik Franke

2008-06-03T00:00:00.003+02:00

Today I went to a presentation by Vik Franke. He's a Dutch filmmaker and document the Dutch special forces in Afghanistan in his movie 09:11 ZULU. In essence he explained why the mission was futile if every offensive action has to be approved from The Hague. If you bring the big guns and don't shoot them the enemy will now and play around with you. It got quite cynical:
Some quotes:
"One day we went out to a small village about 3 hours - 80 km - away from Camp Holland. I tried to explain to a local villager what democracy is. I said that it means you can vote for any person to represent your opinion and stakes in the governance of a country. Can be even a woman.
- So I vote for myself?
- No, no you vote for someone to represent you,
- Oh then I vote for you, you're rich and from abroad."

Or this one
"We were supposed to be on a peace keeping mission, building schools and water supplies. Now imagine the positions of a simple local there. One party approaches you and says: If you help us, we'll give you schools and water. And the other party comes and says: If you help us, we won't kill your family. Needless to say we didn't get much help.
We built some schools and a week later we had to drag burned children's bodies out of the rubble."

Vik is charming guy, about 40 and rides his Harley with cowboy boots and an F15 pilot's helmet. He knows a lot about wargear, and - controversially - helped fighting the squad he was filming when he ran out of batteries. His next projects are going to be around Mercenary forces.

Finance on 5 business cards

2007-12-21T11:28:00.001+01:00

I got myself a copy of "Beleggen voor dummies" (Investment for Dummies). Good book. But it's main points can also be read on this website. They are not connected - I guess it's general financial wisdom. Why didn't anybody tell us that at school or something?

The happiest man in the world

2007-11-15T19:31:00.000+01:00

I just discovered TED.com. How inspiring! I watched an inspiring talk about happiness by Matthieu Ricard. He basically explains in 20 minutes what the Dalai Lama writes in 'The Art of Happiness'. And he is a great photographer so it's a pleasure to watch his story.
Some key points he made:

- You do well to distinguish between pleasure and happiness. Pleasure is depending on external circumstances and therefore it is not sustainable. The first piece of the chocolate cake is delicious. The second is less, and if you finish the cake you end up with an aching stomach.Happiness is inner joy that comes from helping people, a peaceful mind and - apparently - meditation.

- You can practice not to drown in emotions (and hence get a peaceful mind) by realizing that an emotion (anger, for instance) is like a cloud. It looks solid, like you can sit on it, but when you come close, it's only vapor. So emotions become very short, fleeting reflections in the mirror that is the mind.

Interesting challenge...

Nonviolent Communication

2007-06-09T22:18:00.001+02:00

I finished this book some time ago, but I never got around to blogging about it. A shame, because it's one of the books that has probably had the biggest positive impact on the way I work and relate with others. It is light and well written, full of anecdotes, yet very hard to put in practice. The book contained some song texts, supposedly to better convey emotions but that doesn't work, so I skipped them mostly. I think I dislike song texts in books in general. The lord of the rings was full of them too. Without the music they miss their point.
Anyway, nonviolent communication is grounded in constructivist psychology as pioneered by Marshall Rosenberg. Constructivism in psychology means that therapeut and patient engage in a conversation on an equal level to discuss mental 'constructs' that are hindering the patients life. Patients are not 'evaluated' or 'diagnosed' or 'personality typed', all categorical thinking is refrained.
In daily life this means that the most enriching conversations are empathic conversations on the same level. Not boss-subordinate, client-consultant,... You try to avoid prejudices or categories about your conversation partner and be genuinly interested in their emotions and needs. You do this without ignoring your own feelings. It is important to remember that you are responsible for your own feelings. You are not responsible for the feelings of others. There is a difference between acknowledging someones feeling (empathy, rapport) and feeling responsible (or guilty)!
It is also important to note that the noun 'feeling' is sometimes misused. True feelings are: happiness, sadness, frustration,... "I feel like you ignore me" is not a feeling but a judgement.
Judgements are in the way of observation and empathy. We are quick to judge, it's automatic. NVC is not judging, but just observing. Obsering needs and feelings, of your own and of others. Judgement leads to anger. Expressing needs leads to harmony.
Hence the four steps of NVC:
1. Observation of concrete actions that are affecting our wellbeing
2. Finding the feeling of yourself and others with regard to these actions
2.b Building empathy
3. Expressing, or finding needs
4. Making a specific action request. No demand, no vague wish.

The difference between a demand and a request is the tone of voice and expressing the need behind the request.

In relation to the general idea the book contains some interesting remarks:
- In a quarelling group, where insults abound, let everyone express their needs, plain and simple. The results will be incredible.
- When helping other people express their feelings, try to be observative, don't take responsibility. Don't try "Are you feeling hurt because I made that remark" but try "Are you feeling hurt because you need more acknowledgement?"
- Don't do anything if it is not play. Make a list of the thing you don't like doing and add your reasons. If they are reasons like 'Money' or 'Peer pressure' stop doing them. Otherwise you just found a good reason that motivates you to do something you don't like! See also my blog about Edward Deci's book, "Why we do what we do".
- Also when giving compliments, watch out for judgements. It is better to concretely say what you like and how you feel than just calling someone a genious. This way of complimentiong is more sustainable. Don't say "Good boy", but say "I'm so happy that you've shown generosity by sharing the sweets with your brother"
- Try to receive other's feelings empathically: connect their feeling to an observation without judging, consoling, advising, etc. Very difficult! But it will make the other feel heard.
- When facing agitated people this is the one pun to remember "Don't put your but in the face of an angry person!"
- Also avoid ' shoulding' and judging yourself. It does as much damage to yourself as to others.

I've been trying this out so enthousiastically that some people told me I was loosing my authenticity. Collegues were asking where the good old me was, who never held back on cynism and sarcasm when heavily criticising... I'm trying to find a good balance. Anyway there's more at the Centre for Nonviolent Communication website if you're interested.

Brains! Machines! Yummie!

2007-06-04T22:01:00.000+02:00

An article about the flexibility of the human brain in Wired magazine caught my eye. It told of experiments where a mouthpiece attached to the tongue allowed people to see, and circumvent obstacles. The author had a blog so I looked it up and...yummie! Lots of interesting post about brains for machines. Check it out.
The people at Mindhacks also have a great blog about brains by the way. I don't think I've posted about the book, but it's great and I'm working my way trough it.

Motivation and behavior

2007-06-04T21:33:00.000+02:00

In a training about situational leadership I had many questions about the difficult art of motivating people. I was recommended to read 'Why we do the things we do' by Edward Deci. I found it an interesting book with a more nuanced picture of human motivation than generally proclaimed by behavioralists. Behavioralism says that if you reward the behavior you want and punish the behavior you don't want (in a ratio of 4 to 1) you will be able to change how people behave. That is including yourself if you believe the books by, for instance, Ben Tiggelaar. The reason for this would be that we are evolutionary programmed thusly that we adapt behaviors which give instant reward (and avoid instant punishing behaviors).

What Edward Deci says is that motivation (and thus behavior) is more complex than that. In an experiment with some enjoyable puzzles that challenge your visual thinking Deci made two groups. He rewarded the first group with money for each solved puzzle, and did not talk about rewards to the other groups. The motivation was measured when the researcher left the lab 'for doing some paperwork' and let the subjects wait for 8 minutes. The people who earned money just stared around or read a book. But the other group just continued puzzeling! For Fun! This led Deci to suspect that there is something like intrinsic motivation (self motivation) and extrinsic motivation (from external, contingent rewards). In the first one the -effort- is appreciated by the self and/or the environment. In the second one, contingent rewards are used as a tool to control the -outcome- of the effort.

More research in his book shows that, as you would think, intrinsic motivation is superior to extrinsinc motivation. The research shows for example that intrinsically motivated people have a better mental health, can better cope with chaos and disappointment, care more for their environment, learn with more understanding, enjoy more what they do and solve problems more creatively. On the contrary extrinsically motivated people are compliant or defiant (not wholeheartedly committed), they are susceptible to direct control and use minute control as a tool in return, can not bring about lasting personal change, and experience failure as a damage of the ego.

After the books takes quite some pages to convince the reader that intrinsic motivation is better - who would have guessed that? - near the end comes the big question: how do you then go about motivating people intrinsically? For this Deci talks about a style he calls 'autonomy support'. It means you support people to become more and more autonomous in their behaviour and decisions. You start from the point of view of the other and nurture autonomy, self confidence and self esteem. The detail about how to exercise 'autonomy support' are pretty vague in the book. I understand it starts from the instrinsic motivation in some area, already present in people, and expanding on that area of motivation to build motivation for other tasks and skills. At all time giving choice and respecting the opinion of the other.

(Sidenote: At the moment I am reading 'Cross cultural competence' by C. Hampden-Turner. It's a great book about solving cultural dilemmas. When Deci says that by making the individual more autonomous the community will be served, C. Hampden-Turner argues that this is only one way to resolution: you can also claim that by being part of a group the individual receives his/her identity.)

Anyway, Deci concludes with an interesting discussion about freedom. He talks about his experience in communist Romania where people were free to leave there jobs in the middle of they to go and do whetever they pleased. They could not get fired anyway. But they had no choice in their job, so they were not intrinsically motivated at all. Is this freedom? This is compared to the usual Capitalist economies where people work overtime 60h per week out of fear for loosing their job. And the money from the job gives you access to this nice car and that beautiful villa. Is that freedom? Deci's conclusion is that in fact both are examples of external control, one trough strict rules, the other trough contingent rewards. True freedom involves a balance between being proactive in dealing with your environment and being respectful of it.

Now that I come to think of it: at the university I never understood extrinsically motivated co-students. I pitied them and I loathed them. They were so focused on their degree, on ticking of another course that they were not learning a thing. It didn't seem to interest them. They were not creative, they had no passion for whatever they were doing. I vowed to go back to the university and become professer in a course named 'Passion for Design'. I would help people find their passion and source of creativity...

Product, service or leasing

2007-02-12T13:32:00.000+01:00

Some time ago I had a discussion with a friend from Bamboo about whether the way forward for consumer goods was a collection of services that would give you the same value. Take for instance a power tool like a drill. The way forward would be giving people holes where they need them instead of selling a drill. My opinion, though, was that when buying a drill you buy much more than a tool to get you holes where you need them. You buy power. You buy the freedom to drill holes. Isn't that a great feeling? Whenever you feel like it, even on Sundays when most services are closed, you can decide to drill a hole. And you don't have to explain anything to anyone. (Well maybe you have to explain something to the neighbors if you drill too far.)
Same is with cars. You buy the freedom to go anywhere, whenever you want to. Preferably in style, like with a new TT! You don't just buy transportation from A to B. But the argument against this would be after you buy all that stuff, and it breaks down, what do you do with it? Dispose of it? Add to piles and piles of junk we are producing?

Today I was reading Cradle to Cradle (I'll post more on this later) and this book proposed an intermediate way, which probably has the future: leasing. The idea is that all products are leased from a manufacturer. They are designed in such way that all materials used in it can be upcycled, i.e. reused in a way that is not inferior in quality to the previous life cycle. Now when a product is discarded everyone will be happy: the user can upgrade to a product with more functionality, the manufacturer gets raw material to produce more products, and nothing is wasted.
As an example of this, the book 'Cradle to Cradle' itself is made of a polymer that can be 100% reground and used as sheet of the same quality, after the inks have been washed out and recovered by some chemical process. (Let's hope no shopkeepers stick dirty irremovable promotion stickers on the book, or people take notes in books with hazardous inks.) Cynical remarks aside, I think this is a great idea to move forward from our current Cradle to Grave economy.

Teaching yourself new habits

2007-02-11T17:47:00.002+01:00

It seems that willpower only will not be enough to change habits. Ben Tiggelaar refers to psychologist Carl Rogers who claimed that people should learn 2 important things in life. Accepting a certain degree of uncertainty en being able to postpone getting rewards. It seems that it is deeply wired in our system to increase behavior that leads to instant rewards, and to stop behavior that leads to instant punishment. The urge is strong and subconscious. Therefore it is hard to change habits that lead to instant reward, like computer gaming or fast food dining. Ben Tiggelaar advises a way out of this, which he calls dreaming, daring and doing.

"Dreaming" is about setting goals, finding out what is important to you in life. There's an interesting referral to a research done by Martin Seligman from Pennsylvania State University. It seems that some circumstances contribute measurable to happiness. They are:
1. Living in a prosperous democratic country
2. Maintaining a large social network
3. Being married
4. Believing in God
5. Avoid negative emotions
I suspect Seligman interviewed only Americans though. What was interesting is that earning more money, living in a sunny country, staying healthy, having the best possible education are not contributing so much towards happiness. Anyway, everybody has to make his or her own list. This can be a starting point.
Step 2, "Daring", is about predicting barriers to success, and creating plans and behaviours to get around them. Especially the second part is important, since you'll only be scaring yourself otherwise.
The last step, "Doing", is about rewarding the behaviour that you've identified is leading to your goal. Because it is so deeply wired in our system to do more of the behaviour which leads to instant reward, it is of course important to give yourself instant small rewards for the right behaviour.

The book also contains an interesting discussion about negative feedback, "punishment". We are wired react to negative feedback, to avoid behavior which leads to pain, or displeasure much stronger than to positive feedback. This is very logical form an evolutionary point of view. Learning by negative feedback has a few drawbacks, though. It is only about avoiding the bad things, so you can't build positive, creative behaviour with it. The behaviour disappears with the disappearance of the threat. For instance, kids do naughty things, when they think their parents aren't watching.

So if there are some nasty habits, you want to get rid of, or if you are frustrated at failing at your new year's commitments, or if you just want to change yourself for the better, this could be an interesting read.

Coke, Freedom and Enlightment

2007-02-10T15:22:00.000+01:00

I saw Noreena Hertz and Johan Norberg in a web cast of the Dutch 'Niew Economisch Peil'. A very interesting emission for anyone speaking dutch. Two things struck me:
- Johan Norberg had stuck three world maps behind his desk on the wall. One showing global Coke consumption, one showing GNP and one showing how far countries had come towards democracy. The maps showed stunning similarities...

- Noreena Hertz said, as an argument for fair trade, "Why should I be lucky to have all these chance, just because I'm born in a rich western country. Why shouldn't people in other
be able to get those chances." Suddenly it dawned on me what Buddhists mean when they say the I is an illusion: the I is a product of it's environment...
I do agree with her though that resources should be shared more equally or some tensions will rise too high.

Beginning ...and ending

2006-06-24T00:07:00.000+02:00

Today I was talking to Bridget Temple of snowball training. The subject was change management and Mrs. Temple made a very interesting remark:

"Every beginning starts with an ending."

This is the central idea in a great book by William Briggs, "Transition management" The idea is that in general people are resisting change: it usually means a certain loss of comfort and control. Even the most flexible and open minded people have some habits they don't want to change. So to make a change happen you should take the time to say goodbye to the old patterns, before you can adapt the new ones.
It's like flying from trapeze to trapeze in the circus. It's so hard to say goodbye to the good solid trapeze you're holding and fly through nothingness to the other trapeze of which you're not sure you'll be able to grab it. Just letting go. It's wat funerals, marriages, baptisms, housewarmings and farewell parties are for. In snowboarding it's like pointing your board down the hill into the depth and letting go of one edge to turn on to the other one. It's so scary the first time.

Emotional Design

2006-06-23T23:50:00.002+02:00

Emotional Design: Why we love or hate everyday things by Donald A. Norman.
Here's a book that is a waste of time. While the topic of the topic of including emotions in the design process is currently very interesting, this book is a letdown. I expected interesting tools and thinking frames to incorporate user emotions in the design process. Instead I found an endless raving about the author's private collection of artifacts. It can be interesting and even delightful to hear people tell about the stuff they like, but Mr. Norman makes shallow generalizations of his experiences, unfounded extrapolations and likes to talk in absolutes.
After the rave, the second half of the book goes on about how robots and computers should have emotions, in a discussion that is totally irrelevant for the area of product design. If you want to hear about the future of robots and intelligence go read 'On intelligence' by Jeff Hawkins.

Two notions of the book were interesting - luckily they are on the first few pages so you can put the book aside after page 50.
One is the observation that people are more focused when tense and more creative and open minded when relaxed. Although this fact is mentioned in any book about creativity, it only struck me now that this notion can be used in product design: when good focus is required the designer can try to rise the tension in the interacting user. And vice versa.

Further Mr. Norman breaks the experience of a product down into three levels. This breakdown is really just a simplified version of the abstraction model described by Korzibsky and a similar one described by Hawkins. It consists of a first impression, an unconscious impression after interacting and a conscious reasoning about the product. Don Norman is too vague for my taste about the distinction between the first impression and the interaction. Much more interesting lecture on the subject is Blink. (See one of my previous posts).

Yesterday I was meeting a person who was knowledgeable in the area of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. I learned that the production of books has a carbon dioxide byproduct weighing two times the weight of the book itself. This book is 400g wasted carbon dioxide.

Blink - Thinking without thinking

2006-05-03T23:30:00.001+02:00

Last week on the plane I read 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell. It's a fun book that reads surprisingly fast. (I had to buy a new book for the return flight)
Basically Gladwell Maintains that the 'hunch' we get in the first split second we see something can be a far better and quicker judgment than if we take more time to observe and reason.
Of course it can go awfully wrong if we only go on first impressions, so the author comes up with three preconditions must be met before you can trust your hunch:
- You should have adequate experience in the situation you are judging. The patterns should be there in your subconscious. Gladwell illustrates this with marital consulting experts and face expression experts.
- You should have the right stress level. Being too relaxed makes you miss things. Being too stressed (illustrated by police officers in a firefight) makes you resort back to your 'reptilian' brain and survival instincts. Not good for judging a situation!
- You should not have too much information coming at you. This makes the rational brain kick to process all that and the wisdom of the blink is lost. Only the essential information should be there.

The point is illustrated painfully by a female trombone player who wins a blind audition with a huge lead. After the judges see that she is a woman, all of a sudden they can not believe anymore that she is a good trombone player since women were thought to be too frail to play the trombone.

Your initial feeling about something can also go wrong by implicit subconscious associations, that may be entirely irrational. Some very interesting tests and background information are at http://implicit.harvard.edu/

I think I'll trust my snap judgements more, and although I think the above mentioned preconditions are very strict, they act as a nice warning sign when you should double check your intuition.

A short history of Nearly Everything

2006-04-29T13:29:00.001+02:00

Today I finished "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. It is a journey trough the discovery of the world around us. It is the science textbook you've always wanted to have. The book puts all mayor scientific discoveries in their context in history. You meet all of the humanity's greatest thinkers and their strange and sometimes funny habits.

Did you know for instance that a Avogadro's complete name was Lorenzo Romano Amadeo Carlo Avogadro, Count of Quarequa and Ceretto? And that Avogadro's number (about 6.022e23) is equivalent to the number of popcorn kernels needed to cover the USA up to a depth of 9 miles? Hilarious are the quarrels in the scientific world and the extreme bad luck some scientists went trough. Bill Bryson makes the abstract scientific stuff visible and imaginable and puts a face to all the famous scientists.
All the while the book is written in a tone of great respect for the planet and the unique lucky stroke that brought us here.

Plus the book has got a very handy index for fact freaks like myself!

On Intelligence

2006-02-21T22:10:00.001+01:00

A few days ago I finished 'On Intelligence'. One of the most inspiring books I ever read. It's a very accessible, yet in depth, explanation of how the brain works. While many statements sound bold and unfounded, there is a scientific base to it, and most importantly a few falsifiable predictions are made so the theory can be scrutinized the way Carl Popper would approve it.

Jeff Hawkins explains how neural networks are no way near the way a real brain works. He also explains why the whole AI movement is on the wrong track and proposes a very interesting algorythm for the brain which integrates a lot of recent work on neurology. If you're interested in the algorythm: go read the book. I won't try to explain it in one post.

What I found stunning is that the algorythm Hawkins proposes explains a lot of patterns in human behaviour that are mentioned in other books I like. (McWhinney, Korzybski, Pirsig, etc.) It's like a giant puzzle coming together.

One of Hawkin's coworkers has modeled the algortyhm in a computer. It seems to work. I want to try that too. It seems the new LEGO NXT has a more powerful chip and programming software by the guys at National Instruments. Maybe I can build intelligent stuff with that...

My favorite quote from the book is "Consciousness is what it feels like to have a neocortex". Meaning that the hierarchical neocortical system that allows for abstraction and pattern recognition makes us experience what we call consciousness.

Self image and rock hard negotiations

2006-01-23T22:53:00.000+01:00

Today I finished a great book on no nonsense negotiating, called 'Start with NO'. It's a must read for everyone involved with negotiations, because it contains many clear examples and practical hints.

But what struck me is that this down to earth book on rock hard negotiating had a closing chapter about self image or self love. The author advises to 'pay forward', i.e. to give without expecting immediate return, in order to build up credit with other people and to build a positive self image. The idea is that you give to charity or do good works in order to get a self image of a likeable person, and this in turn puts you in a stronger position when negotiating hard for the very best deal you could ever get.

The concept reminded me of a television show I once saw where an ex-skinhead racist boy related how it had been when he was a violent destructive skinhead, how he changed and how he was now helping other extremist youth to become less destructive. In the end he kept repeating that it came all down to self image. Because he had hated himself he sought stuff around him to hate and turned destructive. This had stopped when he was adopted by a woman who showed him unconditional love. He was now trying to improve the self image of his former gangmembers.

So I started thinking... I wonder if prisons are good for the self image... I am starting to think that a worsening self image can be a vicious circle ending in depression or drugs... I even think that many schools, focused too much on performance make deep dents in little kid's self image... Even parents who are not able to spend quality time with their kids make dents in the self image... It's easy to say that everyone is unique and has some special talent and blah blah, but it's extremely hard to really believe that you yourself are unique can make a difference. That's something that only starts after a lot of patting on the back and support from other people. And the patting on the back, thankfulness and support will start automatically if you 'Pay forward'...

I decided to be more supportive towards other people and also to pay forward!

Comments on my blog

2006-01-23T22:48:00.000+01:00

I got a few reactions on my Blog saying something like 'I found your blog very inquisitive, you might want to have a look at my blog, please click here etc...'
My Idea for this blog was to have interesting comments, shared experiences, disagreements or pointers to different relevant posts on other blogs. I would like to know why people think this blog is ' inquisitive'. Usually I can't even reply to comments, since the other's blog have comments turned off.

So people, please start up the discussion... that makes it interesting for all of us.

Democracy and Religious Faith

2005-07-10T11:44:00.000+02:00

Here's a series of very funny and interesting emissions about religions and beliefs called 'God bestaat niet' (God does not exist). Two filmmakers noted that there's no actual secular democratic state, no real division between state and religion. "In God we trust" is written on money. "One nation under God," is in the pledge. A neurologist, several psychiatrists and an astronomer are interviewed about science and belief. Where does religious belief fit in to science? Where does God fit into democracy?

It's in Dutch, so for the English speaking people some quotes.

"Non-believing people are a minority: 2,5% of the world population"

Dick Swaab (brain researcher):
"We are our brains. [...] In the womb already, many characteristics of the brain are formed [...] The brain is especially good at recognizing patterns, at noticing relations. Sometimes this goes awfully wrong and 'magical' relations are seen where there are none. [...] The brain is continually shaped by many influences from itself and from the outside."
"There is consciousness of the self and consciousness of the environment. [...] I think consciousness is always one step behind our actions. We do things and become aware of it afterwards. [...]"
"How can we then be responsible for our actions?"
"[...] The fact that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions does not mean punishment is wrong, since punishment can shape the brain in many cases. [...] Agression and religious belief have had an evolutionary advantage in the past. They have been good for survival and group cohesion. [...]"
"How do you explain religious experiences?"
"Heavy epileptic activity near the hypocampus is know to lead to this. People see God, get messages from God [...] It would be a fantastic win situation for Western religions if someone in China or Japan, without having had any contact with missionaries, would have seen the Holy Virgin Maria in such epileptic experience. (smiles at the absurdity)"
"What's this thing with near death experiences?
"This experience is held by many people as proof that there is more beyond life. These experiences mostly occur when the brain stops functioning normally, mostly because of a lack of oxygen or because of heavy emotional situations. [...] People sometimes describe that they can see themselves from a distance. You can create these experiences, by the way. [...] When this electrode was stimulated, the lady described feeling like stepping out of her body. When this electrode was turned off, the feeling went away immediately."
"I think people think that they are so important that they cannot imagine the world going on without them. They think they must be seeing the people they liked, after dying. Nobody imagines that the people they didn't like will be there too. [...] When you see that all religions deny heaven to the other religions, you can rest assured that nobody gets in heaven. (smiles)"

Hans Crombach (legal psychologist):
"Freedom of religion should be for everyone, except for children. Children have no defense against indoctrination, against brainwashing. Children believe what adults tell them. And they carry that with them for the rest of their lives. [...] Education should be public and non-religious. [...] Religion should be limited to the private life. [...] When religious people say that I'll go to hell, I shrug my shoulders. When religious people say that non-religious people are a-moral and have no restraints, that hurts me a lot."

Carla Rus (Trauma helper, psychologist):
"1500B.C. major religions did away with polytheism and opted for 1 abstract God. Because it is hard to think of an abstract God, it was personified. Since in the primitive times force was very important, the God was personified as a male person. This still leads to many problems and much injustice when the religious texts are interpreted literally."

Vincent Icke (Astronomer):
"Science is based on uncertainty. With scientific predictions, failure is the norm. Religious belief is based on absolute truths, although history shows that Belief has had to adjust it's 'truths'. [...] It's uncertainty that drives people to religion. You notice in daily life that cause and effect are very slippery. It's hard to know with certainty what effects your actions will have."

Jaap van Heerden (Psychologist):
"Be glad that life doesn't make sense. This means you can make something out of it yourself."

So. What do YOU believe?

Zen & the Art of Robert Pirsig

2005-07-06T01:04:00.001+02:00

&amp;lt;br&gt;Robert M. Pirsig is well known for his book 'Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. He is much less known for his second book: 'Lila'. I think I want to compare them both to better understand the author's intellectual evolution.

Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a philosophical novel where the author relates of an intellectual odyssey: the question of the Source of All Things. He comes to a metaphysics, wherein he puts Quality before matter, as the originator of all. Quality, he explains, cannot be defined since there is no higher abstraction that can be used for that. But it exists, he pleads, because you can imagine how our world, when quality is subtracted from it - when nobody would be able de distinguish quality from trash - would be total chaos.
He then speaks of a Romantic Quality, a 'before-thinking' quality and a Classic or 'after-thinking quality'. (It reminds me of Korzybski's structural differential where there is a level of perception before any abstract thoughts are formed.) Classic quality, says Pirsig, then leads to the whole system of Aristotelian dichotomies with which we have been educated: mind and matter, truth and falsehood, etc...
The story is told via a motorcycle road trip of the author, his son and two friends. The friends hate motorcycle maintenance but the author thinks it's very important and nice to do. The difference between the two seems to be that the author practices motorcycle maintenance in a Zen kind of way: with a sensitivity to what is going on that is impossible to put in words. His companions can't seem to get this 'feel'. Either way both he and his companions seem to enjoy the trip and that's what gets the author to think that both ways have Quality, but that it must be a different kind of quality. Classic and Romantic Quality. (I myself can subscribe to the feeling of Romantic Quality. I often repair stuff and afterwards I can't really tell how I did it. I can say what I did, but I can't somehow explain my approach other than 'I felt like trying this'.)

Phaedrus - an important character from the book - is Greek for (lone) wolf. Phaedrus is also a key dialogue by Socrates. Phaedrus is the name given to the other schizophrenic self of the author. The realization that Quality is the source of everything and that everything is not 'matter' or 'mind' drives the author insane and schizophrenic, because everyone around him is acting like mind or matter are the prime essences. He feels like a lone wolf with his ideas.

In the end the author seems to have gotten over it - after a controversial shock therapy - and wrote his book. It became a cult classic.

&lt;br&gt;In his second book, 'Lila", he contemplates on this success and elaborates more on this 'Quality'. He dismisses the idea of classic and romantic quality but rather opts for the division into Static and Dynamic Quality. Static quality is in established value patterns (e.g. constitutional laws, social rules, physical laws...) and dynamic quality is some kind of 'changing force'. When someone is in touch with dynamic quality and discovers an improvement over his current situation, such discovery is subsequently 'latched' into static quality. (I've also written about this in my article Life with Assholes.)

Static quality - or the value patterns - is to be found on four distinct levels: physical/chemical, biological, social and intellectual. Physical value patterns are for example the law of gravity. For two bodies with a certain mass it has more value to move closer to each other. Biological value patterns, is a higher level of value patterns because it is organized to go beyond the patterns of the inferior level. So birds (biological) defy gravity (physical) when flying. With chemical/physical 'patterns', biology would not be possible. But biology is organized in such way that it uses the previous level to break free from it's laws. Biology is based on chemistry much like a word processor needs a CPU and some memory banks. But when you know how a memory chip functions you cannot use that knowledge to account for the existence of a word processor. The word processor is dependent on the previous level but it is separate since it cannot be explained by the previous level.
It's small wonder, Pirsig goes on, that life is carbon based. Carbon is very versatile element in group IV that can bind with many other elements and itself. It is a fragile reactive balance and 'quality' tipped that balance in favor of the development of biological patterns, cells, DNA,...
And so it goes on to social levels (A well organized society of people can achieve more than a club of loners) and intellectual levels of value patterns.

Pirsig shows that these separate levels of value patterns lead to a logic system of ethics and morals. For instance on the biological level the greatest good is the continuation of life, reproduction. But on the social level the greatest good is the continuation of the group coherence. It then follows that on a society level having sexual intercourse without the mate's consent (rape) is immoral. With animals that have not formed any kind of society sexual reproduction is unconstrained.

So anything threatening the cohesion of society is found 'evil' by this society. It is important to note that this works two ways: upwards to the intellectual level and downwards to the biological level. Galileo Galilei could show a zillion observations to anyone proving that earth had to revolve around the sun, but this would threaten the earth-centered society Galileo lived in. So he was at first expunged as a heretic. Although from a 'metaphysics of quality' point of view this was an immoral act: intellectual patterns ought to be better balanced with social patterns, not choked by social patterns.

Robert Pirsig illustrates all this: The 20th and 21st century are marked by the growing strength of the intellectual quality over social quality. Communism, intellectual control of the nation vs. Fascism, dominance of single society. The exploding scientific advancements. The ever increasing pluralism and individualism, people moving away from big social dinosaurs like the catholic church. (Although I've met very progressive Catholics with a very intellectual mindset!) The democrats vs. the conservatives in the US. Like a strong society needs healthy biological bodies to function, a strong intellect needs a stable and enabling society to function, so social patterns and institutions aren't bad or inferior. They're just another level.

Maybe fundamentalism is a social pattern and globalism is an intellectual pattern and they will have to be balanced sometime, somehow...
All in all these are two strange books. Maybe there is a flaw in there somewhere, but I couldn't put my finger on it. If you are intrigued by this, I think you should read them both to fully understand Robert Pirsig's point.

Subject-Predicate

2005-07-01T23:07:00.002+02:00

I've read two books recently, explaining how human perception is distorted by the subject-predicate structure of Indo-European languages - like English, German, French, Dutch, Italian,... Now what is subject-predicate and how does it influence our percepetion? And how can you avoid errors induced by the underlying assumptions of that language structure?

If you talk about subjects and objects you tend to talk about actors and the object acted upon. So you assume, often too quickly, a one-way transaction. The actor acts upon the object and voila, that's it. But in many situations, this transaction is two-way! Very often the effects of the object acting on the actor are not negligible. Examples are in quantum physics, where it is impossible to know both the position and the velocity vector of an electron. Examples are in consumer research and questionnaires: often the people filling in a questionnaire think different about their answers after having answered the questions. Your survey is outdated right away!
- For reasons explained above, when thinking in well separated objects and subjects, you get the false impression that objectivity is always achievable. You can be relatively objective when evaluating other people's math problems. But problems arise when for instance you've written a long essay on a scientific problem. Because you've been working on it for so long, you've become attached to your work, you defend it. You're not really objective anymore, your world view is already skewed by the work you've done. Your own personal problem solving toolbox, accumulated trough the years dictates how you perceive puzzling situations. It's like Maslow's hammer: "When you have a hammer, all problems seem like nails." In the same way it is also difficult to tackle problems involving people. How can you be objective about a group of people that you interact with? How can fish in a tank be objective about the tank they're in?
- If you talk in objects and subjects you tend to single out individual cause and effect relations, or maybe you build chains of cause and effect relations. In contrast to this, the most fascinating phenomena are better described as open dynamic systems: systems with a multitude of interdependent variables of which the borders are ill defined. Chaos theory is a way of describing these open dynamic systems. Examples are: atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.

[Side note: I've come to think that the nonexistence of pure subject-object relations is what Buddhists mean with the term 'karma': every action, even just watching, or thinking, has a multitude of effects that rebound sooner or later, much like in a dynamic system. I once read a Buddhist saying: "Karma means: there is no escape."]

A haiku

2005-06-29T00:12:00.000+02:00

Little man.
Full of promise,
yet so fragile.

Don't think so, maybe, pretty sure

2005-06-28T18:28:00.000+02:00

Bruce Kodish and Suzan Presby have an interesting chapter in their book 'Drive yourself sane' with regard to truth and falsehood. They quote a story from the European undergound under Hitler, as written by Korzybski:

In a railroad compartment an American grandmother with her young and attractive granddaughter, a Rumanian officer and a Nazi officer were the only occupants. The train was passing trough a dark tunnel and all that was heard was a loud kiss and Vigorous slap.

Now ask yourself: what happened. On what assumptions are my conclusions based? How sure can I be of these assumptions? Note to yourself what your thoughts are.

After the train emerged from the tunnel, nobody spoke, but the grandmother was saying to herself, "What a fine girl I have raised. She will take care of herself. I am proud of her." The granddaughter was saying to herself, "Well, grandmother is old enough not to mind a little kiss. Besides, the fellows are nice. I'm surprised what a hard wallop grandmother has." The Nazi officer was meditating, "How clever the Rumanians are! They steal a kiss and have the other fellow slapped." The Rumanian officer was chuckling to himself, "How smart I am! I kissed my own hand and slapped the Nazi."

Now think again about your previous conclusions how sure were you and what right did you have to be so sure?

The GS idea here is that there is a complete scale from certainty to wild guess, not just a polar true and false. It is wiser to evaluate in multi-valued way instead of a two-valued way. Closest to certainty come observable facts like 'The tunnel was dark'. Closer to wild guess come statements of inference: 'Two persons kissed each other in the dark,' where you assume that a kiss is always between to persons. Most people would even assume that the kiss was between a male and a female person, which is an even wilder guess.

This insight has been very useful for me in project management. A thorough scrutinizing of my assumptions and inferences has led to many timely discoveries of project risks. So I try to avoid thoughts of absolute certainty in the new product development, since you need to make a lot of assumptions when discussing something that does not yet exist.
But avoiding certainty in project team meetings has caused great nervousness, stress and even hostility in some of my fellow team members! Why? In the team I have the role of an expert. People need to be able to trust me in my field of specialization. What specialist that avoids affirmations in his field of expertise can you really trust? How sure can you be the project will finish successfully without experts you can trust? Some people seem to have a hard time living with uncertainty. So my advice is: Watch out for them and be careful to reassure them without over promising!

Global Angst

2005-06-27T20:45:00.000+02:00

Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal polling for the next economic bubble to pop. This time it's the American national economy that is on the line. See for yourself how fragile it is. The Bin Ladens only have to pull their money back out of the US, or threaten the Chinese into doing so and I think a cataclismic economic domino effect will send us back to the middle ages. Exactly what Al Quaida wants to see. Maybe a good portion of fear, prohibiting entrepeneurship, causing massive defensive investment and diminishing consumer spending would already be enough.
Many of the European retirement and social security funds have large interests in American economy, so Europe will probably come crashing down too. The warring US president is literally playing with fire.

Here's what Sun Tzu has to say:
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.
18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.

And this one about preparation:
26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many
calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought.
The general who loses a battle makes but few
calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations
lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat:
how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention
to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Many military experts say the US didn't plan beyond the capture of Saddam. The complete plan for installing a new government should have been ready before the first shot was fired. Many crucial governmental buildings were accidentally destroyed:
6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's
troops without any fighting; he captures their cities
without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom
without lengthy operations in the field.

7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery
of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph
will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory.

Although it's not really fair that the US is confiscating iraqi oil reserves and haliburton gets big building contracts, for global stability it seems to be better if they do.

Hehe. Can you still sleep well? :-)

General Semantics, a cult?

2005-06-26T15:28:00.000+02:00

I found an article claiming to expose General-Semantics (GS) as a cult and a scientific fad. Although I don't really agree, there are some critics who have a point there. The page is worth a read as well as the pages it links to. It's the largest overview of GS critics I've seen so far.

Like the author of this web page I was also offended by Korzybski claim that the text needed no revision when reading the introduction to the third edition of Science and Sanity (S&S). This while the text makes some claims that could use much more support by evidence. At least newfound evidence (or counter evidence) could have been included. Furthermore I agree that the text expresses a certain misplaced and offending zeal and pompousness. This is one of the reasons I like the little book 'Drive yourself sane' so much, since it's very modest. I feel that any attempt at getting to the bare bones of perception, evaluation and communication should show great modesty. Since such attempt would be similar to fish attempting to find essence of a fish tank, while being in it: almost impossible to do in a comprehensive way.
I can, on the other hand, understand Korzybski's enthusiasm and zeal very well from the practice of designing. When I think I've found a solution to a particularly tough design problem, I often sense a similar kind of euphoria and pride and I want to tell everybody how simple and powerful my new 'solution' is. (Later on I often run into the limitations of this solution.)

It's also remarkable that Korzybski, the author of the 'general' theories of evaluation failed to communicate his ideas to the scientific community. I still think there is value in the ideas of General Semantics, though.

And about this 'cult' thing: on the second page of the above website, 'Still a cult' the author compares several aspects of a cult to practices and texts of the general semantics institute. If missions and actions like this are 'cultish' and if a 'cult is a 'bad thing' and therefore general semantics is a 'bad thing', don't you miss a lot of interesting aspects in GS? I imagine Darwinism must have started as a 'cult'.
Many groups of engaged people show some characteristics of 'cults'. People in art movements, martial arts clubs, political parties, religions,... Are they therefore cultists? That only depends on their practices, in my view. If they are brainwashing, stealing, deceiving,... that should be condemned. If they only want to contemplate and propagate their ideas I don't see any problem. It is the responsibility of the critical observer to accept, postpone acceptance or dismiss these ideas. I get the idea that all mainstream ideas started as cult. Even the old Greek philosophers had something of cult around them in their time.

A haiku

2005-06-25T12:49:00.000+02:00

Pure Black. Pure White.
Tense darkness returns.
Everything is shaken!

Korzybski in Encarta

2005-06-21T02:06:00.000+02:00

[update 22/06: I was not happy with the wording of my first comment so I changed it to be less ambiguous and more tentative]

I was curious what an encyclopedia like Encarta would have to say about Korzybski, so I looked it up. There are two bits about Korzybski. The first one, under semantics: "The focus of general semantics is how people evaluate words and how that evaluation influences their behavior. Begun by the Polish American linguist Alfred Korzybski and long associated with the American semanticist and politician S. I. Hayakawa, general semantics has been used in efforts to make people aware of dangers inherent in treating words as more than symbols. It has been extremely popular with writers who use language to influence people's ideas. In their work, these writers use general-semantics guidelines for avoiding loose generalizations, rigid attitudes, inappropriate finality, and imprecision. Some philosophers and linguists, however, have criticized general semantics as lacking scientific rigor, and the approach has declined in popularity." (© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)

I have two comments for this one:
The first thing that is bothering me here is ‘Lack of scientific rigor’.
I think you cannot say that Science and Sanity is not ‘scientific’: Korzybski is a strong proponent of the basic scientific rule that any statement or theory is a hypothesis. (This means a statement can be supported by evidence and in this way a statement becomes relatively predictive, it becomes practical and ‘truish’. But absolute truth can never be proven. Statements cuntinue to be accepted as truish until they are disproven!) Also, the book complies to all academic requirements for dissertations that I am aware of. The problem could be that Korzybski was working outside any established field of science. This means that there are no specific academic standards to compare it to.
And ‘rigor’, well, in as far as rigor means sticking to dogmatic thinking patterns it should be avoided. I have come to think that ingrained dogmas make it very hard for some people to go with Korzybski. As far as rigor means that a theory should contain no internal absurdities, I also think Korzybski succeeded. At least I couldn’t find any. (I used to think that making the disctinction between space-binders and time-binders was a case of elementalism, but I changed my mind after more reading about those subjects.)
A more complete critique is this article that is called by many the ultimate critique and counter critique.

My second comment is that Korzybski called his system just one possibility to think in a better scientific way, and noted that there could be many more. His ideas are emerging in lots of other places too, in other systems. So yes, general semantics as a system may not be so popular anymore, but the ideas are emerging everywhere. Most striking is a dialogue in Star Wars Episode III: “You are either with me, or against me” and the reply “Only Sith deal in absolutes!”. (If you’ve been living in a barrel for the last 30 years: the Sith seek absolute and supreme power over the galaxy, without much scrupules.) Sidenote: While my point is that general semantics is also an advocate of not dealing in absolutes, this conversation is also remarkable for the funny fact that the answer ("ONLY sith...") also an absolute! So the jedi knight who answered this way was not really enlightened, if you ask me :-)

Although Korzybski’s book is rather unreadable and very charged at some points, I personally like the way he brought all those "guidelines for avoiding loose generalizations, rigid attitudes, inappropriate finality, and imprecision." together in a coherent system. A coherent system is something that much of the contemporary management and communication literature lacks. They mostly rely on 2 by 2 matrices and letter words.

The second article is this one:"Western interest in Zen dates from the publication of the first authoritative account of the subject in English, Essays in Zen Buddhism by the Japanese scholar Daisetz T. Suzuki. After World War II and the occupation of Japan, a great interest in Zen developed in Europe and the U.S., notably among artists, philosophers, and psychologists. It had a special appeal for abstract and nonobjective painters and sculptors. Philosophers have noted its affinities with the thought of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, with the theory of general semantics of the American scientist and writer Alfred Korzybski, and, to some extent, with existentialism as propounded by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."

There is indeed a seeming similarity between general semantics and Zen, most notably in the general semantics’ extensional orientation. See also my articles ‘Intension and extension (1) ’ and (2). In essence this GS extensional orientation makes you aware that actual experiences are much deeper than can ever be put in words. You can for instance read twenty books about snowboarding, see 10 movies and talk to 15 friends, but not after you’ve actually balanced on a board (and have fallen over a few times) will you know how to snowboard. The only thing words can do is point your experience in the right direction. From my understanding Zen, on the other hand, strives to total intuitive and wordless understanding of what is going on, while Korzybski acknowledges the utility of words and symbols in the thinking and communication process.

A haiku

2005-06-16T22:56:00.000+02:00

Dusk. The Woods.
A courageous lantern in
the warm and fading sky.

Zen and quantum theory, chicken and egg

2005-06-14T22:11:00.000+02:00

I came across this article in Wikipedia (link in title) about a book called 'The Tao of Physics'. The author writes that in an interview with Heisenberg, Heisenberg told him about his influences from eastern philosphy.

I had to think of a book I read, by Steve Hagen, "How the world can be the way it is", where the author illustrates Zen/Taoist truths with quantum physical examples. As if to say: "See, if even the latest science arrives at the same conclusions as age-old Zen, there must be truth in there."
I started to wonder: "What if quantum physics is just some clever statistical math, inspired by eastern philosophy? A clever approximation for measured results? What was first? The chicken or the egg? Tao proven by quantum physics or quantum physics inspired by the Tao?"

Apart from the examples in physics that Hagen shows us, his book is not a bad book by the way.

I think I want to read this 'Tao of Physics'. I also want to understand more about quantum mechanics, because I really know nothing about it.

Some good workouts

2005-06-14T21:24:00.000+02:00

Click on the title of this post for a set of workout exercises, called the 'Royal Court'. I've still got to give them a longer try, but they look like you can do a lot of exercise in very little time. If you believe the latest theories on improving the brain functionality, try counting down from 331 in steps of seven while doing these exercises. Or divide 457 by 3, by 4, by 5 etc. Or square all numbers starting from 10: 100, 121, 144, 169,... It is said to build both muscles and neurons.
The neckless walls of muscle in the advertisements on that site don't look like they have a single brain cell left, though...

To be or not to be

2005-06-14T08:37:00.000+02:00

It is common sense to say a tree is (just) a tree. What things are they are. If you use the word is or (=), you imply too easily 'a sameness in all aspects'. What general semantics now claims is that if you don't watch out you are superimposing your personal definition of a tree over the actual tree you are experiencing. If you do that, you run the risk of not really looking well at this particular situation. Now in a lot of situations this doesn't really matter, but in more critical situations you might overlook possibilities/dangers falling outside of your definition of a 'tree'. Korzybski's most famous phrase illustrates this: "The map [i.e. your wording, your abstraction] is not [the same in all aspects as] the territory [the actual thing at hand]. It represents the territory"

Kodish&Presby propose therefore to avoid some uses of the verb 'to be'
- One sense of to be involves existence. I am. You are. There is great enthusiasm in the project team. No problem with that.
- You can also use 'to be' as an auxiliary verb to other verbs. I am running. I am going to be late for work. No problem with this one either.
- Here's a troublemaker: the is of identity. "This is a tree." "A tree is a tree." "I am a designer." Above I've explained that a tree [the word for it] is not a tree [the thing you are experiencing right now]. Also I am trained as a designer, but a designer is not my total identity. Obvious. More tricky: When saying "Bruce Kodish is a Jew", very little prevents you from projecting all your prejudices about the Jewish on mr. Kodish and thus foregoing his unique personality. Contrast with: "Bruce Kodish has jewish roots"
- Another troublemaker would be the is of predication. "The rose is red." "The tree is old." Here you suggest absolute truths, while in fact only yourself, and maybe a few other people may be experiencing it that way. What you see as red, other people might see as ruby red or pink. What you experience as old, might seem young to other people, or in other situations. So it is safer to say "The tree looks old to me." etc. Note that you can not be accused lying if you say things like that. Note also that you can have much more interesting discussions. Of neither party takes a position on a 'fact' by proclaiming a universal truth trough the use of 'is', both parties can openly and honestly examine your experience. Compare: "Michael Jackson is innocent", "The jury found Michael Jackson innocent." or "Michael Jackson is a child abuser" and "Michael Jackson looks like a child abuser to me."

Metaphysics and you

2005-06-05T17:37:00.000+02:00

What is metaphysics and what does it have to with my daily life? In the m-w dictionary the definition looks like this: "the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : philosophy". In Google "define: metaphysics" gave me this one: "The study of the fundamental nature of being and reality; supposedly distinct from physics, as it attempts to consider issues concerning the existence and nature of non-physical entities. See ontology, epistemology."

My own definition would be that "Metaphysics is a system of your most basic assumptions about reality, which form a basis for all your other assumptions and thus your 'World view'. For instance in Euclidian geometry one of the basic assumptions (axioms) is that trough two points goes exectly one line. It is impossible to prove this in a mathematical way inside the Euclidian system, but a lot of mathematical reasoning inside that system is based on this assumption."

Note that I talk about assumptions here, because I really agree with the general semanticists that it is sane and scientific to regard every 'fact' as an assumption. Some assumptions are really very 'truish' like the assumption that whenever I stick my finger into a blow torch it will burn and hurt. Some other assumptions are really very hard to verify, e.g. when I tell you how I feel about something.

Now back to metaphysics. Some assumptions from metaphysics are very clearly metaphysic, e.g. any assumptions about the existence of a Greater Being. Other assumptions are very covert and hidden in your education or native language. Ones that you use in everyday life. I think it's very important to be aware of these, to be aware that those are assumptions, not facts. Some examples:
- The syntaxis of most indo-european languages (like English) requires a subject and a predicate form forming a good sentence. A predicate being the part of a sentence or clause that expresses what is said of the subject and that usually consists of a verb with or without objects, complements, or adverbial modifiers. I'll try to explain which metaphysical assumptions are in there and how it doesn't really matter for simple stuff, but as things get complicated you miss half of what is going on.
When you say "The sun shines trough the window", you imply that the sun is the actor and shining trough the window is caused only by the sun. But if we look at it on a less abstract level, much more is going on. Your experience of the sun shining trough the window requires a window having been built, your presence, your attention focused on the window, photons being emitted and received, etc.. For simple sentences like this it doesn't to confer on an bastract level that all of this is going because it is something most of us can refer to by experience. A more complex situation is: "You left the refridgerator door open again". Here, the unjustified implication that the subject is first and only cause of the refridgerator door being open could lead to some anger and frustration. Things get even worse when you say "In an atom the electrons surround the nucleus of protons and neutrons" because the electron does not exhibit motion in the physical sense — it does not "float"; rather, it seems to appear in and out of existence, at various points around the nucleus (of course, 90% of the time the electron can be found in its designated orbital). A simple analogy would be a firefly, in a dark room, lighting up at various points about a central light source — it can light up anywhere, but it is most likely to appear closer to the source than otherwise. At present, we cannot predict both the momentum and position of an electron. This is a limitation described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which, simplified and tailored for quantum particles, simply states that the more accurately we know a particle's position, the less accurately we can know its momentum and vice versa. (Source: Wikipedia)

- I also think terminology that Korzybski called 'elementalistic' carries certain assemptions in it, that can sometimes go back to a metaphysical level. This is very well explainend on the esgs Non-elementalism page. (See the part about religious elementalism.)

What do I do with this? I keep in mind the risks involved when I use terms that Korzybski marked as elementalistic. And I keep in mind that there is nu real separation between object en subject (e.g. in consumer researches I do at work) and that instead of causilty you can better think of a complex web of interactions.

Intension and Extension (2)

2005-06-05T16:03:00.000+02:00

More reading in 'Drive yourself sane' by Presby&Kodish gave me new insights with regard to intension and extension. Not only in relating to other people is it important to be aware of the way you define things. Also while talking to yourself or 'evaluating'.
Today I had a cup of coffee while reading and before I knew it I had emptied my cup. I tried to remember how it tasted, and i thought it tasted like generic coffee. I poured myself a second cup and only now I sensed the slightly lowered temperature because of the cold milk I added, I noticed this special taste (for which I don't have a word) that my coffee gets when a pack has been open in the cupboard for too long, and many more things about the color, texture and smell for which it is hard to find words.
In a way I had been lived by my definition, my abstraction, of coffee. It reminded me of this Zen story about full awareness, that I had read the other day.
It made me realize that I usually miss a lot of things that are going on because I classify stuff I see into a definition, almost instantly. This is not to say that classifying stuff in memory for later recollection is an 'unsane' behaviour. In a way you need to do that in order to be able to recall memories and to make creative associations. But what I'm rather going to do is spend more time evaluating things on an extensional, non-verbal level before classifying them. That is: two split seconds instead of one. I don't feel it should take very long.

After this my train of thought went off in the direction of mass-hypnonis. Would it be this way that the biggest burger franchises are able to sell mediocre tasting food so much? Because they 'define' their food with huge advertising as orgiginal food coming off a barbeque? And people eat by that definition? I often ate a burger over there, it seemed to smell and taste good, but everytime I really tasted it, I got a mediocre taste, a bad aftertaste and a huge disappointment. Would it also be this way that people are made to believe that an aireplane really crashed into the pentagon?

Intension and extension

2005-06-02T11:06:00.000+02:00

Nope, that’s no typo in the title. I’ve been reading more about General Semantics. Here’s another part of Korzybski’s theory.

I’ve just read a bit about what Korzybski calls ‘describing by extension vs. describing by intension’. If you look up intension and extension in the Merriam Webster, you find that they are synonym to connotation and denotation. Denotation and connotation are nicely compared in the dictionary:
Connotation means: ‘an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term in logic’
Denotation means ‘the totality of things to which a term is applicable especially in logic’.

I think Korzybski’s words are easyer to memorize. For an INtensional definition you look INside the thing you want to define for properties and higher order abstractions. For an EXtensional definition you look EXternally for other EXamples for description. I remember similar definitions from basic mathematics where real numbers are extensionally defined as Z = {0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3,4,-4,5,-5,…}. Whereas you could define even numbers intensionally as ‘any real number multiplied by two’, referring to a property of even numbers.

Now that we understand extensional and intensional, let’s get to Korzybski’s point: in standard logic, in most situations, we tend to ask for definitions in an intensionial way. We ask for descriptions with higher order abstractions if someone tries to explain a (new) word. ‘Intension’ is not a bad way to think and relate in, but Korzybski points out a few dangers and short comings of intensional definitions.
-As explained in my first GS post, you cannot be sure that other people share the same higher order abstractions. E.g. you can define Polyethylene as ‘a thermoplastic produced by the direct polymerization of ethylene at high temperatures and pressures’ but if you don’t know anything about organic chemistry, you have no clue as to what polymerization or ethylene really are. Is ethylene bigger than a rabbit? What sound does polymerization make?
-You overlook properties of things falling outside the definition. E.g. you can define war as ‘conflict, between relatively large groups of people, which involves physical force inflicted by the use of weapons.’ This allows you talk about war over a nice cup of tea and make many assumptions or reach conclusions without ever knowing the emotion, the smell, the fear and the ugliness of real war.
-You allow for un-sane generalizations. E.g. If you really dislike a guy named Smith, and you define Smith as ‘the only guy I know who likes Jazz music’, you tend to start disliking guys who like Jazz music. And as a result you might even start disliking Jazz music, because you don’t want to be associated with Smith and his hobby’s! But if you realize that Jazz-lover(Smith1) is different from Jazz-lover(Smith2) you would be more open to Jazz music. And if you realize that Smith(today) is a different guy from Smith(yesterday) you have no reason to keep the grudge against him.
So intensional definitions are OK if you know what you are doing, but generally it is 'saner' to refer to an actual and specific experience or set of experiences (extensional).

This is pretty complex theory, but what’s the use of it? What I intend to do with it is this:
-When I want to explain something new I’ll try to let the other people actually experience what I’m trying to explain. If that’s not possible I’ll try to find a metaphor or an example referring to a shared experience.
-I will start to collect a whole set of samples and examples of things I frequently need to show or explain.
-If someone wants to explain something to me, I’ll insist on examples and specific cases. If possible I’ll try to experience these first-hand. I’ll experiment with his reasoning, “to get a better feeling for it.”

Practical Advice from my first GS article

2005-05-31T00:08:00.000+02:00

In my first General Semantics article I forgot to add the practical advice I took out of those high strung GS theories. So here it is.

Now that I understand that nobody shares the same set of abstractions and symbols, I think it's smart to:

- Be Specific when relating. Refer to specific shared experiences. Specific cases. I will not only tell about the general, but I'll also include the specific for non verbal understanding.

- Avoid generalizing terms like Always, Never, Again,... I am probably telling lies if I use those words. And the worst thing is: you might be telling those lies to yourself and start believing them when nobody is even listening! Who hasn't ever said to himself: "Jees, I hate that person, he always pisses me of somehow."

- Include yourself when being 'subjective'. So avoid saying "You're as dumb as the back end of a cow!" - referring to some vague standard of stupidity. But say "I think there are smarter ways to do this." This way you're never telling lies - as long as you sincerely have smarter ways in mind.

Life with assholes

2005-05-30T23:22:00.000+02:00

I've been thinking about life with assholes, and I feel less and less that 'Don't spend your life with assholes' is the right way to put it. I once had an asshole for Saxophone teacher, and I'm so happy to have met this guy! He said that if I were to learn something from him I had better do what he said, before arguing with him. This was hard to accept since he really acted like an asshole all the time. But he was a saxophone player not without merit, so I complied and I learned some good lessons. I had the same later on with a drawing teacher. His style was definitely lacking, while at the same time the he was full of pride, so he acted like an asshole from time to time. But he also had interesting stuff to tell. So I shut up, complied, learned and moved on. Assholes can be good teachers and vice versa. But fools...I'll keep my distance.

I've just read bit from Robert Pirsig's 'Lila' where his alter ego, Phaedrus, makes a distinction between Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. He says Static Quality is quality incorporated in culture, laws and tradition. It is something that is there to stay, has continuity and is accepted by group of people. Whereas Dynamic Quality is very personal. It is the unspeakable feeling that there is more, that they've got it all wrong, that the right thing is there somewhere. Usually, individuals struck by dynamic insight are prosecuted as witches and heretics by the priests (teachers) of the current Static Quality. This then leads to a cultural clash and, later on, incorporation in the Static Quality standards of a group. I think examples of people like this are numerous: Joan of Arc (talking directly to Angels, without going trough the Pope), Gallileo Gallileo (Declaring that earth revolved around the sun in an earth centered religion), Mathin Luther King (Declaring black and whit people equal in an unequal society)

But what's really Pirsig's point here is that BOTH static and dynamic quality are Quality. One is not to be sought out or preferred above the other. They are to be combined for superior quality. So seek out those assholes, those Priests of Static Quality, but always keep your mind open for new dynamic quality on which can't quite put your finger yet!

P.S. Maybe this explains why younger people are generally more 'leftwing' and 'progressive' and older people are generally more 'right wing' and conservative: young people's minds are not yet so full of Static Quality (because they have lived shorter) so they are more open to Dynamic Quality.

Career advice

2005-05-30T16:31:00.000+02:00

A few days ago I read an article on career advice. I was intrigued by one advice in particular: "Life's too short to spend it with assholes." Today I was leafing trough a little book with Buddhist wisdom, and I came across this formulation, which I thought was the same, but more poetic: "Travel alone rather than with a fool." Something to contemplate.

Thinking wider

2005-05-26T17:09:00.000+02:00

Here's a bit of an explanation for the name of this Blog. In essence it's a reference to De Bono's lateral thinking. Lateral thinking is opposed to hole digging: digging deeper and deeper to solve a problem in a certain way. Once you are midway digging a nice hole in the field it's hard to convince yourself that you may be digging at the wrong location, since starting over is a lot of work. So instead you dig deeper and deeper in your hole, in the hope that the solution is below.

I think it's important to think wide, continually check wether you are really digging at the right location, keep asking questions, keep looking for deeper understanding of the digging field, to keep your mind flexible, free of dogma's and open for new stuff.

The guys from neurobics.com offer some funny brain fittness exercies. (I didn't buy the book, but the exerpt is fun.) There's also an article by Dave Pollard with some brain training advice here. And two other interesting articles about brain training, both advocating the combinations of physical and mental exercises: Strenthen the Muscle between Your Ears and Train your Brain with Exercise

So on this blog are my thoughts on thinking wider, here I'll try to connect and condense interesting stuff.

First impressions of General Semantics

2005-05-25T22:18:00.000+02:00

A lot of the management and communication literature that I've read recently refers to the work of Alfred Korzybski, so I decided to check out the source material. It's very complex, but interesting. I'll try to explain for my own and other people's understanding:

General semantics

General semantics is a theory devised by polish engineer Alfred Korzybski. Early in the 20the century he saw the discrepancy between technological advancement and science and sociological advancement which lead to WW I and II. He tried to devise an improved way of thinking over the common sense of his time and he liked to compare his improvements to the way Einstein improved physical science by show that Newtonian physics are only a special case of a much further reaching theory. He sought to update our thinking patterns to be more in line with the newest insights from particle science. Ever tried to wrap your mind around the concepts of relativity? Ever read a book by Stephen Hawking? It's mind boggling and defies at least my common sense.

Where then are the deficits in the human thought process? Which basic assumptions can we disprove and expand upon? How could Einstein prove the separation of space and time is meaningless in a general theory of physics, while it is common sense to separate them (and it's very convenient in day-to-day physics)? Korzybski set out to find and unroot those basic assumptions in the thought process that are limiting our understanding.

To do so Korzybski proposes to apply the scientific method (which advanced technical sciences a great deal) consequently in all forms of thought. We are thus to scrutinize any assumption we have and not cling to any absolute truths since the scientific method says that evidence can only support or disprove a hypothesis but never prove a hypothesis.

The first assumption - comming from ancient Greek pholosophers - which Korzybski uprooted was that thought and the related abstract symbols are universal. He noted that insane people had no access to this so called universal set of abstract symbols, although they had a nerve system identical to sane people. He studied neurology and concluded that abstractions cannot be seen separately from our nerves and brain. In essence, he says, the true 'meaning' or 'semantics' of an experience or an abstract thought is the firing of a set of neurons. Hence he called his theory General Semantics: the 'Meaning' of general stimuli to the human body and nerve system. This way any form of 'truth' (from sciences to meta-physics) are a product of the nervous system and not more. In the special case that we only take in account only the sane people of a more or less identical culture we can (luckily) assume that they have more or less the same set of abstractions and evaluation methods.
Assuming a shared set of abstractions has been relatively OK in the past millennia, where earth was thinly populated and technology not very advanced. But with earth's population reaching 6 billion, borders fading, and technology making individuals really powerful, we can not ignore un sane people of different cultures anymore. Just like we cannot ignore relativity theory if we want to fly to the moon.

Korzybski shows that there are many more un-sane assumptions. I'll write more on this later. There is a whole bunch of interesting stuff on the abstracting process and on Korzybski's 'structural differential' but it's something for many other posts.

Welcome

2005-05-25T22:08:00.000+02:00

Welcome to my blog. Here's where I'll jot down interesting stuff to read and new insights in Life, the Universe and Everything. I'm curious to see other people's comments. Enjoy!