Tags
This weekend I experienced a snowcrash; a moment where the seemingly disparate pieces of information floating in my head came together. A synapse fired, a new connection was made, and I was brought to a new level of consciousness, a new way of seeing the world. In reading this over, it almost sounds obvious, but it took me a while to get here. I hope that by sharing with you, it’ll help you “get it” too. So let me take you on my thinking trail.
Insight #1: The Overview
The Future is Networks.
This idea has been buzzing in my head for a long time. The first time I wrote it down was over a year ago, not really understanding what that meant, but it was an “intuition.” As time has gone by, this has seemed more and more probable, but I wasn’t sure how it fit together.
The buzzing has been growing louder, and my mind was saying, ‘The future of Social Business is networks,’ ‘The future of education is networks,’ ‘The future of society is networks.’
What did this mean?
I know everyone is busy. Everyone is looking for some solution to how to make their situation better. If you will just bear with me, I’m going to expose you to what I found to be an incredibly powerful idea.
Insight #2: Where “we’re at” in History
We’re all aware that there’s something going on here. We’re not quite sure what, but it feels like we’re nearing a point where something must change if we’re to move forward.
I’ll be honest with you – I don’t comprehend politics. I find it baffling at the national level and I feel impotent to do anything about it at the local level. (I tried volunteering last year on a committee in my town to promote Zero Waste and green energy. Every meeting was just talking and arguing, instead of devising solutions and implementing them. I got bored and resigned.)
Economics also confuse me. I don’t understand why it’s set up so I paid over $14,000 towards my mortgage in 2009 in interest, and around $6 in principal. I also don’t understand how there was just a multi-billion dollar bailout of our financial industry, and yet Wall Street bonuses rose 17% to $20.3 billion last year. I don’t think of myself as an idiot, but my mind *literally* can’t conceive how those two things could happen at the same time. It seems like the wealth of the entire nation is being funneled right to a couple thousand fortunate people, and all of us are still working pretty damn hard to make ends meet, yet ultimately supporting that model.
Everything seems really bizarre and nonsensical, and it feels like it’s pointing to something. Lester Brown just wrote a really simple, relatively short, easy to digest post that lays out the situation better than I can – give it a read: A Civilizational Tipping Point.
Insight #3: The Underlying Forces At Work
While these things are unfolding at the surface level, something else has been going on underneath. Without really understanding the big picture, I’ve been trying to identify it. I wrote a post a few months ago, called Three Key Trends Shaping the Web and Society, where I tried to put my observation into words. The trends are:
- Accelerating change
- Increasing complexity of information
- Growth of social technology
I explained what each of those means in the post, and added some nice graphics too. If you’re not familiar with those concepts, you can go check it out. For the sake of flow, I’m going to keep moving here, but essentially it means that the world is now more interconnected than it’s ever been because of social technology.
Now, let’s call “social technology” anything that allows us to communicate information on a global level.
And let’s also frame it in these terms: EVERYTHING is information.
Not just these words on a screen, but also the physical objects we exchange; all the goods that keep the world going – food, furniture, clothing, toys, tchatchkis, all the “stuff.” It also includes the virtual objects – the services that we provide each other, the money we exchange, our voices talking to one another over Skype, and every other intangible thing.
Every one of these things is actually a type of communication, a representation for something.
A banana isn’t fruit, it’s nourishment. A couch isn’t furniture, it’s relaxation. A toy isn’t plastic from China, it’s fun. My Toyota isn’t a car, it’s transportation. My husband isn’t a man, he’s support, trust, and love. I could go on forever, but seriously take a look around you, and realize that you’re surrounded by stuff that means something else.
Think of it ALL as a type of information.
Now, if you can truly imagine every “thing” around you as information, and we’re now a globally interconnected world, all trading goods and services and knowledge, that’s A LOT of information.
That’s complexity.
It wasn’t that way when we lived in tribes or even villages or even Empires. It’s literally NEVER been fully globally connected, until now.
It’s so complex, that we literally don’t know how to handle it. When we talk about “information overload,” it doesn’t just refer to all these activity streams on the web – it refers to EVERYTHING.
So what do we do about it?
Luckily, complexity isn’t something that’s never happened before. It may not have happened before for humans as a global civilization, but it happens in Nature all the time.
An ant colony, the biosphere, the brain. All highly complex, yet functional.
Why? How?
If those systems “work,” shouldn’t we be able to imitate them in order for us to “work” too?
Well, actually, yes.
One of two things happens when a process reaches a certain level of complexity, and we can and have observed this. Over. And over. And over.
a. it compresses into simple patterns
b. it expands into chaos
So we’re kind of all struggling with avoiding chaos right now. We all still go about our day, go to work, entertain ourselves, have sex. We’re getting by. But we’re also wondering, somewhere in the back of our heads, how much longer things can go on like this, with all this uncertainty. Hopefully someone figures this out so we can go on with our lives and feel secure again about the future.
Enter accelerating change.
We don’t think about this part, because the idea of it doesn’t fit with the way we experience reality. We only live for so many years, and things feel like they unfold at approximately the same pace they always did.
Let’s use “technology” as an example.
Let’s first talk about technology as if that means just electronic technology.
OK, we went from telegraph to radio to phone to TV to cell phone to computer to smartphone within about a hundred years, but that feels like it happened at a pretty natural pace, because we’ve lived in it as it happened, and we experience time on a linear scale.
BUT, if you plot those changes on a graph, it actually doesn’t move in a slightly tilted line moving upwards at all.
It swoops like the letter J. It gets faster at a faster rate.
Now if you quickly back up, and understand that ‘technology’ isn’t actually just digital, but that technology includes all things that humans have used to simplify things when complexity increases, things begin to make A LOT of sense.
Every tool man has made, from the flint arrows to the wheel to civilization to systems of governance have ALL been in response to complexity.
Tribes got bigger and more complex and needed to hunt down food more effectively to feed more people, and they realized they needed more than a club. They needed an arrow. This worked.
[quickening]
They got bigger still and couldn’t be chasing after food all the time, so they domesticated animals and developed agriculture. This worked.
[quickening]
They got more complex and different people started doing different things, making stuff, and wanted to trade their stuff for other people’s stuff. The developed a barter system. This worked.
[quickening]
They got more complex and this had to be organized into some kind of structure, so systems of governance were implemented. Different versions emerged all over the world, but they all had something in common: There was a scarcity of resources, and so the systems were competition-based. They had to be, because Nation 1 wanted to retain more resources than Nation 2. It wanted to protect or control its own interests, its physical resources, the intellectual capital of its society. This ultimately exploited a ton of people in order to work, but it worked. At least for the folks on top.
[quickening]
Then it got more complex, more interrelated and interdependent. This brings us to the present.
It’s now become so incredibly complex and enmeshed, that each of us now has access to EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET in less than 6 steps. Even with billions of people on the planet, we can reach literally anyone in 6 steps. That means we can access anyone’s resources in 6 steps. Their skills, their knowledge, their capital, their influence. Any resource.
What does this mean?
We’ve transitioned past the point of scarcity.
Take a second to let that soak in.
There is no longer such thing as scarcity.
There are only misallocated resources.
It happened right under our noses while we’ve been trying to solve problems that are not just past the point of fixing, but irrelevant.
The only thing we have left is the scarcity mentality. Any actual problem that needs to be addressed is already possible, right now.
The Final Insight: The Future is Networks
If you’ve made it this far, either this
a.) doesn’t make sense to you,
b.) is something you already knew,
or
c. ) your heart is racing because you’re getting it
Let me share the final pieces that clicked this into place for me:
I never really understood what it meant when people said, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
I never really understood what the point of going to a ‘business mixer event’ and “networking” meant.
It all seemed not only intimidating, but damn near impossible. How do you meet people? How do you make a business connection? How do you build trust with strangers so that you’re not strangers anymore, but might help each other. (And help is anything from lending your neighbor a hammer, to making a referral to help someone maybe land a job, to emailing or tweeting a link online to information you think someone might find useful.) Help comes in all shapes and sizes.
I tried getting a job the old-fashioned way, sending out applications and crossing my fingers, hoping somehow my worth would be reflected on that dreaded piece of paper we call the resume.
(Oh, and by the way, I’m not just a recent college grad with no work experience. I used to have a six-figure income as a corporate executive. I quit because it was soul-deadening.)
My other prerequisite for a job was it had to be interesting and meaningful and fulfilling. Tall order. Nothing panned out.
So I started to experiment online. I had this feeling inside that “I’m worth it, and I want people to know.”
But what is it exactly that I’m worth? What is it that I “do”? Where does the value lie? What am I actually trying to convey?
I realized we all have skills that we learn, expertise that we develop, a trade, a craft, an art. Those things are different for all of us, and they develop and grow over time as we learn through experience. But underneath that we have strengths.
Strengths are something we’re born with, and they get better over time too, just like our skills, but strengths “come naturally.” It’s the stuff that makes us us. Maybe your strength is that you’re super generous and empathetic, or you’re assertive and strategic, or you’re a good storyteller, or a network weaver, or you know what people really mean when they say something, or you can anticipate what people want.
I hope you know what I’m talking about, because we all have these core strengths.
If you have any connection with your strengths, if you have acknowledged and pursued developing them, it’s probably reflected in what you do for a living. For instance, if you’re the generous empathetic type you might work in customer service or a non-profit, if you’re strategic you might be an exec or an entrepreneur, if you’re a storyteller you might be doing video or journalism or painting or music, if you’re a network weaver you might be in sales. If you’re not in touch with your underlying strengths, and therefore not applying them, you’re probably doing a job that’s making you really, really unhappy.
My strength is the ability to see patterns.
It’s what enabled me to write this post. People call me “insightful.” I have the ability to see stuff that other people don’t see, even when it’s staring them right in the face. (I’ve been calling this process “metathinking,” and I’m going to try to explain how it works for me in upcoming posts.)
So I figured out my strength and ventured online to share it, because it clearly wasn’t being appreciated in the “real world.” I had no idea how ‘seeing patterns’ would be an asset that would bring me any type of opportunity, because I’d never been appreciated for it before. Well, maybe I’d been appreciated for it in small ways throughout life, but our memories are short, our egos are weak, and we need constant positive reinforcement to feel any kind of worth in this society. And society isn’t really set up to give it to us, so we all feel kind of impotent most of the time.
Feeling impotent isn’t just depressing, it also makes us frustrated, angry, and fearful, because we feel like we have absolutely no control over what’s happening to us in our lives. Kind of like how we feel when we’re sitting in dead-stop traffic and have someplace to be, or when a corporation exploits us and there’s no one who will punish them for it, or when the government isn’t able to provide us adequate education or healthcare, even though we bust our tails and pay our taxes.
We have no trust in any of it anymore, and we’re angry.
But all of that seems really big and overwhelming, so I just ventured online to see what I can do about it for me. I can’t single-handedly change the system, I can only change my own situation. So I started this blog. I started writing about the patterns I was seeing. Explaining trends I was seeing in simple language, distilling down big concepts into words that people could “get.”
(By the way, I made the commitment to try this little experiment in September. It’s March now. It’s been just around six months.)
Along with the blog, I started a Twitter account. I opened the account the week that Twitter Lists was introduced. That was in October. I didn’t use Twitter before that for the same reason I don’t attend ‘networking events’: I had absolutely no idea who I’d want to interact with, or how. No one ever taught me “networking.”
The reason that Lists changed everything is because it allows you to identify who people are following in a way that is contextually meaningful. People organize people into categories that are useful for them; either by geographic location (“NY-friends”), by profession (“design-thinking”, “community-managers”, “social-crm”), by power (“most-influential-in-tech”), by intelligence (“thought-leaders”, “best-mindcasters-i-know”), and any other number of categories that they see fit.
Whether they realize they’ve done it or not, they’ve provided you with a free resource. They’re publicly exposing you to their network.
It’s now up to you to determine that person’s credibility and reputation, and how much weight you put in their categories. (If they come across like a moron to you, but have a list called ‘thought-leaders,’ you might not find their opinion of a thought leader useful. Or maybe it’s really useful, and you’re the moron. That’s for you to figure out. 😉 )
So what do you need to do?
Well, it takes a little homework. What I did was go to Listorious.com. I looked at all the Top Lists that were interesting to me, and started following every single person who I thought I could learn from. That means I looked through their tweetstream to see if it was filled with potentially useful links to info, and I also clicked through to their personal website.
(On every Twitter bio page the user can link to their website. This is really important. Everyone should have a website. It doesn’t have to be professionally designed, it can be a simple free blog, but you need to have a place where you show off your work, whatever your work may be. And not just a link to your LinkedIn resume. That’s just an assertion of who you are – you telling everyone who you work for and the tasks you do there. That IS NOT who you are. You need to have some kind of site that SHOWS who you really are. Otherwise, it’s a lot harder to get a feel for what you’re all about just by looking at your tweetstream.)
Not everyone will follow you back. It’s ok. You’ll continue to follow them because what they provide you with is a curated source of information. One example that comes to mind, for me, is Maria Popova’s stream, under the username @brainpicker. I follow her, she doesn’t follow me back or engage with me in any way, but her tweets are consistently interesting, so I keep following. You’ll have some of that, and it’s fine, because it provides YOU with cool content to then tweet to the people who follow you. I follow almost 200 people who don’t follow me. No hard feelings.
How many people should I follow?
So now you’re starting to build up a network of interesting people to follow. Everyone has a different suggestion of how many people to follow, so it’ll be your call. But in order to be able to start spotting patterns, I’d recommend a minimum of 150. This will take time if you want to do it right. Just start with the most interesting people first.
Then watch.
See what those people are tweeting about and who they retweet. By seeing who they retweet, you start to understand who’s in their network. An excellent tool to aid in this process is mentionmap. You just enter in a username, and it shows you exactly who that person talks to the most, and who their closest connections are. I’m consistently surprised when I use this tool, because there is ALWAYS at least one person in a stranger’s network that is either also in my network, or I’ve at least seen their name go through my tweetstream. This is a constant reminder that all of us are connected in under 6 steps.
Then start tweeting.
Hopefully you’ve set up your blog or site where you update information about who you are and what you think about. Start tweeting a mix of retweets of interesting information you find from other people, and links to information about you. Oh. And when I say “information about you,” it HAS to be a gift.
What do I mean by ‘gift’?
It means you’re not selling anything or talking about the company you work for or wasting people’s time with something inane. People are busy, and won’t waste their attention on you if you’re not providing value.
This gift is something you give for free. That could mean a blog post you wrote that is filled with information someone might find useful, like a ‘how-to’, or an insight into something in your industry, or a tip that’s helped you be more productive, or a link that shows something you made if you’re an artist or artisan, or anything that shows off one of those inherent natural strengths of yours.
As you observe the people in your network more, and start talking to them, you realize that these are JUST PEOPLE on the other end.
This is going to be very bizarre and mindblowing at first, because we’re not really used to the idea that strangers could be potential allies that would help us. But it’ll get more comfortable over time. And you’ll start to get a feel for their personalities and their interests, and if you pay attention to who they are paying attention to, you get a feel for who they know. And again you’ll notice how closely we’re all connected.
But, there are always holes in networks, and spots where you can make an introduction that could lead to a discovery. You don’t even have to “know” the person you’re introducing. You might be following a person who tweets stuff similar to @brainpicker, but you notice they don’t follow her. So you just tweet to this person: “hey, you should check out @brainpicker, you might enjoy her tweets.” That’s all. That was a gift, a free offer of a connection.
You just earned a brownie point.
As you get better at this, you’ll start noticing that some people are working on similar projects or ideas, but they don’t know about each other. You realize that they could probably mutually benefit if they exchanged information. So you introduce them. (Again, you don’t have to “know” either party, all you have to know is that there’s a connection there to be made). I might notice a couple scattered people interested in social change, but realizing they could be more effective if they worked together, instead of repeating the same work in different locations, so I say “hey @CDEgger @HildyGottlieb meet @openworld @kengillgren @toughloveforX“. I’ve never met any of these people in real life, but I think they could benefit from knowing each other.
This takes effort and time. It’s work. And it’s unpaid.
So why on Earth would you waste your time doing this?
Because something interesting happens when you start sending people links to information that they can turn around and apply in the real world, and when you introduce people to each other which allows them to collaborate on projects or ideas in the real world.
It builds trust.
This was literally a revelation for me.
As I started interacting more with these real life humans in an online space, I couldn’t understand why people were being so nice to me and sharing information with me and providing me with resources.
It’s because I’m earning their trust.
This is the most fundamental, essential, critical thing we need in order to get ourselves out of this whole mess.
I now have a network of people, none of who I’ve ever met in real life (yet), with whom I exchange value with on a daily basis and build trust. In under six steps, I have access to anyone on the planet, and if I have access to the person, I have access to their resources. Resources like their expertise, their social connections, and their influence.
Do you know how this makes me feel?
Empowered.
Not powerful. Empowered.
Let me give you the book definition of empowerment:
“To equip or supply with an ability; enable.”
This hit me like an absolute ton of bricks.
All of this free giving and sharing actually does something tremendously valuable.
It enables us.
It gives us the capacity to access the resources we need to take an action in the world.
I went for a walk through NYC this weekend thinking about this, and I passed by a homeless man sitting on the street begging for change.
At that moment, I realized that I was looking at a man without a network.
I don’t know what happened to him along the way or how he got there, but at some point he lost access to the resources that would empower and enable him to act. He possessed strengths, somewhere inside, but he had absolutely no way to leverage them, develop them, or use them in a beneficial way. He was a lone node, or at the most, a node within a network that possessed no resources that they knew how to use to their benefit.
It’s networks.
The answer is networks.
Networks solve the problem of complexity.
Since my blog/Twitter experiment started in September, the effort I’ve put in has helped me to begin forming a network of strong and weak ties. At first, I got a few retweets of my tweets; then more comments on my blog; then some people of greater influence started tweeting my posts, giving me more exposure; then a few people asked if I would do guest posts on their blogs; then I was asked to speak at a business conference here in NYC coming up in April; then I was hired by Duke University to teach a Futures course this July; and I literally am just waiting to see what happens next.
It feels like magic, but the process has been completely practical, and actually kind of felt like a game.
It turns out, life is EXACTLY like a game. If you can access the right resources, you can win.
Now here’s the kicker.
Everyone can win.
By definition, a complex system can only function with independently acting agents who collaborate. That means you still have your own personal interests that you’re serving, but in order to serve your interests, your actions have to indirectly serve the whole.
And this is not just theory, there’s proof.
You may not know the name Elinor Ostrom, but she just won the Nobel Prize for her work on cooperation in economics. Turns out she did research that showed that the “Tragedy of the Commons” wouldn’t be the necessary effect of a globally cooperative society, as we’ve assumed. She showed, in practice, that this could actually work.
So what does all this mean?
I’ve tried my best to take some incredibly complex topics and distill them down to something that makes sense. I hope the examples are painting the picture of what’s going on.
This whole online thing is essentially a simulation – it mimics the actual world. The relationships you build online and the networks you build online aren’t just made between screennames and avatars, they’re with real life people.
Turns out, we’re all actually in this together, all trying to figure out a way that we can all utilize our strengths, connect, collaborate, and survive. If helping each other and building trust is the way to make it work, let’s make it work.
All this time, I was thinking way too big, trying to understand how to change the world. I kept asking myself, “but how do we leverage networks?”
We don’t.
We ARE the network. Networks self-organize. We only have to leverage ourselves, and the infrastructure gets built.
Each one of us has to create our own ecosystem of relationships that will be beneficial to us personally. We’ll all have some relationships that overlap, but none of us will have the exact same set. The point is that we want to build trust so that when we need help we know who we can access to help us.
Now imagine, if you’re a entrepreneur, or an organization, or a non-profit, or a corporation, and you understand this message and spread it to each and every one of your employees. What happens when your entire organization of people, as a unit, is a network in itself, but each person also has their personal networks of relationships to draw on, which extend beyond the organization?
You then have an INCREDIBLE competitive advantage. (Yeah, there can still be ‘competition’ in a collaborative society, it’s just different, because it’s based on trust.)
Your organization becomes agile. It becomes a learning network, where every person has access to information that can be shared, interpreted, and implemented. You’ll be able to identify weak signals faster, come up with solutions faster, and adapt to change faster.
The world will keep moving. It’s accelerating at an accelerating rate. The ONLY WAY to deal with it is not to cling to the old hierarchies and silos and pride and egos. We have to understand that we can only deal with this as a fully connected system.
And the really crazy part is: we already have everything we need to make this happen. It’s already in place.
All that needs to change is the mindset.
Let me repeat:
All that needs to change is the mindset.
So how are we going to fix everything?
I have absolutely no idea. That’s kind of the point. None of us do, individually, or even as groups. The system needs to be interwoven first, and then we’ll collectively know how to figure it out. We’ll be flexible, adaptive, and intelligent, because we’ll be able to quickly and freely allocate resources where they’re needed in order to make change.
The first step is to build our networks.
This all hit me like a bolt of lightening, a pattern that emerged out of all the complex information.
It’s an option that seems not only possible, but preferable, and comes with a plan that’s implementable immediately.
I thought that made this an idea worth spreading.
If you think so too, pass it on.
Excellent post Venessa and grats on your new gig =)
thanks matt
I so get you. What hit you now, hit me last september. First it was scary, but then I realized that I shouldn’t be scared, because we can’t lose this game. If internet is ON next year or two, we will find solutions how change the mindset.
I have suggestion about the economical mechanism which could start self-organising virtuous circle and it’s not solely based on any new currency or complementary moneylike thing (greetings to Tom Graves). I’ll be back with this suggestion.
Hold on Venessa. Adrenalin-levels will decrease and next time you write how the mindset change will happen.
thanks for support.
i’m settling down now, but i want to reformat this post into as many simple, digestible formats as possible.
Fabulous post. Thank you. Check out my blog petervan.wordpress.com , from the very start in April 2010. There is stuff about “leading by being”. Stuff about “ethical reboot”. Stuff referring to the ideas of Umair Hague. I am also sure you will be inspired by Seth Godin’s latest “Lynchpin”. I also believe we have come at a turning point. That’s why i am trying to put together a think tank, with the ambition to prepare the next generation of leaders for 2030. Those who are in their early twenties. I hope this is not that last important thing you write. I find it very courageous what you do. Keep going !
Incredible. Truly a lightning bolt has struck you. Congratulations!
I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post and I’m going to strongly suggest that everyone I know read this. Thank you for writing and finding this path. You are enlightening many with your clear vision of patterns and we need you to keep it up.
One thing:
“The answer is networks.
Networks solve the problem of complexity.”
Networks are complexity. Complexity isn’t a problem. Corruption and waste are the problem, but it’s getting better fast. As you say the accelerating is accelerating. 😉 As far as solutions to part of the game, I’ll send you a link to my prezi by end of next week for your input.
The minute we stop looking for answers is when we’ll see that our identity is defined in questions. Answers are reactionary and should only be used to ask more questions.
One more time! Great post! I’m so glad I joined Twitter in October too and that I could be nice to you before the magic really started. 🙂
thank you for pointing that out. i’ll fix it. it needs to say something like…..visualizing networks REVEALS the complexity, so that we understand how to operate within it.
good catch.
What a great post! Straight and true again.
I see networks as enabling each of us map and grow an extended self. As people whom I’ve never met generate trust through their networking gifts, integrity, and skills with others, I’ve found myself wondering how I can best support them – without considering “apartness” from myself.
This sharing impulse may be viewed as altruistic, although I think of it in parallel as the ways we invest so that our expanded (networked) selves can better spread the qualities that we individually value.
>>we already have everything we need to make this happen. It’s already in place. All that needs to change is the mindset.
A missing element, in my view, is a simple way for participants to tangibly contribute to the growth of the network. I would love to see a curated version of Pledgebank.org woven into blogs like EBD, where ideas for enhancing the network could be proposed.
These crowdfunding/crowdsourcing elements might spark donations of funds and time to enrich the commons and help the network to grow.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
i have passed your idea to some people. we’ll who we can find to build this.
Wow. So complete and thought through. So many things I’ve been trying to find the words to say for a long, long time. Thanks.
Two things that have been on my mind to share.. One is that the world has always been about networks. Jane Jacobs lays out how those networks come together in cities and exchange value with their regions. Venice, London, the Netherlands connected to Peru and most of all China lead to the last massive change in human history sometime around the 1500’s. If one follows the economy it’s has always been the networks and exchange that have created value. Global trade has always been a feature of world history.
In this precise sense the past is the present is the future.
The other is that in a convo I had with @Openworld a while ago in some blog or other, he brought up the notion of “scale independent models and the “fractal nature of complex systems . I took it one a little mind journey that got to this model..
Systems – biological, social and economic – are driven by avoiding risk and moving forward. Moving forward is life – no choice. Avoiding risk is the constraints and dangers of the environment – no choice. But life does make a choice. How to respond to risk given the constraints and learned abilities. Systems can be individuals, small groups, communities, regions, nation states, and finally the world as a whole viewed as a system.
i’ve been trying to use this model to apply to lots of situations. As you know my focus right now is bottom of the pyramid high schools. In any case, to whatever scale I do apply it, it seems to work to clarify what is muddled, at least to me.
There’s a lot that you’ve put on the table. I look forward to printing it out. Taking a highlighter and identifying the words that move the thinking process forward.
Thanks.
i agree, it’s always been networks. i never realized it in this way before. the terms “social networks” and “social media” have been distracting me, making me think these things refer to something that happens online.
little exchanges happen online, but it’s not fake, it’s real. you’re real, aren’t you? you live in a real location in a real city and you have access to real resources.
i can’t emphasize enough what a paradigm shift this was for me, though it seems obvious.
communicating online is (for me) infinitely easier and more effective for finding the right people who have resources i need than any other way.
the point where it clicked is when i realized i had trust.
“in real life”, society doesn’t really reward trust, and i realized that i have been as a result, a very untrusting person. i have been naturally skeptical of any kindness, and i think that must be why i have been so baffled by people coming to this blog or passing me information.
it’s because of trust.
i have never experienced an operational model of a trust-based society until now, and it blew my mind.
if doing it online works, and the online thing is just real life people showing it works, then my line of reasoning says that if we just transfer the whole thing back offline, it will also work.
that is tremendously exciting to me.
I have experienced a great growth of trust, enabled by social media, similar to that you have described. I think that the transparency provided by social media, especially in its revealing the structure of networks, drives the growth of trust.
Engagement with these structures offline eases as network infrastructure insinuates itself everywhere. I find the question of whether the development of offline trust networks can accelerate as quickly very interesting.
Yes! Transparency is enabling. That’s not so much of a surprise as secrecy is disempowering to the commons. But what is so surprising is that each of us are becoming accountable even as our social structures are. That is the fractal holographic aspect. That is also why our cells are tingling! Literally we can feel it! Transparency. Responsibility. Authenticity. What better environment than to grow a child, idea or business?
We are building the web to happen to ourselves; to realize a new sort of sociality, and to engender a web culture that will arise from it. I’m in.
i see it
One has to wonder how the exchange of information between two people who don’t know each other can have any importance. After all, we go through life hearing about a lot of misery without ever really being struck by it.
Friendships are normally based around history, history creates affinity this affinity makes us care. Not about each other as individuals but about our shared history. Our minds entangle to create unique and precious experiences that can be occupied by no other.
We are but meat vessels leaving traces of our existence in each others minds. How wonderful it is that we are now able to leave traces of our existence and perhaps entangle with nodes that have not yet been born. Not just through our words but through our behavior, through the ever increasing granularity not just of our thoughts but of our very existence.
Although I personally am skeptic about transhumanism I believe they have one thing right. There will be transcendence.
Not of us as vessels but of us as ghosts. This is the Ghost Protocol, this is the future of networks. Data enriched by humans to flow into the future through the networks, our digital identity.
What exiting times we live in.
Thanks for a great post I really enjoyed it.
i don’t think it matters anymore if we “know” each other or not. all of us are trying to solve problems. now the problems require cooperation in order to solve. misery is a result of not having access to resources, about not being enabled to act freely. that can change now.
it’s time to get to know each other.
I am pretty sure it matters quite a lot if we know each other.
That doesn’t mean that we know each other physically but that we have an affinity for the same things.
I am also pretty sure that we don’t have an affinity for the same thing. I sure hope we don’t as this would mean the end of human evolution.
What have changed is how conflict is battled out, how competing viewpoints are competing and what the cost will be both for the winner and the looser.
Networks will allow us to connect with people that we would never have met before, but it will also bring us in conflict with people we would never have met before.
Resources is not the only thing that leads to misery. Boredom is as big a source for this very human aspect.
Networks won’t change that but. It will only ease the pain.
Pingback: Storytelling Social Media Marketing PR Technology & Business Curated Stories Mar. 16, 2010
Vanessa, great post! I follow your tweets for a time now 😉
I believe for more than a year now that communication is the driver of any economy. The exchange of diversity of thoughts. I just looked to some new TED videos which reaffirm that imagination/design thinking will be the next big thing, which can only be powered by diversity of thoughts brought to you by your network (communication).
diverse input of perspectives (network) * internal thought process = creative/remarkable outcome
I wonder how you all think about this.
this makes sense to me. information flows between people, gets revised, edited, reinterpreted, built upon, and each iteration helps the individual to take that information and bounce it off their own internal thought processes.
basically, we’re constantly improving our ability of prediction, of taking in information and figuring out what it means, how it could change things, how we could change in response to it, how to use it to do other things, and so on.
i think the word “prediction” in itself has too much baggage. as soon as you say it, an image of crystal ball gazing comes to mind, and many people have destroyed the value of the word by claiming to be able to “predict the future”
there is no future. there has never been a future. there is only NOW. that’s the empowering thing. we are trying to get more information about the way the processes work around us, and the resources each of us have and how we could mutually benefit by sharing them, because we want to do something NOW. if enough people realized this, and opened themselves up to each other, we could affect massive change RIGHT NOW.
Apropos the “crystal ball” — I think augmented reality (or as I like to call it ‘aurec’) will have a big role in shaping this evolution…
http://arsvirtuafoundation.org/research/2010/03/14/augmented-reality-vs-aura-recognition-3/
nice post. that’s moving along the lines of really creating a ‘heaven on earth’, where ultimately our environment adapts based on our intentions
A different view of Heaven from Buddhist philospher Yasuhiko Genku Kimura ( @genkuworld )
>> Heaven without evolutionary tension is tantamount to hell http://bit.ly/cKniED
His insights on “alignment beyond agreement” are also relevant to trust-building aspects of the conversations here.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Sorry for the typos can’t edit the post.
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Pingback: An Idea Worth Spreading: The Future is Networks « emergent by design Image
All that needs to change is the mindset.
So how are we going to fix everything?
I have absolutely no idea. That’s kind of the point. None of us do, individually, or even as groups. The system needs to be interwoven first, and then we’ll collectively know how to figure it out. We’ll be flexible, adaptive, and intelligent, because we’ll be able to quickly and freely allocate resources where they’re needed in order to make change.
The first step is to build our networks
Pretty much it. Pretty much why it has been important to keep blogging, and why net neutrality is critical / fundamental
Mindset created what we have now, and mindset (read culture ..) is what it will take to get somewhere positive from here.
the issues of net neutrality are something that i feel is quietly happening under the surface and people aren’t aware of how it could make or break us. i myself don’t keep up with this, but i realize how important it is to watch the decisions being made that could put a halt to us shifting to a better society.
This is where I have to trust the network! I have been guilty of catastrophic thinking and fearful scenarios but this transition we are in feels bigger than me, my fears etc, I have to trust the big creative soup! (God/Allah/Consciousness)
Vanessa you are so marvelous I’ m really moved by your capacity to echo my mind but to sequence it and make my thinking apparent! Of course you have connected things more coherently and unthought of too. But I really have to say your thinking parallels mine in this moment (the synchronicity of thought reaching into this networked system to locate exactly what it is seeking?) and I found your post today having trawled through lists of thinkers last week…not understanding the easier list view. I’ m going to use it! I dismiss most Twitter tools as distracted play/wrong! I agree if I can follow the thinkers with whom I am challenged and or akin then I have a sustainable model for co- creativity. Whether creating projects, jobs, dinners.
What I’ve been seeing for the past year is that we are in midst of a revolution but without the politicians! Truly it is youth who are leading this revolution.
This is also how it should be for self sustaining self organising adaptive systems.
The next step is to tell the youth themselves you are leading us! We trust you! (educators)
ps have you seen TED Sugata Mitra’s extraordinary Hole-in-the-wall tech pedagogy proving children (aged 6-13) as self educating?
thanks ruth! i know i didn’t come up with anything new here, but i see i expressed something that has been resonating with many of us!
i didn’t realize just how powerful this is and that we can do something to help us help ourselves be better people.
i haven’t seen that TED talk, i will check it out, thanks for the recommendation!
I’ve mentioned it here before, I think ..
“Networks make (organizational) culture and politics explicit” M. Schrage.
Everything grows from that.
This was (another) great blog post full of insight and condensation of numerous complex topics into a more manageable flow. I will agree that complexity is not a problem but merely a condition which perhaps can be best viewed as something which surpasses our ability to comprehend it with our native sensory apparatus. The network can indeed be seen as an extension of our selves — and our senses — into the collective mindspace of others.
My feeling about your declaration of the importance of replicating these insights about networks across our networks is that it echoes a basically anarchist principle of fluid roles in a collective, in which every member of a collective is dispensable because they are agents of a collectively shared set of skills. In a sense there is an ethic in what you write of the gifting of specialized information/skills.
I feel intuitively that one thing we’re sorely missing and in due time will manifest is a new digital currency which will allow the web’s gift economy to start having value exchanges across unrelated networks. For example, imagine if good behavior on Vimeo could somehow translate to some equivalent network karma on Youtube (perhaps a dumb/rudimentary example?)
I also see a rise in the future of working/business models which are entirely nomadic, modular, agile and spontaneous as a result of this fluid digital currency.
Currently my company is working in Berlin in the offices of a very interesting organization called Palomar5. We have mutual understanding of trust and affinity guiding our relationship in which we can use their office space in exchange for a willingness to participate in their projects. Until now nothing has been quantified as to exactly how this exchange will work. Undoubtedly trust was the key factor in enabling the arrangement, and that was instigated in large part by a video we created during Social Media Week Berlin called “Delivered in Beta” which touches on some of the more visionary aspects of the open design movement. (See it here: http://vimeo.com/9290664 )
Let me know when you plan to come to Berlin — there is a growing community here who’d be happy to meet you.
gabriel!
very nicely done! the style reminded me of gary hustwit’s Objectified. have you seen that?
i’m jealous, i want to work in a design studio, so much creativity!
although……this blog is quite the design studio in itself…… 🙂
I haven’t seen Objectified (yet) but I am a fan of Gary Hustwit — really liked the Helvetica documentary (we’re big typography nerds over here!) Some of my other documentarian influences are Errol Morris, the Maisel brothers and Werner Herzog. Oh and as I mentioned to you the other day, Chris Marker.
If you ever come out to Berlin you’re welcome to come co-work with us 🙂 Incidentally I was recently asked to make a video explaining coworking, but I’d really like to make it collaboratively as I feel like it would be self-consistent with the topic. There are several fun coworking spaces in Berlin.
Anybody out there reading this have some pithy thoughts on the essence of coworking?
How about for co learning : Keep the Bullshit to a minimum. Don’t act like an Asshole. Have fun.
Venessa,
Excellent post. And your views and thoughts dovetail into some of my own thinking on this subject — which triggered my comment to your last post (The Power of Twitter). The idea I wanted to convey with the term “connectedness” is similar to the one you have here on networks. I completely agree with you and believe in the fact that the future is about linkages, networks, and virtual dynamic cohorts. Moving a step further along this path, I also believe the skill set needed to really leverage the full potential of a network is quite different from the typical “job skillset” that folks look for today. We will have to learn to ‘rearrange’ our neuro-linkages on the fly as we traverse our networks to really connect with the diverse needs, value-propositions, strenghts of the various sub-networks and then synthesize and enable value co-creation by bringing the appropriate nodes together.
Anyway, exciting stuff.
thanks ned,
i’m looking forward to your thoughts on the next post, on ways to intentionally rewire the brain.
(How to Spark a Snowcrash, and What the Web Really Does)
I’m finding it interesting that I thrive on the tension between the expansive and open networks that social media makes possible and the exclusive and constrained networks (or “tribes” to quote Godin) that assure a level of credibility and trust that open networks are challenged by. Both good and essential. Riding both waves: sometimes rad, sometimes eating sand. Always grateful for the current and the energy – thankful for whichever moon moves this ocean and each and every agent of information that flows – waxing and waning daily.
Thanks for the raw courageous quality that you demonstrate over and over. You inspire us forward. That has to be huge, doesn’t it?
Doing my best to attend to my acre of this enormous garden.
in many ways, i feel like all i am doing is reflecting back what all of you show me, so i do feel this is very much a group effort. of course my mind makes some of the connections, but you guys are the ones constantly throwing me breadcrumbs, showing me the way.
thanks for your help.
Vanessa, I really enjoyed this post. We seem to be on quite a parallel wavelength – I don’t mean that from a mental standpoint, but literally from a standpoint of learning and making sense of the complexity we see today (i.e. “The New Normal”).
I cannot commend you enough on starting your own blog and pursuing this passion. My first personal ‘pull’ in this direction was a book by a gentleman by the name of Phil Lawson (“Spherical Phil”) titled, “Being Spherical”. It led me to question the Newtonian and Descartes-ian notions of the world being purely linear – while this thinking ‘worked’ during the Renaissance and the ensuing Industrialization Era, it failed us in the 20th century as new theories emerged, such as Quantum Physics, Complex Adaptive Systems, Chaos Theory, etc.
And then on 9/11/2001, the importance of networks changed the world. It will never be the same. In the War on Terror, “we aren’t fighting a nation; we’re fighting a network.” (This quote was from Dr. Karen Stephenson and was picked up by George W. Bush shortly thereafter to describe the U.S. stance.)
9/11 led me to consider the 4 years after high school that I had spent in the U.S. Marines. I left a Platoon Sergeant (E-5), and can remember a marked shift in our strategy and training toward one that was much more urban-terrain and network-focused. For example, in 1999, we were already preparing for what would soon become our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I specifically remember one exercise where we were told that “our new enemy is now a series of ghost networks that embed themselves within civilian populations.” Moving on …
About midway through last year (10 years removed from the USMC), I realized that there was a value-creation component to the notion of Human-Networks. I mean, most of us admit that individuals don’t create value; networks do. However, do we really understand the mathematics behind this suggestion? Is it possible, perhaps, that network-structure alone (say within an “Innovation Network”) could be as, if not more, important than our individual talent? It’s odd to consider this when all we’ve been taught is that individual talent rules . . .
So I began taking this “Networks” thing beyond nature and society, at which point I started studying organizations. This led me to current luminaries such as Rob Cross, Ron Burt, Valdis Krebs, etc. . . . until I met the one person (PhD) that I mentioned above: Dr. Karen Stephenson. I immediately realized that not only was she the preeminent scientist in this space, but that she led me to think differently about Human Networks. Why? Because she’s an Anthropologist. After studying (and in some cases, mentoring under) the aforementioned individuals, speaking to Karen completely shifted my entire paradigm about networks. I can’t tell you how enlightening it is to discuss human-networks from a value-creation perspective with someone who hasn’t been colored by our typical MBA curriculum (although Karen Stephenson taught at Harvard, then UCLA’s Anderson School of Business, and now Erasmus’ Rotterdam School of Business).
I’m now careful not to make flat statements about Human-Networks because I’ve learned that if I hypothesize something, Dr. Stephenson likely has 35+ years worth of research to either confirm or oppose the thought!
So to conclude this long-winded response to your post (lol), I decided to start a new firm as of the beginning of this year to focus on utilizing Social Network Analysis to drive better decision-making (people-focused and network-aware) for organizations trying to deal with increasing levels of chaos. I was lucky to recruit Dr. Karen Stephenson in as the Chief Scientist, and each and every day has been a learning experience, to say the least.
I’d love to connect with you offline and welcome you to check out my blog (CollaborativeChaos.typepad.com) or our new site (www.OODAfive.com). Also, if you’d like to connect with Dr. Karen Stephenson, I’d be thrilled to link the two of you up! I imagine you’d have a great conversation 🙂
Signing out for now,
Josh 🙂
i’d very much like to speak with you.
on skype: venessamiemis
twitter: @venessamiemis
we’ll take it from there.
Venessa – you always bring a smile to my face with your authentic, and detailed review of whatever you are thinking about 🙂 I only wish you had made this post a little shorter. A lot of folks will miss out on your poignant, almost metaphysical analysis 😦
I define this new paradigm as the “cauldron where altruism & narcissism react to produce collaboration on steroids”. I actually wrote 2 blog posts that would be topical to this discussion. Would love to know what you think 🙂
Darwinism & SM : http://ow.ly/1ncaD
SM & safety in numbers : http://ow.ly/1nc8S
And btw, did you think further about junto?? Your friends who have commented on this thread would perhaps be the ideal participants, along with folks from #innochat #ecosys and #smchat ( I’m sure most of them already these must-have’s in their network repertoire).
Cheers,
Prince
thanks prince.
i plan to reformat this post into a few different ‘more digestible’ formats – i just had to get “the big Idea” down first!
i think i’m going to make it into a slideshow for sure, and do a post that just outlines the twitter part – like 10 Tips for Building an Intelligent Twitter Network or something
i will check out your posts soon and respond, thanks for sharing
yes, excited about #junto! we have to come up with ‘little topics’ to chew on, lol.
This is a lot to absorb, and I expect to come back to it.
Until then, you’ve hit two key points: 1, “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know,” so you have to build a network. How do you do that? 2, give gifts. Networking is not about “what can you do for me?” it’s about “what can I do for you?” Keep giving, never stop giving, because what you give away comes back to you over and over.
Thank you for sharing.
-Fred
@wfreds
yes, but i don’t think it has to feel like this completely selfless ‘what can i do for you’ type thing. we are all still independently acting people with our own lives and our own agendas. being cooperative doesn’t mean not following your own path. i think it means we acknowledge that each of us has their own thing going on, and we can respect that, but we also know that if we need a little support, we can rely on each other. and i think it’s very much a two way street – you can’t always be giving and never receive – you will quickly get drained. and you can’t take all the time either, because that’s exploitative. so i think it’s a delicate balance that we literally as a society don’t really know how to do, because we’ve never had to operate that way. this “online thing” is like training… we get to experiment with how trust can work.
Hi Venessa,
Took me a while to get through this idea packed thought-bomb, but well worth the time. Thanks for inviting me to read it!
One thing which I might urge you to think more about though, if I could be so bold, is the notion that the inevitable future result of increasing networks is,”moving beyond scarcity”.
We don’t need to get all Club of Rome about this, and I don’t mean to come off as a downer, but an interesting thing tends to happens to complex systems in nature when they go exponential. They radically transform, which usually means they crash.
The web transforms this perhaps, but honestly I am equally terrified by its potential as I am enamoured by it. In ecology, exponential growth combined with accelerating change almost always translates to population collapse. The same is true for economies (check out Didier Sornette’s groundbreaking work on “Why Stock Markets Crash”.) Same for large, complex socio-technical systems (see Charles Perrow’s Normal Accident Theory), and indeed every single human civilisation on the planet. Ever.
Complexity and connectivity are a double edged sword. It enables all the wonders which you describe, but also creates systemic vulnerabilities in ways that we are only just now beginning to understand.
Things have crashed in the past, but always locally. The danger of increasing change and permanent global interconnectedness is that if (or when) it crashes, it will crash harder and larger than ever before.
Sorry this is all kind of heavy. I outline the counter-argument much better in a presentation I gave at the LSE Complexity Programme last year, which I posted on my blog here;
COLLAPSE DYNAMICS: PHASE TRANSITIONS IN COMPLEX SOCIAL SYSTEMS (link opens to my blog, with embedded video)
The video is a bit long and somewhat academic, but presents the evidence that increasing connectivity and decreasing diversity tends to produce systemic collapse. Have a look if you have time and let me know how this reflects on your brainwave.
thanks for the constructive feedback.
this was the first time all those ideas lined up into a trail, so i’m still absorbing myself what it means. i basically just gained a new paradigm, and now i’m testing it against everything – it’s fascinating!
i’m looking forward to checking out your presentation, in the meantime, one question –
you say “increasing connectivity and decreasing diversity tends to produce systemic collapse” —
does increasing connectivity NECESSARILY result in decreasing diversity? if the information being exchanged is essentially pieces of intelligence, aren’t there infinite ways that they could be assembled and interpreted?
“increasing connectivity and decreasing diversity tends to produce systemic collapse”
In Civilizations Jared Diamonds work describes how civilizations collapse. In a biological model, I think it’s worth looking at cancerous growth within this thought model
Hi Venessa, thanks to you for sharing your thoughts! It’s really stimulating, and thanks for taking my comments on board. I love this kind of discussion.
I don’t connectivity + reduced diversity -necessarily- means collapse, but Sornette’s study of stock markets and investment behavior suggests that it is almost always the most probable outcome.
The reason is because information (which is arguable infinite) is linked to the control of material things (which are finite). So perfect information about finite resources produces speculation and asset bubbles, especially when you start to value something based on (false) assumptions of future increase in value.
This is what happened in the dot.com explosion or the recent housing credit collapse. Assumptions of future growth lead to the inflation of certain kinds of stocks. People saw that these stocks were rising and people were getting rich off this strategy. So they followed their lead, investing in these stocks and driving them even higher.
Now imagine when everyone is paying attention to everyone else through a perfect, infinitely connected medium. The actions of one small person can instantly reverberate through the entire world, causing massive destabilization of the entire market. That’s what happens when you have herding behavior (infinite connectivity – decreased diversity), so that a tiny change can produce a huge outcome. If the outcome is too big, the whole thing becomes unstable and crashes.
Mono-crops are another example from nature, ignoring the human information component. If every plant is drawing from the same nutrient base, in the same way, than a tiny fluctuation in the conditions of that base will wipe out the entire forest. This is why rainforests are so robust and resilient, whilst corn fields are the opposite.
I explain this a lot better in the video though, so I hope that helps! Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to continuing this… in the future! 😉
i think we are talking about different things.
the question i asked you is whether increased connectivity necessarily results in decreased diversity. i don’t think it does.
take this example:
let’s just *pretend* that a sherpa in the himalayas happens to have a twitter account, and he and i are mutual followers for whatever reason. he leads a very different life than me, has a different view on life, different culture, different interactions with different kinds of people, etc. but we are connected. i can send him a link to….i dunno, an eco-tourism outfit that he might want to link up with, and he might send me a link to some fair trade products or something. each of us maintains our culture and our ideas, but we are just sharing resources. make sense?
so, in my view, increasing connectivity actually allows us to have a full appreciation for the diversity that we all have, and also a mutual respect for those lifestyles, and we can both benefit by sharing the resources that each of us could use to do more of what we want to do.
Ah yes, we were talking about different things, sorry!
Your question was, “Does connectivity always lead to reduced diversity?” and I was thinking you were asking “Does connectivity and reduced diversity always lead to collapse?”
Sorry about that. 😉 Re: your actual question, I think you’re right. Connectivity doesn’t have to necessarily lead to reduced diversity. It could even enhance it in many ways.
I liked your sherpa example. It makes sense and raises some interesting questions. Everything would be great in that example if, “each of us maintains our culture and our ideas, but we are just sharing resources”, doing so “with a mutual respect for those lifestyles.”
That would be wonderful if that was the case. I just think that might overlook some of the harsh realities of vested interests and differential power.
How realistic that is in the context of globalization? You’ve probably read Castell’s work on the Network Society, right?
Globalization has both been driven by and has driven increased connectivity. This has produced a huge increase in wealth and improvement in living standards for most, but has also produced a huge loss in cultural, social, linguistic and economic diversity.
Getting back to your sherpa example though, what happens when he sees that you’re getting a great degree at a great university, while he can’t even afford to send his kid to elementary school (just for example)? Will your links really matter to him? Would -any- link really matter to him in this case?
Castells has a lot to say about this. A critic of Castells writes;
“In Castells’ analysis, labor is fundamentally divided into networked labor, which serves the goals of the network, and switched-off labor, which has nothing to offer the network and in the context of the network economy is non-labor,”
The result is polarization into connected elites and disconnected masses. So our Nepalese sherpa in this case would probably be part of the disconnected masses (even if he had a Twitter account), whilst most of us would like to think we’re part of the connected elite.
That imbalance probably negates the prerequisite “mutual respect” which would let us “benefit by sharing the resources that each of us could use to do more of what we want to do,” especially if what he wants to do is get himself the heck out of being a sherpa in Nepal and get his kids into Columbia.
On the other hand…. 😉
The “sherpa example” reminds me of a piece of video art I saw at the ZKM a couple years ago in a big group show at the museum curated entirely of contemporary Asian artists. This piece featured a Vietnamese farmer who had built himself a helicopter from instructions he had found online.
It struck me as a profoundly beautiful and ironic phenomenon, that a Vietnamese farmer should be flying over his rice paddies in a helicopter — the very vehicle which was deployed with massively devastating results in the Vietnam War — thanks to the Internet.
Hi Gabriel you too might enjoy Sugata Mitra’s inspiring solution to the digital divide. Hole -in -the-wall see TED/Youtube
Noah,
“The reason is because information (which is arguable infinite) is linked to the control of material things (which are finite)” Well sort of. In fact, technology allows recombinations that literally can create new material things.
Even in Real Estate, water gets filled in. Demography changes. In materials research and computer research the magic is that new material things happen quite often.
Bubbles? no doubt. But I think it’s fair to say that after a bubble, information starts pointing to many new things. The seculr inflation since the 1500’s in the west periodically bubbles, then receedes, then bubbles again.
My sense is that in a living time space, nothing is pre determined. Could go one way or the other. Consider, for example that Obama won the last US election by about 4%. Consider further a McCain/Palin presidency trying to negotiate from here to wherever we’re going. Small differences can have huge consequences.
@Noah Interesting thoughts – I agree with your concepts totally but not as they apply to social networks. Going to play the devil’s advocate here 🙂
Like I said, I am in total agreement about what you said about complexity,radical transformation,ot crashes etc. as it relates to systems. But if we were to talk about social
networks,I would argue that the same principles might not hold true. Here are some thoughts (and feel free to shoot holes at any of them) on why I think social network expansion is sustainable.
1) The power of networks is in the connectedness or connectivity. Meaning, if I am using Twitter to connect to my school chums then it has minimal intrinsic value. It is only when the network expands, value starts accumulating. And as knowledge/information starts flowing between the nodes, and as nodes start to link to each other this network value jumps a magnitude. And we are talking about information exchage here and not capital assets — and so once the network has reached a certain size, I would argue that it is difficult for it to implode. I am making this argument also on the fact that participation is not forced – I am not and cannot force anyone to be in my social network if they don’t want to (of course I can still be a passive follower and use the value from their network).
2) There is no mutual dependency required to sustain a social network. What I mean is that in social networks there is a state of what I call connected-disconnectedness. In other words you are connected with a lot of folks but you are also isolated from what happens in those other networks. I am sure everyday there are tons of things happening in my network but in the big scheme of things I filter out what I am interested in.
4) Diversity & Redundancy is a necessity and almost a given in networks. What I mean here is that by the very nature of social networks, there is a high likelihood that redudancy is built in. I am connect to A, A is connected to B and I might also choose to connect with B directly. Anyway, the implication here is that the network can continue to produce value even if a hub or node dies – other sources will take it’s place.
5) You are in control. This to me by far is the most critical reason why I think complex networks can be sustained. You are in control of how to build it, you are in control of who to add, you are in control of how to organize your network, you are in control of removing someone from your network, you are in control of extracting value from your network. In other words, if you network is dying – I don’t think it will be because of complexity as much you not doing a good job of nurturing it, sustaining it, or working with it. Also, by extension you are also in control of what you want to extract from the network. So like cutting off a malignant tumor, you can prune your network to keep it positive.
Bottom line, (and it might be my naive thinking) I don’t think you can carry over the rules of globalization and networked society to the virtual world as-is. I don’t think in terms of network elite and network labor. To me it all comes down to invidual needs. It is possible that the Sherpa is only interested in checking out the weather in his region and if that is the case, good for him as long as he gets what he wants. My job is not tell him what he needs but to provide value to my network so that others can pick and choose whatever is relevant to them. The exceptions being in cases where I actively engage in a mutual partnership with someone.
Hi Vanessa , I have not finished your excellent synapse as yet . I thought you and your community might be interested in the Hot Spots movement ,if you are not already aware . This link is to their newsletter with points on networks and differing communities all bound up in the ‘ Future of Work ‘. You may well like to contribute . Pip.
http://www.hotspotsmovement.com/uploads/newsletters/januaryNL2010.html
Great post Vanessa! As I rambled around the SXSW idea-festival in Austin this weekend, I was grappling with the explosion of new panels and new faces. (SXSW was 40% bigger this year.) I repeatedly was struck by the fact that we face the same challenges that people faced from 1450 to 1600 after the advent of the print-press: an exponential jump in the volume and complexity of information. In the Internet age, every year brings not only more information, but more silos, each with its own jargon. How to keep from drowning, perchance even to float or even surf on this flood? Wading among the SXSW hordes and meeting new people and reconnecting with old, I realized that people themselves, and their interconnections, are the answer. What the card catalog was to the Gutenberg revolution, the science of human networks will be to the Internet revolution.
it’s interesting, i think about how technology is leapfrogging in 3rd world countries – how those places aren’t going to have cable laid, then everyone gets a desktop computer – they’ll just go straight to smartphones.
then i think about us, here in the US, and there are many (most?) people who aren’t really using the web much or haven’t learned how to do search or how to build a network
i wonder if all these things we’re figuring out here might be constructive for us leapfrogging. that maybe we’ll have better tools faster that help us use the web effectively to connect with each other.
i hope so!
Tight on time, read half way but here’s a quick teaser of my reactions:
I’m on the same wavelength:
Network Economy (lots of posts, or as I use them augmented memories): http://www.victusspiritus.com/2010/03/01/the-nature-of-the-realtime-network-economy-is-expanding-and-collapsing-opportunities/
Compression of photons on our eyes to neural signals: http://www.victusspiritus.com/2010/03/10/the-minds-image-processing/
Compression of information in nucleic DNA:
The startup I’m cofounding and where I think the adaptive web is going: http://www.victusspiritus.com/2010/03/07/the-adaptive-augmented-reality-web/
A little rebellious: http://www.victusspiritus.com/2010/03/16/the-chains-of-incumbent-systems/
will certainly finish the read as time permits. Quick background: I started blogging and listening on Twitter in feb 2009 for similar reasons (working part time at a job I don’t love but have reconciled with my longer term goals).
The biggest breakthrough for me has been in pushing to implement tools to test the patterns I see, and the help others with the pattern you recognize so acutely in your post.
thanks for stopping by, mark. i read through your posts, looks like we’re on the same page. good luck with your startup!
Thanks Venessa, I’ll keep an eye on where you see things going. I hope our active participation can create a beautiful foundation for future net users.
Be well 🙂
I can appreciate your passion – great that you are sharing it. One tweak I make is that this is about people. Networks is a mental model to helps us understand our connectedness and interdependence (with people and ‘everything’). Social technologies increase our capacity to make change. We need more people making more change for a better future sooner. We made this mess. We need to fix it. We.
A couple of other things you might enjoy reading:
– Ervin Laszlo, Macroshift about cilizational tipping points and the role of mindset and technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_László, and a bit of a summary post http://igniter.com/post43
– Fritjof Capra, Web of Life (wikipedia on author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra
– An one particularly brilliant body of work about organizational systems: Stafford Beer, Heart of Enterprise (http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Enterprise-Classic-Beer/dp/0471948373, VSM model it explains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_System_Model, and a ‘summary’ post of mine http://igniter.com/post40)
– Latest of what I’m working on in response to these threads: http://changemedium.org.
Cheers to your journey!
we are on the same page. that was what i was trying to express as well. the “network” paradigm always felt like it was talking about something “out there”, or a cold faceless social network online… but it’s not, it’s talking about me, and the real people i know and interact with, who will help me as i help them. it’s always been about the people.
what struck me most was that there is a generosity within people that has been suppressed, but if given the chance, will flourish.
yes and it exposes so many more facets of people – making it easier to relate to each other, and to experience relating to people even if we have very little in common. For example, i may come across someone who tweeted something that really resonated with me. I may respond, fav, retweet on that basis, building a connection. I might also look at their stream and see something tweets that highlight perspectives that don’t resonate with me at all. In real-life I would most likely stay away from this person, not wanting to invest the energy of a conversation. In person interactions have a very high costs associated with them.
In the ether though I have no risk. I can relate to pieces of people, let the other pieces flow by with low cost. This then increases my exposure to ideas/perspectives I might not otherwise encounter and shapes my experience that people have many more facets than we see IRL making me in someways more open/accepting.
i’m glad you brough up the idea of no risk.. that’s an important one for me to remember as i’m trying to craft these posts. i think there are still a lot of people out there who are afraid to try these platforms, and are still intimidated by the “social” aspect of the web and in communicating with strangers.
highlighting the ‘no risk’ aspect is probably good to remember to get people to start participating
Pingback: Daily Digest for March 17th ‹ SmediaC - Social Media Community Strategy – New Media And Community Strategy
Venessa, this is deep. I haven’t really used twitter, but this is resonating. I’ve written about similar thoughts in my own blog, but from a much more personal level. You mentioned that you don’t know how to fix everything. I think building the network is itself the fix. When people realize how interconnected everything is, solutions can’t help but be developed. What you say is very Buddhist-like, this interconnectedness. Only the Buddha didn’t have the Internet. Anyway, I hope I’m not sounding like I’m proselytizing, but one of the reasons your blog resonated is because I’m into that kind of philosophy. Your ideas will be spinning in my head for days to come.
that is how it appears to me too.
i think we are a society and a planet based in fear and misunderstanding. if we start connecting with each other, even in these simple ways, like sharing links via twitter or whatever platform you want, it’s a human experiment in a new way, in building trust, not fear, to inspire people to do things.
it’s a totally different way of operating, and requires an overhaul in thinking. and this is a huge challenge.
Vanessa, I just wanted to toss out an additional thought (to complement my comment above) —
Much of what you’re describing has a mathematical component. I would seriously investigate this – our Chief Scientist, Dr. Karen Stephenson, has been developing algorithms (ironically as an Anthropologist) to identify non-random individuals and behavior patterns within networks.
Put simply, structure emerges at the system level. While we deal with chaos at the individual level, there is structure and predictable patterns/behaviors at the system level.
Consider a hurricane – if we’re in the throws of it, we have a difficult time seeing 3 feet in front of our face. However if we view the hurricane at the network/system level (say, from a satellite image), we see predictable constants emerge. We know there is an eye, and eyewall, etc.
I wrote about this phenomenon, as well as how we can emerge from the chaos around us if we can navigate into the eye of the hurricane, here: http://bit.ly/a6pJmj
Also, check out Dr. Stephenson’s work here (I listed about 80 of our articles and research on our site, here): http://bit.ly/aNZMvk
Here are some videos you might find interesting as well: http://bit.ly/bIb1Aa
One work of hers (back in 2005) I think you might enjoy is: “Trafficking in Trust: The Art & Science of Human Knowledge Networks” — http://bit.ly/cuWsZn
That article was Chapter 15 of a book titled, “Enlightened power : how women are transforming the practice of leadership”, ed. L. Coughlin, E. Wingard, and K. Hollihan (San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, c2005) pp. 242-265
Drop me a line and let’s talk! 🙂
Josh Letourneau
http://www.OODAfive.com
Twitter: jletourneau
Skype: CollaborativeChaos
thanks, i’m just digging into these videos. lots to see here!
Vanessa,
Great post. It takes a lot of courage to put it all out there, and you’ve really helped things click for a lot of people. You have a gift and it’s great to see you use it. I look forward to seeing where it takes you.
My take on the complexity and simple patterns bit: metalayers are created because complexity creates opportunities. Metalayers that fit to the previous levels in in some useful way means that there’s more network leverage, more of an ability to create value at an upper level that allows for a greater return/ competitive advantage.
People like you, the metathinkers, have the opportunity to create enormous value by providing the new metalayers on which we can organize. Evolution doesn’t necessarily trend toward complexity, it trends toward metalayers and layers of abstraction (think DNA – a metalyer for proteins, language, the internet, virtualization) because these layers often provides a competitive advantage, better survival, better access to the resources you describe. These same patterns progress onward in the social sphere.
Complexity always exists at the edge. The natural state (while we’re alive) is to battle against it in the most efficient and effective means available. What persists, exists.
I’d like to believe we’re past the point of scarcity, but I think that depends on the goals of the overall system and the rules that are implemented in the system. Right now, government is way behind, as you point out, in helping to define laws and the methods to enforce them. The goals and rules of the system seem to be pretty misaligned (wasting resources or funneling them toward the few). I find when there’s a system failure, there’s usually some misaligned incentives involved. We have a lot of those.
thanks leonard.
your thoughts make sense. i think what you call metalayers the systems thinkers call “nested systems”
the idea of creating the next metalayer has been presented to me now several times. i haven’t had time to really sit and think about what that could look like, have you?
@openworld has suggested many times of creating something with a pledgebank.org feel, where people could list actions to be taken and others could collaborate.
one thing you said that i’ll challenge you on, (and i misworded it myself in the piece) – is “to battle against [complexity] in the most efficient and effective means available. we are complexity. it’s not something to battle, but just to accept that IS and that we are a component of. it’s a lot easier to deal with that way…not fighting it, but just realizing that WE ARE COMPLEX, and it would make allocating resources in order to solve problems easier if there was more transparency in the information.
Hi Vanessa,
I actually mistyped. You are right. I meant to say “Chaos” is always at the edge. Oops.
We complex beings battle chaos to persist and exist, not complexity.
Vanessa,
As to your next question of the next layer on the network, I’ve come to believe that Web 3.0 (or whatever you want to call) it will be about new ways to organize capital and people around projects. In essence, it will be about getting real work done. Some of that is matching the right people to the right causes and finding the capital to get it done. Seems we could create a matrix of the different components of a project and how and where the resources might come from. I love the stuff on business model design by Alex Osterwalder: http://www.slideshare.net/Alex.Osterwalder/management20-competitive-advantage-through-business-model-design-innovation Same process could apply to any type of project, any kind of thing you wanted to get done, problem you wanted to solve. It’s a way to align the components and be aware of constraints in the system.
It’s impossible to predict exactly what the next layer will look like, but we can be sure it will create value (ala Clayton Christensen) by providing cheaper, simpler (to the end user) and more convenient solutions to problems. I think the question is “What problem do you want to solve?” What project do you want to take on?
Leonard,
>>Web 3.0 (or whatever you want to call)… will be about new ways to organize capital and people around projects. In essence, it will be about getting real work done. Some of that is matching the right people to the right causes and finding the capital to get it done.
Just came across your comment in an archive of email updates. I share your sense that self-organizing networks will be looking more and more for this ability as overstretched hierarchical systems fall short.
The Alex Osterwalder preso – especially the diagrams – are excellent. They point to new ways for virtual->actual “seeds of change” initiatives to gain traction (eg Social Networks and Free Communities http://j.mp/aSKLHX )
>>…we can be sure [the next level in the web’s evolution] will create value (ala Clayton Christensen) by providing cheaper, simpler (to the end user) and more convenient solutions to problems…. the question is “What problem do you want to solve?” What project do you want to take on?
I see things a bit differently. George Gilder noted that a problem-solving outlook is quite different from an opportunity-centered one. The first is reflects a reactive/static effort to restore situations to their previous state. The second is dynamic, finding opportunities to rise higher than the level in which problems originate, into a new positive-sum resolution.
I believe the opportunity for socnets to systematically creation solutions at higher levels hinges on the emergence of an ability to stack the “narrative fractals” of various problem-solving projects in ways that will make opportunities for synergistic actions among them possible. I’m all for online systems that prompt problem-solvers to describe their proposed projects in on the basis of fractal patterns of experience (e.g. attractor-challenge-opportunity-strategy-test-action), so that a synergistic “commons” of shared skill needs (or other resource requirements) for these projects can come into view faster for socnet membrs.
Spiro and Gavin have introduced a useful concepts that relate to flocking behaviors in social networks. If their ideas are on the right track, one can sense that socnet leaders fly at altitudes high enough to spot synergistic commons among proposed or existing projects. These “standing waves” represent opportunities for cross-project synergies, and act as attractors towards which evolutionarily-fit social networks can fly and find sustenance.
Or so – from time to time – I hope we can head.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Great comments. I think we’re in danger of descending into some semantic fractals. For me, problems, solutions and opportunities arise on the journey to some future end-state, not necessarily in maintaining homeostasis, but either way, homeostasis or future state, it can be goal-directed, and I think Christensen sees it pertaining to a future state as well.
The flocking metaphor is an excellent one for brains and other types of networks. BTW, Powerful novel based on the flocking metaphor by Richard Powers in 2006, The Echo Maker: http://www.slate.com/id/2151095. Draws many parallels between flocks, brains, networks, identity. (one of my favorite passages is about a troop of boyscouts with flashlights searching in the dark).
I do think that socnets have the opportunity to abstract and build value and cross-functional people have the opportunity to see across networks to find valuable solutions across disciplines (“T-shaped leaders”? I think some at IBM are referring to them).
Much of the description in the last paragraph sounds like work social-network-enlightened VCs, managers and consultants are doing or will be required to do very soon.
At Forward Foundation, we talked yesterday about how we see the shift you are talking about happening:
People on the individual scale have full access to all ways of operating in the system: food production, energy production, physical production, health knowledge and care, cultural production, and access to most or all ways of communicating.
I think that most people (even those who operate in a scarcity-based worldview) eventually discover that they *must* connect with others in order to succeed in using this new infrastructure. They either actually place people at the center of their new approaches, or they lie about it, and make it look like this is what they are trying to do. One thing is for sure, people and the systems they need to thrive are moving to the center of focus of human activity (we wrote about this here http://forwardfound.org/blog/?q=comparing-business-development-paradigms ).
The other thing I think is that as networks build, if there are not a plurality of ways/choices available to each individual, the network growing effect can stall/level off, or even collapse. When many people are in control of many things, they need many ways of solving problems.
Anyway, enough about what I think: thanks much for spending time on creating this great blog post. I’ll be sure to spread it around
thanks sam, i liked that post. makes sense to me.
with freedom comes responsibility. what your post emphasizes is the same thing i’m trying to say here – if we want this ‘people-centered’ economy and a cooperative society, the first step is in each of us personally building our networks. each of us has to learn how to use these tools in order to connect with others.
i wonder what would be the most effective way to spread this meme? i have contacts at the new school and parsons, maybe an instructional video or something that would share well? how do you get it into the schools and the mainstream population who aren’t using these tools for anything other than entertainment right now?
Commoncraft? If only because they are already familiar to many? They do it so well. And educators tend to forward/ embed their stuff…
http://www.commoncraft.com/
i hadn’t heard of that, thank you! i’m going to see if i can find someone to collaborate on it for free first, i think. 😉
The presentation here was not fare for me ,not for me only but for all the visitors.
Chris Anderson (Wired Magazine)’s “FREE – the Future of a Radical Price” deals with the scarcity-doesn’t-matter-anymore concept. It’s heavy on the history of economics and predictions about the future of economies as they’ve been impacted by our new connectivity. You can download the audiobook—for free, of course—online. http://bit.ly/a812V2
that’s perfect!
i’m going out of town in a few weeks, so that’ll be nice to have on the ipod. thanks erica!
this article is brilliant !! i just finished reading it for the second time. also, i read this aloud to my 15yo son as our homeschool topic of the day. he and i agree that your style has empowered us to move forward with our projects and share in ways that make more sense to us. i celebrate you and your efforts in experimentation.
thank you so much for sharing this, it really means a lot to me and inspires me to keep going.
i want these messages to have impact, but i also am scared sometimes, because i don’t want to lead people astray or influence them in some negative way. i’m always very conscious of what i say, how it could be interpreted, what i mean, what i think i mean, what i could mean, what anything means, and so on and on and on! i try my best to use straightforward language, and to challenge people to draw their own conclusions and interpret information the way they want, and then present me with their view, so we can learn together. this is an art form i am just learning, and i think this is crucially important, especially for your son.
EVERYTHING must be questioned, because not one of us can fully know anything – we need each other in order to test multiple perspectives against an idea. when we realize that we can’t do it alone, the ego falls aside, and we’re not afraid to challenge one another with ‘opposing views’, afraid that we’ll be called stupid or wrong. there is no wrong, there is only perspective.
when we can approach learning with this mutual respect, everyone wins. at first it’s uneasy, but then it’s actually fun. i love it when others challenge my thinking, because it helps me to grow. more growth leads to a more holistic understanding of situations. even things we don’t “agree” with can still be understood.
for instance, the practices of terrorists comes to mind. this is clearly unacceptable behavior in any type of society that wishes to be healthy, but they are engrained with a perspective that makes them think their behavior is honorable. whether it’s right or wrong is irrelevant – there is no right or wrong. it’s the behavior that fits with that mentality, so it fits. it’s still unacceptable in society, but it’s understandable if that’s your framework.
being able to empathize with something even when you don’t agree gives a lot of clarity of thought. it allows you to see the big picture, and think about the underlying problems of the situation, instead of just reacting. it also makes you objective – you don’t react with anger or fear, you just observe, understand, and develop scenarios and solutions. it’s clear, rational thinking. something we lack as a whole these days.
so good luck, and thanks for coming, and let your son know he is welcome to join in the conversation anytime. he’s the future, so let’s get him thinking!
congratulations for writing this piece…
but I have a priori to apologize for the tone of my post
the post is just readable once you get rid of all the metaphysical aspects
“lightning bolt has struck you”, “big idea”… and few others
the fact the we are not connected with “life” doesn’t allow us to say that we have a “big idea”… have we done any research on networks or just because we are using twitter and facebook we have realized that, hey! the theory of everything is networks…
Leibniz | Spinoza | Bergson | Deleuze | Latour | Manuel Delanda and myriads contemporary thinkers…
you see the matter with the networks is to be inclusive and not exclusive
apologies for my tone but… I do believe that great ideas are coming through synergies, are historical processes, are emergent, a way to provoke the unforseen… so, there is no way to evaluate a priori… So, say something… and history will tell if this is a big idea or not…
I know… you can sell it as a product if you say that this is a BIG IDEA… who is going to buy a product when you say: well, i do not really know what it produces if it is a big idea or not but it seems that is interesting because… It is the reality principle that has captured our society and that makes the world to be fascinated with things that work and can be proved in the vacuum of a Lab that they work… cause reality(with all its complexity) is completely different, full of contingencies and risks… every system has embedded its failure… real world is the best model they say…
ideas are results of exploiting the affordances of any established system… to misuse it, to see failure as a new direction for innovation
one small example from your post: “Luckily, complexity isn’t something that’s never happened before. It may not have happened before for humans as a global civilization, but it happens in Nature all the time.”
that’s “naive realism” isn’t it…? it is a position of typologists that ignores all the historical processes that let even the most stratified hierarchies to be established…
so to my humble opinion the future is the “allo-web”, to take the network out of the network, to think the inhuman in the human… that will be a relief for your thirsty to fix everything… once you ride the wave of emergence you co-evolve with risk, with the impossibility to fix everything… but with the possibility for this organic/inorganic but mostly symbiotic life to constantly evolve and create…
networks are not the solution to complexity… complexity is what emerges from the networks… “the sum of the parts is more than the whole” they used to say in 19th century… we need to understand that complexity emerges through relationality… through the interaction of elements with simple rules… to forget that 1+1 = 2 and to think that 1+1 = 10
it will be a success to detach success from its anthropocentric view…
with all respect…
zrks,
With all the respect that is due to your post:
What precisely are you trying to say? I read it a couple of times, but aside from what I sense is sort of a snarky, I’m smarter than you tone. I couldn’t figure out the point. The closest I could get was that the idea of having a big idea is self serving or to market something. Did I get the gist? Or is there something I missed?
@Michael Josefowicz
no not at all is not a competition who is smarter or not… on the contrary I do not believe that a lightning bolt struck anyone and that was the point… but a bid more expanded on what brought us here to talk about networks…
I was questioning the easyness to make statements that “the future is networks!”
that someone has this “big idea”… when myriads of people talking about it…
and I was questioning the fascination that networks are synonymous with liberation and democracy.
but it wasn’t a dry questioning… with keywords and key-phrases (due to a limited time) I wanted to give another feeling…
that’s all… no big ideas… no “I am smarter that you tone”… but equal participation in a network… as I said networks should be inclusive and not exclusive…
thanks and apologies if that was not clear… I would try to rephrase myself when I will have a bit more time…
thanks to Vanessa who is giving the opportunity for this discussion
Re the” easyness to make statements that “the future is networks!”
I usually agree with that instinct. A while ago I got into a convo about “design thinking.” I got real cranky by people throwing around words without a precise meaning attached.
But I think you got it wrong on this one. I don’t know if you follow the blog, but the detail and structure in the original post was obviously (to me) not easy.
Re: ‘ that someone has this “big idea”… when myriads of people talking about it…” Again I sort of feel a sympathy with the notion. My line is usually there are no new ideas. But when an idea is stated with clarity and precision in a natural language that works for a non specialized public, that’s pretty rare. Being so rare, my take is that it should be treated as if it were as rare as it is.
Be glad to continue the convo , when you have more time.
thank you michael. it was not easy for me, at all. the post itself took about 9 hours to write. that was the easy part.
i’ve been thinking about this stuff for a decade, and intensely studying it/immersing myself in it about 12 hours a day since february 2006. so it took me about 4 years to write this post, and really truly understand where i was coming from with it.
it was not easy. but it was expansive, and glorious, and a message that i am committed to share.
zrks,
thank you for taking the time to write and join the conversation. i don’t think you’ve posted before, so let me introduce myself. i’m in graduate school in a media studies program, and my ‘passion’ in life is in trying to understand the cultural and societal impacts of social technology. i started this blog as a place to write down my notes on what i was thinking about, and over the months it has evolved into a community of collaborators, who challenge my thinking and add their perspectives to these issues. there is nothing being ‘sold’ here, instead i think the people that come all share a similar spirit of inquiry.
now, to address you thoughts.
first, the metaphysical lightening bolt – the narrative style of this post is not characteristic to how i write. (i don’t think). i can honestly say, from the bottom of my heart, that i experienced the elusive “paradigm shift” we all talk about. i’ve been talking about networks and thinking about all this tech stuff for a long time, and i knew the words and the essence of the meaning, but it was never fully internalized. i thought the promise of web culture, or whatever you want to call it, was really nice and inspiring and incredibly idealistic, maybe even misguided, but not going to happen anytime in the next 500 years. the idea of a globally cooperative society, in light of the “reality” of the current situation seemed insurmountable.
now i’m going to say something that i didn’t say in the post, because i was concerned that people would think i was crazy. but i guess i’ll just say it, because it’s the other piece of the insight.
all my life, i’ve been searching for meaning. really *trying* to find some reason to exist. i’ve been practicing meditation since i was around 15, i’ve been doing yoga for years, i explored many religions and philosophies of life, always looking for some liberation or something that would indicate that there was a purpose that i was alive. i am painfully cerebral, and have spent many many many hours of my life thinking about this (and also not thinking about it – by emptying the mind via meditation).
at some point over the weekend, many of the ideas that i tried as best i could to outline in simplistic terms above lined up. the piece that was the endpoint for me, that aligned all the pieces was the idea of intentional evolution. (you can check out info here http://www.evolutionarymanifesto.com/) this is something i’d heard/read before over the years, but it just never deeply resonated with me.
essentially what it says is that the purpose of evolution is to evolve. as humans, we often think that because we’re the most intelligent species on the planet, we are fully evolved. but we’re not. many of us do not stretch the limits of our cognitive capacities at all. according to evolutionary theory, the next step of evolution isn’t humans growing wings or something radical, it’s us learning how to fully use our current brains, and part of that learning process is through social learning. we can only gain so much insight through direct experience, formal learning, and self-directed learning. we need to bounce ideas off others, to agree that there are multiple perspectives to be investigated around any topic, and that answers will NEVER be fully revealed. we cannot reveal complexity, we can only glimpse pieces. at this point in human evolution, we can no longer survive in the complexity without revealing more of it than we have now. the internet is the tool that is enabling that process. by making the complex information that’s hidden behind research institutes, and silos in organizations, and people’s minds transparent and available for all to work on together, we can collectively deal with it in a way that will allow us to tackle the world’s huge problems. and ‘collectively’ doesn’t mean we sacrifice individuality, as some people misinterpret – it means we are all participating in solving problems together. and not only does this make sense for us to do, according to evolutionary theory, it is actually the necessary step in our evolutionary process as a species.
this idea shattered my current paradigm, and replaced it with something that i can only describe as “hope.”
not only did i internalize that there is some “meaning” or “purpose” to all of this, this life, but that it’s already here. it’s, quite literally, at our fingertips.
there just isn’t a critical mass of people yet who are willing to accept that this is a possibility for the way society could operate, right now, in our lifetime.
i called this a “big idea,” because i really think it is. i don’t throw around words like that casually. i think this idea could change the world. and it’s not like i’m the first to say this – this is what the tech crowd has been thinking for the last 40 years, i imagine. this post was just sharing the story of how i “woke up” to the idea.
i don’t want to convince anyone of anything, that would be exploitation. all i’ve ever done here is to present my interpretation of what i see, and to offer a challenge to others to see things from my perspective, even if it’s only for the duration of the reading of the post.
i think the only way that we could “work” as a cooperative society is by doing this. by understanding that there is no right way or right answer or even “truth,” there is only interpretation. if we could all mentally evolve to the point where we accepted this view, the problems that arise from ego would go away.
what i gained was a new framework for understanding. i feel confident that this will happen again, and again my framework will shift.
this will not mean my current framework was “wrong,” it was only less complete. i think we can only know partial truths, and the ultimate truth will always be hidden. it’s evolution. we’re constantly pushing ourselves to understand better, to empathize, to be able to switch between many worldviews and standpoints, and to find something valuable in all of them.
so, that’s what happened, for me. your path will be different, and you can disagree with my logic, and that is not only acceptable, but welcome. i want to test this new framework against what i thought i knew before and see how it fits or doesn’t fit. if something doesn’t make sense for me, i will refine the framework. i am not attached to any particular way of thinking.
you said ‘i believe the great ideas are coming from synergies’ – i ABSOLUTELY agree. this blog wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the many many people who put in the time to comment here and challenge my thinking, and the few people i talk to about this stuff IRL. i actually think we are all learning from each other, which is a really interesting model. this blog is really more like a learning community, or a philosophy club, if you will. (speaking of philosophy club, i’m planning on starting a twitter chat with hashtag #junto to talk about stuff at the micro level, so stay tuned if you want to join in.)
as for your next statement, about selling an idea that can be proven in a lab….. again, i’m not selling anything, and my “Lab” is this blog and twitter. i don’t have any quantitative analysis that i do, it’s all qualitative and intuitive (which is why i won’t be pursuing a PhD… i refuse to have to do quantitative analysis on something that’s fundamentally immeasurable). i think that it’s glorious that the ‘proof’ that’s emerging is the content of these posts. each post builds on the previous one, as a continuation of the conversations that happen around each post/idea. it’s very organic. and totally awesome.
regarding “naive realism” – by now, i will assume you see that is not my stance. if anything, it is the direct opposite – representative realism is the only reality.
and your final comment, “networks are not the solution to complexity” – someone else already called me on it, and i agree, the wording was off. what i meant was something more like ‘visualizing networks will reveal some portion of the complexity in which we live and are composed of.’
i ended on a preposition and i’m too tired to correct it. meh.
and then to quickly comment on your second comment – you asked why the fascination that networks are synonymous with liberation and democracy…… i’ll be curious for your response after having read my response here to you.
in the end, i have no idea what the ‘true’ answer is, no one does, and if they tell you they do, they’re full of shit. we’re all seekers just trying to create some collective understanding of our world, in hopes of maybe making it a little better.
@Vanessa
thanks for the reply I do understand that your time is valuable but let me stress few more things from your new post.
you see i do not really disagree with the dynamics of networks… I do really disagree with the metaphysical aspect of it… it is really nice to try to understand the world that we are embedded but, and please do not take it personal, mediation and yogas do not help. it is not a way to reach a partial understanding of what this world is about… we need not to look internally but we have to focus on all the dynamic relationships we form every single time with “things” around us… we need to embrace ‘radical realism’.
and indeed it is quite difficult to grasp the world at the age of 15, but that is a good thing, we haven’t grown up in a vacuum we are the result of what I called earlier Historical processes… people before us have talk about it… in a critical or non critical manner
you say
“i thought the promise of web culture, or whatever you want to call it, was really nice and inspiring and incredibly idealistic, maybe even misguided, but not going to happen anytime in the next 500 years. the idea of a globally cooperative society, in light of the “reality” of the current situation seemed insurmountable.”
this is a very subtle point we need to rethink…
web culture is happening now and cooperative society is here… but and this is the huge but… this is weaved and connected with a huge uprising market… that capitalizes under our fascination to share, connect, exchange…
this is the reason why i comment on your post here and not at the NOKIA sponsored site… you see market gains huge benefits from us forming a network…
that’s why I am a huge fun of SpaceCollecive (although I might disagree with few things in an epistemological level). this is a tiny example when I said we need to take the network out of network… and to discover the inhuman in the human… to actually liberate ourselves from the anthropocentric view that this society has been constructed.
Now on you PhD thing… I think you should go for it… and is no need to be either quantitative or qualitative… you need to make up your own methodology… you need to support that your research is not wearing an academic corset… cause falling either in the two of this categories means you comply with the world-view that they imply… but you’r trying to build a new one, another one… this is what is needed to be tested, against everything… it might turn up to be a great idea or not, the fact will be a “finished” research it will change the course of this world. tiny changes in a system can lead to bifurcation and to a complete restructuring of its phase space (too techy? maybe… but this is research today to reveal new links and bridges between different fields… and by bringing them together to find the affordances to think the impossible).
So if you want to turn all this into something powerful prepare yourself to do a PhD… not a relaxed one… but one that you will have to fight for change
Truth? you said it nicely….
you are a media studies student… but knowledge is out there in all fields… you will be amazed how fluid dynamics could be linked with social sciences and economics and how biology and computer sciences with politics…
with all respect and definitely with no “I am clever than you” tone.
I am exposed and ready to have critical arguments.
i’m not sure how to respond, because at this point i feel we’re on the same page. i tried to explain as clearly as i could, that i have come to the understanding that the “path to enlightenment” doesn’t happen through “trying really hard to meditate” or reading a lot of religious or philosophical material. (though this absolutely does work for some people – it just never worked for me). for me the path cannot be told, it can only be shown, and the only way to truly understand it is to experience it.
this is what i’m trying to say. this doesn’t have to even happen with the web at all. people who are highly connected in society, people like my mother-in-law, who seems to know everybody, and knows how to get access to stuff through these people – they already get it. they live it. my father and grandparents, who were immigrants, also understood this as they tried to carve a life in this strange land. they established a human network of relationships based on trust with other immigrants and alliances they found, and they all relied on each other in order to help each other get by.
we have been tricked as a society to believe the “Hero Myth” – that the individual is responsible for their own achievements, and these achievements are done alone, through their own sheer effort or genius.
this is false. no one has ever done anything solely on their own. ever.
the manifestation may be a singular effort (like my blog posts… they’re written solely by me), but they are not a result of me. they are a result of my interaction with people and life on the planet, the things i’ve been told, the things i’ve heard and read, the people here who have challenged my thinking and pushed me forward. all of these things influenced my mind, and allowed me to write these posts.
artists and authors and craftsman and einsteins didn’t do it alone, as we’re taught to believe. they put in years and years of effort to sharpen their understanding of the world, tempered by their personal experience of it and the sharing of their ideas with their human network.
there is no Hero. we are all the Heros. but we are each personally responsible to make it happen. each of us has to be committed to our ‘thing’, whatever our thing may be, and then invest the effort to build relationships with other people on the planet who will help push us forward.
it is a process of mutual empowerment that we’re trying to establish. we’re not used to it, because we’re jaded, and we may not be able to conceive of a world where we can pursue our own passions and interests, while still being supportive of each other’s pursuits.
it requires a mindset that can conceive of this framework, for one, and it requires an ability to be mindful and aware of ourselves and of others, and to check ourselves every time we have a thought, to ask ourselves – “why do i think that?” it is the way to acknowledge our egos.
i cannot tell you how many times i have questioned myself and my intentions and my beliefs and my fears, and asked myself ‘why?’ i have thought many times – ‘i shouldn’t be writing this on a blog, i should be making this into a book’ or i think to myself, ‘someone is going to steal this idea,’ or ‘why are people being nice to me? i bet they want to use me in some way.’ or even the words i have chosen to use to describe things – like “metathinking” – i think to myself, “i hope people start using the word, that would be cool that i might get attribution for coining a word.”
and then i acknowledge that this is the ego talking, and i literally laugh at myself, because all of those things above are completely self-defeating. by being selfish or arrogant or fearful, i am powerless. by being open and honest and giving, i am empowered.
it’s a different mindset.
and it comes down to having trust in other people. everything, all of this, all boils down to trust.
when i talk about “networks” or “social networks”, i’m not talking about the internet, i’m talking about people.
as for the PhD – maybe i’ll pursue that one day when things are different. i am very disillusioned by academia, and i think the institution itself is set up in a way that is not actually conducive to sharing ideas and building knowledge. i think i can have more impact on the world just like this, one post at a time, one conversation at a time.
i already have a new paradigm of what “research” means. in my view, it’s not me venturing out into the world and observing behavior and reporting upon it – it’s us collectively talking about our different viewpoints of what we see and trying to extract meaning. (it’s exactly the process that is going on between us right now. i am sharing my view with you, while acknowledging your view. it’s respectful, and i feel that we are both learning something. maybe we aren’t learning anything “new”, but we are learning something about each other.
and that’s all there really is.
Venessa, the thread between networks (systems management) and enlightenment was pretty deeply explored in Beer’s Heart of Enterprise. He took a mathematical approach to understanding systems, how they operate, and how they are managed. A couple of choice quotes related to this:
“The two immediate consequences of these arguments are, first that it is better to teach a manager to know himself than to know what someone supposes (without knowing the circumstances) that he ought to be; and, second, that he should understand the systemic nature of the viable system in which he operates.”
and
“Perception fo the infinite recursion is always the goal. Perhaps the problem is that once a man or woman has reached that perception, nothing matters any longer.”
The final one reminds me a lot of Jed McKenna’s “Spiritual Enlightenment the Damndest Thing”. Given your comments about laughing at self/ego you might enjoy it too. Some other stuff that seems to fit with your perspective and journey is stuff from Adyashanti, another teacher from the ‘non-dual’ area.
Systems/network thinking converging with enlightenment seeking can be very addictive and empowering thing for the ego. An ironic trap of sorts, but all part of this lovely journey… which is all we have.
Cheers, have fun!
thanks for all those recommendations
>>[zrks] it is really nice to try to understand the world that we are embedded but, and please do not take it personal, mediation and yogas do not help. it is not a way to reach a partial understanding of what this world is about… we need not to look internally but we have to focus on all the dynamic relationships we form every single time with “things” around us…
Good grief! ZRKS, it sounds like you are suggesting that an inward search for patterns is futile. In fact, I’ll wager, the process roles/relationship patterns among the subsystems that we find when looking inward correspond to those that we find when we look relationships among individuals in teams, among teams in social networks, and so forth. It’s the same fractal of interacting with internal and external narratives that is visible from any perimeter we choose to look from – http://j.mp/dcs1sM .
>>no need to be either quantitative or qualitative… you need to make up your own methodology… you’r[e] trying to build a new one, another one… this is what is needed to be tested, against everything
Does this mean that Venessa needs to generate an entirely new methodology for explaining networks? One beyond the five categories that Michael Oakeshott charted in Experience and Its Modes? Or that C.S. Peirce laid out in pragmaticism, which offered a rigorous way see to scholasticism’s faith in absolutes (via revelation/faith) as not intriniscally at war with science’s modes of testing (c.f Lee Auspitz’s “Americas Greatest Living Philosopher” in Commentary)?
Venessa has recently set up a linked wiki for debates like these. I’d welcome a chance there to better understand your views on what practical implications they may have to enrich the EBD commons.
Meanwhile, I hope Venessa will continue her remarkable course of exploring and building opportunities for a synaptic network here – one that integrates rather than excludes inner explorations.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Different people ex
Self-reflection and meditation might not be considered by many as important since it does not have an immediate tangible output — but (imho) it is very critical to moving in the right direction. Not to berate any culture per se, but many a ‘wrong-paths’ could have been avoided with a little self-reflection and objectively evaluating the context. Anyway, I am a deep believer and practitioner of the life-style that scientific thoughts can co-exist with the more sublime spiritual, philosophical, and metaphysical thoughts to provide an optimal balance for a person.
Regarding Ph.d – well, things might have changed – but when I was in the program, Ph.d students were but “slaves” to their Chair and the Committee 🙂 – exaggerating a bit, but many a times one just have to go with what their Committee tells you (if you want to graduate). So if Venessa decides to pursue that route, my advice would be to either (a) select a Chair who subscribes to similar thoughts and get their buy-in beforehand, or (b) do it an area that needs less quantitative rigor and has more qualitative focus.
Thanks for sharing not just your ideas, but your story. It means a lot to me. I’ve had a similar experience — literally directing 100% of myself over a couple of years to answering big questions, finally having that feeling of knowing when I found it — which turned out to be something that was right there all along. Things just hadn’t come together in exactly the right order to reveal a sense of coherence.
What’s frustrating is we all have a slightly different perspective, vocabulary, background, and purpose. Most of the disagreements I have with people are essentially similar ideas that fail to find the same wavelength. … But that’s what conversation is for: going through the process of resolving these differences, generating new connections, etc — not that anybody here doesn’t already know that 🙂
@zrks
I do not think that Venessa falls prey to what Foucault called ‘the episteme of man,’ au contraire, it appears that she has just experienced the proverbial cauldron of becoming (a la Deleuze) and being the voice of reason and conceptual adaptation that she is, is trying to convey it in a non-authorship fashion (kudos for that).
If anything Venessa is a prime example of a fresh re-territorialization of the concept of networks.
Her non-linear thinking is what brings all these experiences into a focal position of attraction (which may also explain the reluctance to continue in Academia).
Having said all of the above I concur that a multidimensional fuzzy structure is desirable, and I have no doubt that in due time such will be the case.
@Wildcat
I couldn’t agree more… but this becoming if you like wasn’t apparent to my understanding through this piece of writing and maybe that’s my fault…
I think is the terminology that gave me that sense that that wasn’t a moment of singularization (a la Deleuze) but was more a revealing of a transcendental idea that made the networks the future of everything.
well at my second point you made it more clear: “a fresh re-territorialization”. but i didn’t sensed the deterritorialization… and that was my argument to put network out of network.
facebook, twitter, google, web2.0, strategies through viral marketing and military, explicit use networks, distributed nodes of human activities for operational purposes, and since you have mentioned Deleuze, he was working to take the machine out of the machine in the post-industrial world… now to my understanding we need to go further in this web-culture.
So, basically my intention is not to critically provide a justification of networks or not, mirrored in a pre-defined structure that I have in my head, but to open the discussion in another way of feeling the networks… another expression that is inherent in its dynamic structure…
the initiation of such a conversation is so valuable so kudos to Vanessa…
What if i was to tell you that you, the sum total of your variables is nothing more then a complex mathematical subjective formula?
What if i was to tell you no matter how many illusions you create that only .001% of your decisions this year will attribute to 33% of your success/failure rate.
Now what if i was to tell you at the present moment discovery has shown us that networks are meant to create singlularity, a process of human capital intetwined to raise consciousness.
Imagination is more important then knolwedge.
Reality is merely an illusion albeit a pesristent one.
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
The only real valuable thing is intuition.
Determinism, stoicism, what roles do they have in this?
Is the big idea the person itself who was born?
Some say we chose to be here? Why?
Karma? Destiny? Soul? Spirit?
Who am i?
What role do i need to play with you and you and you?
Does it matter?
Chaos is order?
Trust networks defined?
Harmonic alignment?
I would say the fact that anything good happens is a mystery. And the fact that so much good happens is pretty much a miracle.
Social networking is going to play a huge role as your on your blogs, websites and most of your traffic come from these networks who have a combined user base of 500 million and more.
Thanks, Venessa. Your post left me heart racing and (i) inspired.
You reminded me of a visualization for our emergent era of Trust Networks, courtesy of Gistics.com http://bit.ly/9imB5C
While looking for that link in a closed network this popped up. May be of value in this context. “Are you managing, or leading — or are you building an institution? The Builders’ Manifesto” by Umair Haque http://bit.ly/4JZf3B
thanks for sharing these links. i had read the builders’ manifesto, but just reread it with my “new lens” and it hit home a lot deeper.
i kind of feel like i need to reread everything now to be able to see a little clearer of the messages that are there.
“i kind of feel like i need to reread everything now to be able to see a little clearer of the messages that are there.”
rofl, I felt exactly this way when the network awakening occurred. Like the Red Queen’s race:
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
Vanessa, someplace above you say,
“there just isn’t a critical mass of people yet who are willing to accept that this is a possibility for the way society could operate, right now, in our lifetime.”
To get some context for my point of view, I entered college – 1963 Left a Masters program in 1968. In 1965 women were not allowed in the men’s dorms. In 1972 co-ed dorms started making their appearance. In 1965 very, very few people were opposed to the Vietnam War 1968 student demonstrations spread all over the globe. Bear in mind that all this occurred with no computers, much less internet , no cell phones and only three TV networks in the States.
Consider that just this year, Lehman Brothers disappeared over a weekend, General Motors went bankrupt and a Black man from Chicago was elected President of the United States. Something very big is going on. I would not assume the “not in my lifetime” part.
my brain is getting lazy.. the wording was off. the intention was:
this is a possibility right now, in our lifetime – all we need is a critical mass.
Vanessa to me that is the point you are making here we are this is critical mass in action…
Pingback: Lesenswerte Artikel – 18. March 2010
Now, I feel obligated to issue a word of caution. All this talk about the “Big Idea” and networks is grand and–I fear–a little too Utopian. At the turn of the twentieth century many predicted the Industrial Revolution would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. The twentieth century turned out to be very bloody. Of course, it could’ve been worse; we could all be dead of a global nuclear war. The point is, in the midst of the Information Revolution, I think it’s wise to temper our enthusiasm. You mentioned your bafflement at how it seems our economy allows a few to be very rich while most of us struggle to make end meet. I don’t mean to be alarmist, but the “bad guys” can network too. Adolf Hitler was good at networking.
I know the above paragraph sort-of turned into a rant, but I think it needed to be said. Overall I really liked what you said. I’m a pessimistic optimist; I expect the worst but hope for and fight for the best.
my enthusiasm is tempered. i see how we could get there, but i am extremely aware of the current situation. it will take time, but the elements to make it happen are right there in front of us.
the industrial revolution wasn’t about people connecting, it was about machines automating human processes, resulting in human DISconnection.
this ‘communication revolution’ is about us taking ourselves back. and the craziest part is it’s us taking ourselves back from ourselves.
we have created a grand illusion that we’ve bought in to for too long.
when a corporation goes bankrupt, who gets blamed?
no one.
not a person.
because there is no person represented. we set up the system so that a corporation is a legal entity in itself. there is no one to blame when a corporation fails. and yet corporations are running society.
we are literally letting ourselves be run by entities that don’t exist.
they only exist in our minds.
the same thing with the financial industry, and banks, and governments. these are all things that we have invented out of thin air to describe the way processes should work in order for humans to be able to solve problems and live together as a civilization.
but the current systems don’t work anymore.
so, literally, just as the current version of corporations and governments and economics truly only exist in our minds, and we have collectively agreed to abide by the rules of those systems we have created…… if we just change our minds about what those systems look like, the system changes.
this is how we change the world.
Well spotted, Venessa (and co-creators of this virtual learning experience).
How do we create, run and change companies or institutions? We formulate, hash out, write down and commit to the library the visions, policies and procedures by which we hope the people in the organization attain the valuable work products and satisfy customers , to the best of our limited knowledge and growing experience. Often they do. Sometimes they fail. Why?
It is a lot like writing code, programming – so what would we expect in the current systems of corporate rule sets? Or the legal system, for example? Bugs, oh yeah, baby! Society in perpetual beta at best. But, hey, that means improving.
Know any powerful debuggers? People (who else?), common sense, and communication, as live and as honest as possible. Trust intuition but don’t count on it.
Am I ranting? You decide.
Make meaning as Guy Kawasaki likes to say. As in: nobody buys a power drill because of its beauty or the status it conveys to its bearer. What people want is the hole. Actually, nobody wants the hole in the wall, either. People rather want the picture on the wall. Wait, not the picture, but the beauty and the status it conveys. That’s ego. How about the feelings and memories it conveys? That must be why we jump so many hoops to place beauty around us. Are we home yet?
How can we get man-made organizations out of their dysfunctional dinosaur corner? A few of many workable approaches at http://corporation2020.org
Bernd,
>>How can we get man-made organizations out of their dysfunctional dinosaur corner?
If you haven’t seen it already, the new issue of Time magazine has two memorable essays on this theme —
“Twilight of the Elites” http://j.mp/9guNek
“Next Big Thing – Dropout Nation” http://j.mp/cqFGZV
The latter maps growing moves in actual communities to self-organize local alternatives as central systems grow fragile.
Resilient Communities – benefiting from resources generated by socnets, and linked together in virtual networks – may be where a new generation of free institutions takes form and spreads.
@JohnRobb’s blog has a number of ideas on these opportunities (and accompanying risks) as top-down institutions fail and the new trust-based networks grow.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Thanks Mark. Had not seen these.
This personal learning network thing has become my media filter. When I awoke again (did BBS back in 1988) to how powerful this is, I wrote an Ode to Twitter. It is linked above.
Thanks, Mark. Awesome and refreshing connections here. No I did not know these references.
For a while I have been relying on the personal learning network to custom-filter the news, and the people are doing an amazing job, improving filter quality (selectiveness) all the while. Wrote an Ode to Twitter about it, linked above.
“if we just change our minds about what those systems look like, the system changes. this is how we change the world.” This is easier said than done, Venessa. Or is it all that hard? I am often amazed by how “money” changes over time, and people’s willingness to accept the new form. For example, there are no wars (that I know of) of people angered that gold is the new form of currency instead of bartering. I’ve heard of some people who refuse to participate in a cashless society. But, for the most part, people are able to accept the mutual illusion of money. The Onion did a funny piece about if we didn’t accept the illusion: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_economy_grinds_to_halt_as
And the form of currency may change again, as perhaps indicated by Thomas Power’s idea of Facebook becoming a bank, in your later post. Maybe the future currency will be information itself, or, as spirospiliadis says below, in-form-ation.
I guess what I’m trying to say in a long-winded sorta way is this: our mutually shared illusions have changed throughout history (money being just one example) and they will continue to change. And though my last post was a bit of a downer, it was merely a cautionary note. I don’t know how the future will turn out. No one does. That’s what makes it so much more interesting, and granted, also a little scary. If enough people approach the future with compassion and understanding, it will truly be an awesome place to live.
This post provides excellent and motivating answers to many of the questions I receive on the use and potential of social networks and Twitter in particular.
Although I had the intention of writing about this topic now I think more convenient to recommend your excellent post. Like many of my friends need it translated into Spanish, I ask your permission to publish a Spanish translated version on my site.
@wrioram
please share this message. but before you do, i ask you to please read this exchange between me and zrks in the comments section above:
https://emergentbydesign.com/2010/03/16/an-idea-worth-spreading-the-future-is-networks/#comment-1577
this is an essential piece to understanding. when we talk about ‘social networks’ and ‘networks’ – we’re not talking about something online, we’re not actually talking about twitter or facebook or ning.
this was the insight that shifted my perspective. i was confused by thinking of it in terms of something on the internet.
the internet is only the means for communication – the true network is the people.
the real life breathing thinking people, all around the planet, connected.
please read it.
it is not an easy concept to grasp (at least it wasn’t for me). it requires a lot of self-reflection and ability to empathize with others. this in itself is an art, a practice, a lifelong process.
it’s something very few of us are ever really taught to do. i think as children we intuitively know it, but it gets beaten out of us as we get older.
essentially it’s taken me almost 20 years to get it back.
that’s a long time to wait, but i didn’t realize what it was i was looking for.
this all sounds very strange…..reading my own words it sounds strange…..but just read the exchange above, and see if it resonates.
if it doesn’t, it’s ok. i think we all have different ways of understanding things. this post was merely me telling the story of how i got to this perspective. many people have gotten there in many ways.
it’s whatever works for you.
Zrks,
We probably agree on most things. But here’s the point of contention..
“I do really disagree with the metaphysical aspect of it… it is really nice to try to understand the world that we are embedded but, and please do not take it personal, mediation and yogas do not help”
My argument is that this is a fundamental error of the Western tradition. Turns out it’s not ” I think,therefore I am.” It’s “I am, therefore I think.” Descartes had it just backwards.
If someone opens a thread at the PBWorks convo spot, this could be a very fruitful conversation.
the thread has been opened: http://emergentbydesign.pbworks.com/
anyone without access to the wiki that would like to join the conversation there, please email me:
emergentbydesign at gmail dot com
@Michael Josefowicz, @Openworld, @Wildcat
I would like to apologize for not being able to reply to all but although I really enjoy the discussion I am very busy at the moment and time is really pressing…
a quick answer to the Descartian ‘I cogito”… ” I think therefore I am”
Descartes wasn’t only backwards but completely out of the context… he implied a clear distinction between mind and body… so the inversion of it “I am, therefore I think” doesn’t go away with the body-less mind
let me propose another version. “I feel, therefore I am becoming”
I did tried to pose my arguments at this interesting exchange of thoughts and concepts…
I will embrace what Vanessa said about the mutual transformation.
but before I dissolve my IP to waves, I would like to clear myself for the internal inquiry that yoga and meditation imply.
all these methods/techniques transcend the ideas at the level of metaphysics… higher than the humble reality… and for me this is fundamental problematic in order to understand and operate in complexity…
I would strongly agree that the internal inquiry at the level of material basis of biology and complexity science is the way to understand that complexity emerges through simple rules of interactions… (from molecules, to cells, to organs, to bodies, to populations, to species, to ecologies… not through fixed entities and definitely not in an hierarchical fashion but mostly through what Delanda calls ‘meshwork’) someone talked about the fractalization aspect of this and I would totally agree. indeed this internal inquiry is valuable…
I would like to thank all for your inputs but mostly Vanessa that she provoked them… A wishful thinking of the mutual transformation could be summarized (with caution though) to the Ubuntu motto “I am who I am because of everyone”
thank you all
When you get a chance…Would love to continue this at the wiki. I figured we had a lot in common. here’s the thing I see about “Cogito” It is useful to keep the distinction. One way to figure out what’s going on is in the continual conflicts between mind/body. Plays out in evolution theory with constraints of surviving – managing risk and need to reproduce – a very risky behavior. The Art Instinct articulates the conflict and how it plays out in the evolutionary development of art and language.
In natural language , They say decisions are made on the basis of fear and greed. In this context I might say decisions are made on the basis of fear and getting laid. If it were not for the sex drive, evolution might never have ended up with talking, tool and art making monkeys.
Pingback: Most Tweeted Articles by Innovation Experts
Wow, absolutely mind-blowing post, you just gave me a very big gift. Thanks for the inspiration/vision!
sweet, i’m glad it hit home 🙂
IN-FORM-ATION if we take a different perspective on the word itself we will see that “information” is nothing more than something that has taken shape, it’s in-form-ation.
People are in-form-ation. The day we were born we took shape.
Thus in-form-ation in regards to people is human capital.
Our human capital is a subjective reality, our ego’s… an objective illusion.
We are in partnership with ego to unfold our subjective reality/human capital
Though our depth and vastness i believe cannot be discoverd in one life time, we have to pick and choose our spots in this lifetime…
Thus, our in-form-ation/human capital has to align in harmony with this lifetime.
We will know we are in alignment when we accept that no matter how much the objective illusion exists, it’s not the root cause of our happiness.
Subjective reality then becomes purposeful, meaningful, and we empower that.
However, from the beginning of time objective illusions have compromised our subjective reality.
That is why most people are not happy, because they are looking to the illusions to make it so, when in fact that will never happen…
When we tap into our subjective reality, the root cause of our existence, and taking our in-form-ation what has already taken shape and unfolding it in this lifetime.
Then our life becomes a journey with no destination, no outcome, we feel the altruism, we become transparent, we feel connected, we want to share because we know that we are not getting anything out of it, because we already possess it within.
That then becomes the focal point of the future of networks.
that it already exists, all you have to do is do your part.
Your part/in-form-ation howevere is part of the whole and the whole is the sum total of the parts.
Your part is whole in itself,
Harmonic alignment is what we strive for.
but your part is up to you, a conscious effort to pick and choose the depth you have in this lifetime and align it with the whole.
All technology has done is made us more conscious of it, a need to finally say i believe it..
we then stop trying to force the external to change and we take our in-form-ation and align it with others in-form-ation to unfold creation.
What do you want to create?
Actually better said, what do you want to unfold that has already taken shape? That shape is your gift.
and we all know gifts were meant to be unwrapped.
Question then becomes what do you want to unfold or unwrap that aligns with this new future of networks?
amen
“When you consistently tweet quality, you build trust, & your network will value you as a resource”
I haven’t found the above to be true in a general context. It could be the “game” of Twitter, but the efforts spent online seem only to be amplified by the efforts of offline, and in a way, it’s only the offline that matters with online acting as a networking or broadcasting device. Call it “Fame.” If you build fame you gain attention. Call it fame-trust, which is forever old in marketing and advertising and why celebrities can run charity-call-a-thons, but not the heads of those charities.
I’m finding that “do-ers” are the heroes of offline and online networks, not linkers. Linkers might get the most general attention, but from whom really? Look at what’s happening with Conan.
Reading Tweets from the recent SXSWi many followers of social media power-users expressed disappointment upon meeting these users in person. The critique points to a certain behavior online doesn’t necessarily translate to offline. Like chat-rooms, users can build persona’s that don’t mimic their real lives. Sharing links, in a way, puts a further mask over their faces as they themselves don’t have to share their own ideas, they can proxy through others. I do it, but maybe I should be doing more offline instead, and then sharing those experiences online instead of adding to the link-market.
In some cultures the sharing of jokes, or poetry, is a high form of sharing value. It goes back hundreds of years (if not thousands). It’s a competitive game. With Twitter and it’s follower-value, it too implies a competition.
My Twitter network is ambiguous, different facets respond to different posts, and its often an irregular pattern. I’m sure there is a % that seeks value, plus there is part that seeks novelty, voyeurism, competition, intelligence, you name it. My online personal gives a window, and a score, to my offline efforts judged ONLY by the happenstance of the users who have found me, no other basis can apply as it is mostly accidental that users find me. There is therefore no one way to analyze my Twitter feed, only ways to point at the fish swimming in the stream.
did you read the above post and comments at all? please read through some of the comments here for different people’s perspectives.
as far as how to use twitter better, please consider reading this post – How to Use Twitter to Build Intelligence: https://emergentbydesign.com/2009/12/21/how-to-use-twitter-to-build-intelligence/
but one main point that sunk in for me that was crucial to me understanding about networks, so that it’s not about the internet at all.
try to imagine there was no twitter, no facebook, no internet. what would we then really be talking about?
we’d be talking about people. about actual real life people, and the connections between us. the web is only an interface for communication, not the end destination.
so if we think about it in those terms, when we talk about “building our network” – it’s not about building an online social network of strangers and faceless avatars – but actually treating it as building a network of real people that exist on the planet that we could have as allies and resources.
this is a totally different way to look at it.
in this view, it’s not about popularity or fame or ego, but really about human beings connecting with one another and sharing resources.
if you can think about it in this way, you can explore a completely different way to understand the interface. it’s not about self-promotion or promoting your company or brand, but truly honestly fundamentally about sharing yourself.
about trying to connect with others who are like minded, or who share similar interests, or who are trying to solve similar problems. about asking yourself, when you strip away your “roles” and your job descriptions and your titles, what it is you truly have to offer to someone else. what is your strength?
we aren’t accustomed to interacting on this level, but when we do, it builds trust. trust is what’s lacking in society right now. lack of trust in government, lack of trust in the economy, lack of trust in institutions, lack of trust in each other.
but when we take it all away and go back to the basics, as they say, all we are left with is people.
it destroys the illusion of control from society, and instead allows real people to just connect with each other, share information, and learn.
this is what i have discovered in my usage of twitter and the explorations i have been pursuing on the web and the interactions i have with every commenter who comes to this blog.
it’s not about the web at all. it’s about us. and once we interact with each other enough in this online playspace, and experimenting with information sharing, we see that we can open ourselves up to each other, and let each other have access to our resources – our knowledge, our thoughts, our ideas about how the world works and how we could do a better job at whatever we do.
this was liberating for me, and it seems that if all of us would at least try the experiment of interacting with each other on this level, we could literally transform the way the world works.
I did read the above, but my note was based on our twitter conversation. The group of users who can participate in the way you describe is small until broadband is free and super-national (and access is universal) AND our daily structures allow the time to participate. While it is market-driven, only those who fit through the filters can really use it. That’s not a judgment, though I believe free broadband is a good idea, but I witness this even with the people who have commented on your post. It’s a select group, I’m in it too.
I’m not as concrete about strength as you are. Strength is crafted through experiences which are market and economically controlled. I feel your premise supposes economic mobility. My note is rooted in the immobility of most of whom I know, especially now when there is great anxiety about economic stability.
I very much disagree with some of the assertions you have made here Jason. From what I have read, the network effect has has a huge impact in Africa. No need for broadband at all.
I may have misinterpreted Venessa, but the fundamental change discussed here happens in our models of the world. Computer networks accelerate the recognition and adoption of these new perspectives; as Dr. Leary suggested, the internet acts as the most popular psychedelic in the world.
The only filters preventing this recognition reside at the individual and cultural level. Venessa actually describes historical situations where this network understanding appeared tacitly, as a survival strategy.
While I feel a little uncomfortable referring to online social influence as a “score”, @wesunruh has started putting together a wonderful set of tools for analyzing one’s social presence.
Be cool, be well.
Great post Venessa- really resonates with a lot of what I’ve been thinking about recently. Great to find people like you who are able to articulate these ideas and stimulate great discussions.
I just want to respond to Gary and Cole’s points here broadly about the issue of equality of access to networks. I also wanted to pick up on a point you mentioned in your post about where you passed a homeless man in NYC and described him as a man without a network.
I worked for several years on a digital inclusion project in Guatemala. I was constantly blown away by how, as I got to know different people in different states of material hardship, they would generally have access to incredibly sophisticated social networks that were certainly not immediately obvious. Essentially, the less you have in the community, the more you’re dependent on your networks.
I’m only making this point- very generally- because I often wonder to what extent my own amazement about the networking potential of social technology is actually a rediscovery of stuff we’ve known culturally and appreciated before in years gone by in less materially privileged times.
One of the social/cultural developments in the last few decades has been how we’ve voluntarily cut ourselves off from traditions networks. As we’ve become wealthier we’ve become less dependent on our networks. To what extent are we now rediscovering the values of networks- albeit with much increased potentiality- through social technology and to what extent is this really something new?
patrick, when this all hit me, i literally wept.
we have globally been trying to solve a problem when the answer is obvious to a child.
we teach kids to share, to be kind, to be honest, to be generous. these are the most SIMPLE principles imaginable, and yet the hardest for us to do.
i found it absolutely profound that the answer to solving our problems is simply a return to “the basics” of fundamental values that we decide to live by, a global moral code of honor and trust.
now, SOLVING the actual problems will be hard. it’s not like we’re all going to get connected and solve everything overnight.
but, until we DO connect, and each and every one of us learn how to live these practices, and truly truly internalize them, we will not move forward, and global economies and nation-states will continue to collapse.
it’s terrifying to me that the answer is already here.
there just aren’t enough people willing to discard their old paradigms and build a new one based in trust.
yet.
Thanks Venessa for your response and connecting! Look forward to continuing reading, discussing and learning about the future of networks here!
Thank you for sharing your experiences, Patrick!
I hope that we can explore more the process that broke networks down; I have a feeling that it came less voluntarily as much as through embracing certain mythologies. It appears to me that global elites have always placed a huge emphasis on maintaining tight networks through generations.
I grew up as a military brat, and it’s very interesting to look back on it. The US military has adopted several policies to prevent informal networks from developing within the ranks. The collateral damage to families and communities through these policies stuns me, quite frankly. Transitioning to live with people who had grown up accustomed to sharing a past with others beyond their immediate family really shocked my own system and took quite a long time to adjust to.
Looking at the impact on a national level (to the US), I find it tempting to think that an intentional program of destabilization attacked our communities. Instead, based on the response of our communities to the new perspective allowed by social media technologies, I think that a systematic over-reliance on easily measured qualities can explain the patterns.
To be clear, my comments are based on an online discussion I was having with Vanessa about Twitter and the concept that by sharing good tweets I’m increasing my value to my network. I have a few points but not much time.
1. I guess my fundamental issue is to ask how are you surviving? What leverage are you applying to find the time to make your comment on this post. If information is free, then why are you paying for internet access and who is paying for it? The energy costs to run computers is astounding. Who will pay for that?
2. The “we” and “us” referred to often in all of these comments was debunked in mid-90’s academia. Where is the specificity? If I do a brief analysis of our test group of commentators it seems to be overwhelmingly white male/western of at last 25 years of age.
-Jason
Jason
To your point. Someplace in the thread, the notion was put on the table that value may be created online. But it only can be monetized in the last mile. I think that basic insight plays out differently depending on the specific context. I live in the world of Print and publishing. In my world it points to Godin’s insight. Use the web to assemble tribes. To monetize, deliver the souvenir of tribal membership in the form of books, t shirts, hats, etc. Or monetize with speaking fees.
Michael,
Also, trustnets can create revenue through systems to pool resources based on recommendations from the group’s most trusted people in fields of shared interest.
For example –
– pooled attention to suggested reading related to the tribe’s commons
– coordinated gifts of time/funds (Pledgebank or ChipIn) to activities that advance shared aims, and
– group purchases of goods or services (e.g. Groupon)
These would help convert the latent action potential of the tribe into resources that can help sustain and advance its aim. Funds could come through:
– context-sensitive advertising or donations by aligned vendors
– partnerships with alternative currency or affinity points providers (eg Paypal/Visa/Mastercard partnerships with nonprofit causes) and
– price savings via coordinated purchases of books, network-friendly mobile apps and phones, and perhaps some option to coordinate big-ticket purchases as well with socially-oriented ventures that earned the tribe’s loyalty through tangible support.
Another convo, perhaps, to develop in EBD’s wiki?
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Venessa, if you haven’t seen Jane McGonigal’s TED talk from last month, your should. Much resonance between her vision and things you describe in your writings. http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html
Further down that rabbit hole, http://avantgame.com/writings.htm also the Alternate Reality Gaming community (for example at http://www.argn.com/). ARGs are one of the more fully formed examples of networked collective intelligence applied to distributed problem solving.
Not surprisingly, the connections we form in playing ARGs persist and spill over into the real world as well. The experiences of large scale collective gameplay, problem solving and community forming provide a potent shared context for ‘real world’ relationships.
The blurring of games and ‘real life’ is a frequent discussion theme for ARG players, reinforced by game mechanisms that often involve offline activities and interactions, and further driven by games like Jane’s, where impact in the world is an explicit dimension of gameplay.
If you find this interesting, I think you’d really like what we’re doing in EVOKE right now: http://urgentevoke.com
finally got to watching jane’s talk this morning. it was inspiring, and generated some really interesting ideas about how we can use twitter.
what if addition of building separate game constructs (which i completely respect and find necessary as well), we create an overlay in twitter that functions the same way?
and it can literally start right now. (i.e. it already has); in the way we talk to each other, the way we build on link sharing, and the way we describe ourselves.
make it into a game, even though we’re really actually helping each other.
life is an Epic Adventure…. it’s SO much more fun to treat it that way!
i’m going to write a post about this…. about how we can change our twitter backgrounds to be almost like a D&D/Magic/Final Fantasy skills/strengths card.
whhhoooooaaaaaaa
oh boy, this is gonna be fun.
You are brave, Venessa! And you are modeling for all of us how to stand at the edge of evolution.
I’ve recently been thinking of it like this: we’re now at the point where we are consciously evolving. I’d always thought of it as “evolution happens” or maybe evolution happens TO us. But now I’m thinking of it as… we’re doing it! we’re creating it. it’s us. there’s no one else; nothing else. i’m *conscious* of evolution, i’m aware. and i mean biological evolution. our brains change when we learn and become more aware.
your “network” is sort of like a hologram — all of “it” is in every bit of “it.” all of us are in every bit of us. and for the whole picture to be recognized, we all need to be seen or activated through stepping forward and using our gifts. otherwise, the whole doesn’t “pop”.
alas, perhaps this only makes sense to me… i will post this nonetheless.
Great talks on evolutionary spirituality, which is what has, um, evolved my thinking on the matter:
http://www.integralenlightenment.com/pages/audio/
Kelly
yes! i totally an resonating with that
As I keep getting email alerts of another comment to this thread, I’ve been struck by the diversity and experience of the commenters. To see it it real time is quite amazing. I consider that all of these comments have been attracted and made public in less than 48 hours. I haven’t checked but it seems as if people are coming from all over the world.
The data point for me is that if this is happening here, the odds are pretty good that it is happening hundreds, perhaps thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands times all over the web. Intellect workers and amateurs have always found each other. Any important historical change was the same.
The memes of the American revolution surfaced in print for at least a hundred years before the time was right or the “stars were aligned.” Once released the memes changed how the gene carriers saw the world. The under appreciated reality is that remarkably small networks of people have always been the catalytic agent for massive changes.
In every large enterprise, it’s a remarkably small number of people that can have global effects. How many people really count to set direction in a global corporation. I don’t really know, but would be very surprised if it were more than a network of thirty, embedded in various networks of between 30 and 150.
It could be a very interesting next two or three years.
i was talking to a woman the other day who is an energy worker, trained in a peruvian shamanic tradition, and she was sharing her view of what she sees happening, from a spiritual perspective.
it’s very refreshing for me to talk with her, actually, because she’s firmly grounded in physical reality and helping people face-to-face (whereas i spend much of my time online), but i think we understand the same big picture message.
she said she sees that people everywhere are realizing that we need to relearn how to trust each other and figure out what cooperation and collaboration means. she said the way she visualizes this is that people are kind of disconnected and scattered everywhere (i imagine this as visualizing networks…. as a bunch of chaotic random dots on a piece of paper, without any lines between them). but as people are becoming more in alignment with their _____ (insert word of choice here) “flow”, “purpose” “frequency” “tune” etc, they are starting to resonate and forming alliances, which she pictures as circles of light. (i picture it as the lines starting to connect between those nodes of a network). eventually, like you said, there will be hundreds/thousands/millions of these circles of light (i.e. connected networks), and we’ll have enough of a critical mass of people exchanging ideas and information and help that we will be able to truly affect change and start tackling some big problems.
it’s a lofty goal, but i can see the path to getting there. we’re doing it now. learning, talking, collaborating. and it’s fun. and i feel happier in real life. more optimistic. it’s a great adventure.
Yes! And the glimmers cast into our lives today by future idealities may be the “strange attractors” that inspire socnets to form and self-organize.
A few months ago, @hello_world did a remarkable post (“Slaves of the Feed – this is not the real-time we’ve been waiting for”) on how individuals and teams might engage with the exaflood by projecting idealities into it.
As outlined in his post and ensuing conversation (http://j.mp/5c4lmO ), it may be possible to create “streambeds” in which the outlines of idealities attract related Tweets and URLs .
My hunch is that resources could accrete — via socnet crowdsourcing, bots, or whatever – on these outlined idealities in a narrative flow such as the following —
1) Attractor/interest generator
2) Challenge
3) Vision or opportunity ( transformation)
4) Strategy (steps to get there)
5) Acceptance issues/tests
6) Next steps (learn more, implement, or discard)
A framework such as this may have the virtue of being fractal — that is, useful in organizing or analyzing initiatives at any scale – and help speed consensus-building in socnets and the release of their action potential.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Try this thought experiment:
Can the specifics of the post and the comments (who said, what ,when – Note the absence of why. )
be described as “a collective brain becoming conscious of itself?”
Not the language most of us are used to. but I think it fits. And if the shoe fits…..
**big smile**
Thanks for sharing!
You seem to discover by yourself some of the principles that have been taught for thousands of years (e.g. Zen), such as:
– Give and you shall receive
– Nothing is created nor wasted, everything is transformed
– There is no giver, no receiver, and nothing given: we are all One (=connected)…
– Non-duality: there is no “good” or “bad”, but just different degrees of “goodness” or “light”.
– Do unto others…
etc…
Many blessings on your journey!
David
http://davidideas.wordpress.com/
yes, it was a long search. thanks david
You may be interested in the book “Power vs. Force” by Dr. David Hawkins, MD, PhD…
Great modern-day explanation of everything that has been taught (wisdom-wise) since the beginning of time… It will make everything so much more clear… It’s life-changing.
i actually have it on my shelf. skimmed it years ago and thought it was “neat”, but i think i’ll reread it a little closer. thanks for the reminder.
And thus does “East” meet “West” 🙂 David, thank you for bringing thousands of years of human “knowledge creation” to the table.
Ain’t the Internet grand?
this was the link i knew existed since i was a kid, i just didn’t know how. i mapped the link between science and spirituality, at least adequately for my mind to get it. it totally fits too.
see, and all these thousands of years, we’ve been talking about the same thing after all.
Haha… Thanks Michael…
I used to analyze everything with mind too… But as formidable as the mind may be (at least according to our own mind!)… it’s actually not powerful enough to comprehend the world…
Beyond the mind, there is something else…
Just like beyond knowledge… there is wisdom.
What’s the difference? >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWvSdW3rAIM
Glad you enjoyed it. I bet in broad strokes we’ve gone through a similar journey.
My two cents, looking backwards, the deep mystery that has always goaded me forward is to try to make sense of evil and my own inevitable death. It’s long story. But the aha moment came for me with the appearance of my grand daughter an the ensuing years of watching her grow.
wow, so it’s different for us all, but it hits home.
just last one for tonight..Can’t resist. for context, I grew up in New York City. Came here in 1948. Went to school and college here. Worked for 30 years with printers here. Spent some years teaching production to designers here. Now I live in Brooklyn.
In my natural language I would might say ” Fuck’em if they can’t take a joke. Be good And have a nice day.”
This post has inspired a blog entry of my own. It can be found here: http://bit.ly/9zrbp8. But since it’s relevant to this discussion, I think it also belongs here in full:
A neuron doesn’t do much thinking. It passes electro-chemical potentials from one synaptic gap to another. It is almost impossible to imagine how a neuron is conscious of itself. Yet, it must be conscious of itself in some very basic fashion because if you network about a 100 billion of them you get a different kind of consciousness: you get a human mind. What happens when you network several billion human minds together? You can call it a meta-mind. No, this is NOT science fiction. We may not be connected to each other the way neurons are connected to each other. And as it’s impossible to imagine how a neuron is conscious, it’s also nearly impossible to imagine how civilization’s meta-mind is conscious. So, you may ask, this is a fun little thought-game, but why do I care? The answer: the connections between humans are becoming stronger, the metaphorical “synaptic gap” between each other shorter.
I found this realization through what one might call a meta-brain storm. Like an individual’s brainstorm, disparate and random pieces of info come together (neurons from all over the brain fire) to create something new. A friend (thanks, Stace) posts a blog link about networks. Curious, I read it. I like it. I really like it. Someone said something that makes sense, about things that have been rattling in my head for years—she just brought it into coherence. That “she” is Venessa Miemis and this is the blog entry:
https://emergentbydesign.com/2010/03/16/an-idea-worth-spreading-the-future-is-networks/
I strongly encourage you to check it out. The sci-fi imagery is mine but I owe her a huge debt for getting me here. Besides, you may have to read it in order to make more sense of what I’m talking about; I’m not going to regurgitate too much of what she says.
In an earlier post (http://bit.ly/dyfAAE) I talked about how the Internet is bringing us together in unusual ways. That was only the tip of the iceberg. It’s not just connecting us, it’s changing us in interesting ways. Our society is becoming more globally conscious, the meta-mind more awake. Yeah, maybe someday we’ll all download our consciousnesses into a supercomputer and solve all the world’s problems overnight. But the meta-mind exists now and each passing day it strengths as our technology progresses. I don’t know what the future holds—it’s impossible to predict the outcome of a brainstorm—but if we approach it with compassion and understanding, we can make the world an awesome place.
yeah, i see what you see too. i just frame it a little differently. it seems a lot of apprehension about technology has been in the way it’s been framed, and how the media has of course run off an sensationalized it. this is scary to people.
calling it a meta-mind or global brain or even collective intelligence is also scary to people, because what they’re hearing is “i’m going to lose my individuality and this is going to be like communism”
that is so misguided and a shame, that it would be interpreted like that, but it happens constantly. the way i see it is that each of us actually becomes more of an individual than we’ve ever been. we really embrace who we are and the gifts we have to offer, and live it. it doesn’t mean we’re going to help every single person who comes along, even if we wanted to (there are constraints, like time & attention). so we each have to take responsibility to establish our own trust networks, and loosely keep in mind the big picture, that we want to have a thrivable and sustainable planet in general, but we want to be pursuing our own passions and interests at the same time without having to exploit anybody in order to do it.
for me, thinking about downloading brains and infinite lifespan is a fun thought experiment, and actually useful in stretching the imagination and developing scenarios for different versions of the future (possible, probable, preferable), but i think we should also keep our eye on the ball here. we’re actually in very serious danger as a species, and luckily there are a lot of people who are taking this message seriously and trying to figure out how we can help each other to help ourselves. if we don’t make it through the next century or so, there’s not going to be anyone left to be talking about downloading brains.
Hi Vanessa, I enjoyed reading this post. How striking, I came here via Twitter (@jhagel) and in the comments you come across a part of your network, like a twitter list (peeps-that replied-to-networks-post).
I hope this post helped me in changing at leat my mindset for the better. Many of your thoughts are shared by Michel Bauwens of the P2P foundation, the scarcity-abundance arguments are really interesting in terms of this networked society. Knowledge is abundant, not easy to capitalize. It needs a different mindset to deal with this. Right now artificial scarcity is created by copyrights etc. But it is not sustainable. Information wants to be free and shared. Everybody can access everything in our network.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
glad you stopped by. i got to meet michel briefly in november at the Internet as Playground and Factory conference at the New School here in NYC (digitallabor.org). very mind expanding stuff, covered a lot of ground of things i didn’t even think of. they have the videos available of the whole weekend conference in case you’re interested. take care
Cool ideas Vanessa as always. The one thing I thought though is that throughout history we’ve always felt insecure and on edge about the future and change so this is nothing new and we’ll never feel secure about this through external change. It comes from within.
However, I’m super excited about the possibility of building trust networks, engaging with professionals all over the world – all I need is to provide a few ‘gifts’….just have to work out what they could be.
I’m going to start a blog about trying to be a film producer and what strategies I have tried and how it’s all going. What do you reckon?
i think that is an awesome idea. let me know if want any advice or stories of what’s worked for me.
Hey Georgina! Didn’t know you were also reading Venessa’s blog 🙂 Small world.
Thanks, Mark. No I did not know these references.
Awesome and refreshing connections emerging here. Is it by design?
For a while I have been relying on the personal learning network to custom-filter the news, and the people are doing an amazing job, improving filter quality (selectiveness) all the while. Wrote an Ode to Twitter about it, http://bit.ly/DRjQn
Apologies for posting my ode three times on this thread. The first two replies did not appear saved within my attention span (but do now – feel free to delete).
Found nonduality mentioned above. A fascinating (or boring) thought experiment.
Dr. Gino Yu Posted: August 25, 2009 Talking About Nonduality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gino-yu/talking-about-nonduality_b_267890.html
Michel Bauwens, whom Bas cites, has been through a deep transformative experience in coming to his perspective (but of course I should not speak for him). Bas is also someone who has been thinking deeply, at least in my experience of reading him.
And your lifelong (or at least long-term) quest resonates with me … I’ve been wondering about social systems and why and how humans organize ever since 2nd year at university (at least) which was about 40 years ago.
Lots of long dark nights of the soul, and at least three promising careers foregone as each time I realized I was contributing to a all-consuming path to make society into markets.
About 3 or 4 years back, a bunch of early-adopter long-term bloggers started wondering a lot about how to move from talking and commenting into purposeful and constructive action about this ‘big shift’ of which all perceive a part. Much of the talking and commenting that is associated with social media has now been exactly market-ized. In theory, we are all a network, yes … in practice, getting to a world or societies based on contribution and collective caring about our world and how we live in and on it will only come with a great deal of plain old hard-work activism, and history has a lot to tell us about how hard and thankless that work is .. notwithstanding the appearance now-in-plain-sight of models, methods and processes that are helpful mainly to plutocrats and the elites that run most countries.
It used to be that “knowledge is power”. That may not be the case any longer .. it seems more the case that “she or he who controls access to information and the message / narrative” has the power. If there are any sustainable large-scale effects to all this networking and transparency, it will certainly be aided by a healthier and more effective public education system that helps people discern propaganda and marketing from knowledge that is important to the betterment of theirs and their communities’ lives.
“it seems more the case that “she or he who controls access to information and the message / narrative” has the power”
i’m not quite sure i see it that way. i’m not sure what you mean when you “information”, but in my view, the access we are trying to build it to each other. to learn how to recognize the resources we each already have, our gifts (mine: Pathfinding, Pattern Recognition, Ability to Communicate a Message), and knowing how to use those in collaboration with each other. for me, THAT’S the big picture.
so to me, “she/he who controls access” is each of us. each of us controls the access to the most powerful tool we have, the acknowledgement and honing in on our gifts. i think that has been the big discovery for many people when they embrace the idea of interdependence without losing self. they have this self-recognition that what they have to offer is essentially limitless. (i’m not going to run out of Pattern Recognition)
re: message/narrative: again, i think that when we know what our “thing” is, when we hit our “flow”, our “frequency”, our “tune”, our work BECOMES the message/narrative. each expression of ourselves in our work is a mini narrative, it’s the way we show ourselves and the world our personal version of the story.
the woodworker carves a bench, the bench is his message, his narrative. i write, so my message is like a double layer – my message is messages, lol. a teacher in a classroom who tries to weave the content of the books with real life examples and sprinkles it with personal stories and wisdom, that is their message, showing students how everything relates and is relevant.
i mean…. we’re all kind of amazing. most of us just don’t realize it.
Pingback: SOB Business Cafe 03-19-10 | Liz Strauss at Successful Blog
There’s been alot of correlated answers provided here, yet we haven’t reached to find what the causation of the question we want to ask.
what is the present moment offering us in regards to this new understanding Venessa has presented us.
The future doesn’t exist the only thing we have is the present moment and what is the present moment showing us in regards to networks.
According to Venessa’s work the present moment is showing us networks are in itself people. After that it’s the various representations of those people, then what those people represent are presented in a platform that is moving simultaneously.The platform i am referring to is life/the world/God not twitter.
Thus the future of networks in regards to what we know in the present moment is that networks are people who are simultenously interacting.
thus the root of this is how do we align ourselves, rather then focusing on the networks from the perspective of a platform, we are viewing how do we align ourselves to an already existing platform/life/universe/God
The universe in itself is a platform, and the network is the people in it.
Thus for me it’s all about alignment, harmony and simplicity.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts, and I think you have touched on a fundamental level. All that I would add, the platform appears completely value neutral. It remains up to us to choose what values to align with.
Value neutral is a great phrase. because it shows how equal we really are in not who we are but how we can unfold who we are.
I sometimes tell people what makes you whole is a conscious realization that you are the sum total of all your variables. and when you view that outside the realm you see that all those variables don’t have a wrong or right but an opportunity to play with them, combine them and create what you want,
amazing discussion.
Dear Fellow Travelers,
In case you still have any doubts about whether we’re crazy. I submit the following:
I started a twitter convo last night in #BlackED. Then continued a bit with @, then it moved to DM’s , than an email. So then I published the following tweet.
@FrancisEager (an education innovator in Nigeria) needs some smart partners who get it. Qualified people should @ him. Please RT. #BlackED
@foodcreate says “Eat wEll B Happy sTay wARM” A lovely weekend to all.
Dear Venessa,
You know, I had to read your blogpost twice, the first time, I was reading and digging into it, and I was thinking….OMG, this is weird, I felt my mind and soul synchronizing with every word you were spelling out. I then put some Phillip Glass music, in order to read it once more and highlight the post with Diigo. It was truly inspiring and insightful. This was a piece of wisdom that required background music in order for my brain nodes to connect on a higher level.
You have such an extraordinary synthesizing mind, and I love to dwell in your findings and Aha/Eureeka moments (it almost feels like if Alice suddenly figured out that wonderland does make sense and is connected by very intelligence streams of a powerful ecosystem). The first time I wrote you, I remember mentioning that the internet makes the space between like-minded individuals smaller, and it is so…you’re story of networks, does apply to my own life and all I believe in. I see everything in terms of complex interrelated ecosystems.
You see, I too have discovered that I want to a job, where I feel like I apply my skills and strengths, and since I live on an island, network, as you described is the way to reach to the outer world. I have met some very interesting individuals, among others you, Not only in terms of expertise, but have you ever considered that this is learning in its most purely form: put in context and social perspective: network—->ecosystem of collective intelligence, of friendships (new forms, because these networks have reciprocity as the basic for their existence).
Sorry if my reply is a bit scatterbrained, I had to share the first things that comes to my mind/soul
Thanks for sharing your wonderful insights.
One of the benefits of the real time web is that it’s possible to do experiments in communication with almost no effort. Yesterday was an interesting example:
Step One:
@VenessaMiemis
getting excited about the potential of http://www.kickstarter.com/ cc: @openworld @toughloveforx
Step Two:
@VenessaMiemis Nice. Kickstart Comics http://ilnk.me/1f9b could be a nat for a #print company for marketing. Hmmm.
about 14 hours ago via web in reply to VenessaMiemis
Step Three: (Not shared here as my rules are DM are private, tweets are public.)
DM sent to @socialprintexp
@socialprintexp
@ToughLoveforX Great idea! We pledged $100 for it. Would love to print it on our MGI DP60, maybe a 12″ x 36″ poster of Diamond Comics art?
about 11 hours ago via
It’s important to note that I have never met @socialprintexp. Based on the reaction to the DM, I would argue we have some level of trust. My hypothesis is that whatever trust has been created is completely based on the content and the speed of response.
My further hypothesis is that it’s about speed of response at least as much as content of response. The particular words used are much less important than the intent and “responsiveness” which is experienced as speed of response.
I think what I am seeing is that speed plus words that are “good enuff” is what gets to more robust networks. The phrase from evolutionary biology is “nerves that fire together, wire together.” What we in the world of communications have overlooked is that “fire together” means “together- not three days later.
It’s a reality that is described in natural language in the world of sales as “Timing is everything.” Suppose it turns out “Timing is everything” underlies a deep truth about an economy of abundance. As everything becomes “commoditized” the truly remaining scarce resources is time. But that points to the new value creator in a network society – what Toffler and others called synchronicity . As the various clocks of the exchanges of the various presently disparate networks the opportunities for the “chance encounter” increase dramatically.
This might be a mechanism of growing network robustness.
I think i’ll keep coming back to this post as the foundation of what has been discovered.
the present moment is showing us networks are in itself people. After that it’s the various representations of those people, then what those people represent are presented in a platform that is moving simultaneously
If we are to accept that each of us are a network, and of those who have commented and taken interest in this post represent a common denominator (this post) however we are all bringing the element which aligns it’s purpose. (Which is we believe people are networks) then what follows is the “outake” from this momentary intake.
In other words, this blog post has gathered a network/people with similar interest.
the future of networks, and that we all represent our own network that is interconnecting to create one network.
In some ways we’ve come together each person representing a network to create one network based on the topic. That is the intake.
the outtake now delivers more added value information. I’ve noticed some complimentary links that have stemmed from this post. Some insights from each of us,
I think with Venessa’s permsiion a Mindmeister mind map should be created from this post which will be an open platform mindmap that every person/network who has take interest in this post and be a representive of their own insight and relation to the common denominator we’ve all come together to bring added value.
Pleas forgive me as this just hit me so i’m writing it without any thought of trying to figure it out.
I think basically, what is the next level of filtering that will give this blog post and insights from all the comments that next added value.
i think that’s a great idea. this blog became a platform for an understanding to emerge for ALL of us.
i titled this blog not even knowing what the words meant.
this is the “intention” that was set for this blog from the beginning, without my conscious recognition.
my new understanding is that intention is powerfully guiding our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not.
i think the next step is to learn ways to acknowledge it. to learn how to learn. to have an INTUITIVE understanding how our brain works, the pattern, and once our mind can hold the pattern, we can apply that intuition to literally everything in life.
it’s conscious evolution. conscious learning. conscious connecting with others, dropping our egos, and seeing how far we can pull each other forward.
i’m so happy right now i feel like my soul is weeping.
i’m going to do my best to told this tune, to keep on this very “magical” frequency, and observe and reflect in practical, purposeful ways of how we can use this understanding to help each other.
yaaaaaaaay!!!!!
p.s. try mindmeister, and i’ve also heard many people swear by compendium for collaborative mindmapping.
i think this link ties in well with what i was trying to portray with my last comment.
http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi/2010/02/04/complexity-and-links/
Vanessa,
What you said, goes for me.
An observation about various ways this might evolve. People should use whatever tools they think would be most useful for them. For me, the PBWorks you set up is just right. If it were ever organized into a book a series of books or other print product that would be best for me. I need ideas fixed in time available to me when I’m ready to access them.
If others think other tools are better, as far as I can tell there is nothing in the way. It’s pretty clear to me that anything posted is by it’s existence public. I think I read that anything published on twitter is public.As it is public it enters our common space and everyone is free to remix and publish in whatever form works for them.
Aint’ life grand?
http://www.mindmeister.com/45227936/the-future-of-networks
The above link is a mindmap i created that is open to anyone participating in this blog post, the intention was to use this blog post as the focal point, which is extended by the participants, the participants are only the one’s that have provided external links that they believe compliment the original idea.
The other extension is the wiki page created by Venessa which extends the conversation.
I think the point was to show a visual understanding of what is going on from the original idea and how it’s extended based on the networks/people and what they are providing to the original idea.
Anyone participating is able to add to it, if you are a new participant all you have to do is add your name and extend your links next to your name…
Venessa,
check out this book: “NETOCRACY: the new power elite and life after capitalism” by Alexander Bard and Jan Soderqvist. I am reading it simultaneously with your recent posts and it plays well together.
Reasons why this book may be useful for you:
– wider theoretical (philosophical, historical, sociological) background for your work (even though the book is rather popular than scientific),
– a picture of wider social context for the revolution you are describing (new classess of professionals and new centers of power emerging and thus – big shifts in social structures); I find it important, since you are so “in” that it may be hard to see the big picture of what is going on outside 😉
– two dimensions of social exclusion; you described the traditional one by mentioning this homeless man (and it’s quite well described by sociologists that who we are, where we are and what we do depends greatly on our social capital/social networks), but there’s also a second dimension related to big change in thinking/acting (aka revolution): such a situation always creates new layers of people excluded (they may be well equipped in social capital, but their capital is “old”, and thus it makes no difference, they are excluded anyway, since they missed the train).
The book is quite controversial, but still I think it may be a good read for you.
I appreciate your insights,
Wojtek 🙂
i wonder why netrocracy did not become a bigger meme. before it’s time?
an idea before its time? wonder why netocracy didn’t become a bigger meme http://bit.ly/dzPFEj
My bet is that netocracy didn’t fly cause nobody really want s a “new power elite” and capitalism still has a long way to go. Just different.
the new boss, just like the old boss
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Won%27t-Get-Fooled-Again-lyrics-The-Who/761EF79AAB42FA9C48256977002E72F9
Kevin,
I like your style. But I think this is mo betta on twitter. Meanwhile, here’s one back at you http://ilnk.me/19fa
I’m toughloveforx in twitterland.
thanks im @kevindoylejones
Kevin, if you get a chance, take a look at the convo about high schools at the wiki. Metrics for good school culture is at the heart of it. Would love anything from your POV…
http://ilnk.me/1fae
I guess these guys predicted future too soon 🙂 Venessa is doing something similar but the moment in time is much more appropriate. It’s not only about predicting what will happen, it’s also about doing it in the right time 🙂
Pingback: How to Spark a Snowcrash, & What the Web Really Does « emergent by design
I so appreciate this post, Venessa! Reads like a manifesto to me. Reminds me of the ClueTrain Manifesto, actually. You write so well and these thoughts are so well organized, I’ll be passing this post on widely in my circle of friends, fans, and followers. Thank you!
that’s great! it has really resonated, so if it inspires, please share it!
I thought i’d extend this post on the topic of distributed trust networks, in some ways it extends our conversation of how trust will play a huge role in refining these networks to attain value added opportunities.
http://thenoisychannel.com/2010/03/20/can-we-build-a-distributed-trust-network/
Welcome to the “net work learning” conversation, Venessa. We’ve been having this discussion for over a decade and it’s always great to have a fresh voice.
well, i’m glad i finally have a better sense of what i’ve been circling around for 6 months! i’m glad to join the tribe!
Yes everything is different and changing accelerating into differentness ever more rapidly yet everything stays the same. As a political economist I see your complaint at not understanding economics everywhere and as a conspiracy theorist I see this has been by design. What has not changed for ever so long is the fact that no matter how much progress we humans make we still have massive poverty and now more than ever that poverty is nipping at the heels of even those with that vaunted education that is the favorite solution for everything most socially minded people. The truth is that as we humans become more numerous, educated, productive and efficient the disparity of wealth becomes ever more profound and the goal of prosperity for all allowing each of us to pursue our hearts desire recedes into the distance.
From where I stand and from what I understand of the mechanism responsible for this failure of economic expectation, the growth of networks while necessary and incredibly useful will result in further exacerbating the problem as does all progress. What could happen is that networks will be used to expose the dysfunctional political economic thrall that we are in. Probably won’t happen without networks so carry on lads.
interesting to hear the perspective from an economist, and i can’t help but feeling a sense of hopelessness coming from your words.
i am on the other side of the coin – and i do think it’s the same coin. the world is a terrible mess, filled with unnecessary suffering. the things necessary to solve them are absolutely insurmountable for one mind to even begin to comprehend.
i felt that way, and so i can empathize with the hopelessness (if that is in fact your feeling). but, through the discovery of the strength of what a human network brings, i think we can do this. networks is just another way of saying “big groups of people around the world who all want things to be better and are willing to help each other and collaborate in order to do it”. (i imagine terrorist networks believe this message too – but i think their strategy for getting there is highly misguided).
i think we can do it by building trust with strangers, recognizing how we can contribute to this ‘big picture’ of a thrivable society, and start making steps as a HUGE distributed global human network of people.
my view is that there are already enough people on the planet who are working really hard towards positive change. but they are doing it without enough reach. they are small pockets repeating the same work over and over. in many ways, i actually see the work of some nonprofits as non dissimilar from the financial bailout. in either case, you can’t fix the problem of the economy or of poverty by throwing money at it. the problem is systemic. it needs to be fixed through infrastructure.
the thing is, that i think many people in positions of power are not “seeing” is that the infrastructure lies within the people themselves. within the actual bodies of the individual people.
whoa.
that’s a completely different way of looking at it.
instead of fixing “the economy” or “poverty” which are words to me that are “out there”, they represent concepts without any physical embodiment. what if we shifted the focus on real transformative change, which happens within the minds of people, by being empowered.
you fix the economy by showing people how to relearn how to trust each other and start helping each other do things. you fix poverty by showing the individual people how the can help themselves. nobody wants a savior. they want to be empowered to save themselves. they need to be shown what tools they already have, and what tools they have access to (i.e. even more people, globally, which can be found via internet access).
this is mindboggling to me that people in power don’t see this.
the next argument will be that people in power don’t want to lose their power, so why would they want to empower others?
well, that is how they feel, but, in the end, they are also people, and i think they don’t want to lose their power out of fear, because they don’t realize that the gain would be tenfold by being cooperative and interdependent. they don’t believe it. but only because they’ve never tried to experience it in practice.
this is how i view the web as a low-risk entry point. for those who are so enslaved by society, and literally can’t fathom or picture in their minds a concept of a world different that what “is,” they can try venturing online and “dipping in” to this online thing that’s happening. i really think that if you can make a commitment of just TRYING it for, say, six months, you will at the very least be exposed to a way of interacting that is based in trust, mutual respect, and cooperation.
if you “see” it, i firmly believe that it will be difficult to go back and operate within the current construct of “the real world,” once equipped with the knowledge that this other way is not only possible, but it’s already in practice. this things that’s happening here on the web isn’t just an online game – these are real life connections we are establishing, and real life results are occurring because of them. it’s incredibly empowering because it’s real.
i’ve already been offered several opportunities in real life, as i mentioned in the post, and i now feel confident that i don’t have to be afraid of the future, because i have real life people who i know i could call and they would at least be willing to offer me some direction of what i could do to help myself in case i needed it.
i sense that you may not have “seen” this online space yet, so i’d encourage you to give it a test drive. you’re welcome here, of course, to learn some things as we learn them, as this is an ever unfolding process. there’s no goal. the goal is the process. every time we learn something new, we apply it, and that makes us a little sharper. and then we learn another new thing, and we get a little sharper still.
it’s fun! it’s truly an Epic Adventure.
What could happen is that networks will be used to expose the dysfunctional political economic thrall that we are in.
“Networks (can) make politics and culture explicit.” M. Schrage, MIT
From where I stand and from what I understand of the mechanism responsible for this failure of economic expectation, the growth of networks while necessary and incredibly useful will result in further exacerbating the problem as does all progress.
Twitter as Indicator of Social Status, or how the poor love their cell phones
I just read the original article from the NYTimes ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/magazine/19wwln-medium-t.html?_r=1 ) and I must say it makes me want to vomit.
Intrsting article. The question to me is how could someone who gets paid by the NYTimes to get it right, get it so wrong about twitter. It goes to the problem of how smart people can say such dumb things. Since the meltdown, thousands of examples. The War in Iraq, same thing. Now the bullshit in the media starts about Health Care.
I have some ideas about why. If anyone wants to start a convo at the wiki, it might be an interesting convo.
Pingback: links for 2010-03-21 « riverrun meaghn beta
Well said. You have some amazing ideas.
thanks. i think we’re all feeling it, i am just putting it into words 🙂
Venessa, great post. I think you’ve captured nicely an experience common to many of us who’ve bothered to stop and look about at the swelter of events and wonder what pattern was emerging, what strange beast was stirring. The comments to this post have listed some fine links for you to follow, and nicely illustrated your point about networking and adding value to networks first to gain more value in return, so I suggest that you consider the concept of rhizomes by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, best expressed in their 1980 book A Thousand Plateaus. Through their discussion of rhizomes, Deleuze and Guattari present a rather robust discussion of networks that may clarify for you, as it has for me, some of the distinctive characteristics of this emerging organizational structure. I’ve been dealing with rhizomes in my own blog, a discussion you might find interesting. Again, thanks for spreading the word. It was very rhizomatic of you.
thanks for suggestion. i have the book – read it last year for a media theory course, and it impacted me, but i didn’t realize the layers of depth yet.
i would also suggest that book to anyone who wants to get some insight into all this, although i did find it a challenging read.
Hi Vanessa –
Your musing are a mashup of a few books including “The Singularity is Near” – Kurzweil and Godin’s Linchpin book. The rate of technology advancement is now at the “curve of the knee” moment in the hockey stick metaphor.
The key is as you say “your network” – which is not new. But what is new is that now everyone MUST build a platform for themselves so they can engage with others who will become part of the their network.
In many respect we are evolving and devolving at the same time.
Judy Shapiro (http://trenchwars.wordpress.com)
PS – The snow crash moment would make Neal Stephenenson proud 🙂
lol, yep, you’ve nailed it on all fronts! read all those books, and all obviously influential.
(i actually really enjoyed the Age of Spiritual Machines by Kurzweil.. it was the book that put me on this path actually)
have been reading linchpin, not thru it, but it’s very inspiring/empowering
and i love stephenson. i never did understand the ending to that book, but it gave me a vision of a future that i hadn’t even considered
Your musing are a mashup of a few books including “The Singularity is Near” – Kurzweil and Godin’s Linchpin book. The rate of technology advancement is now at the “curve of the knee” moment in the hockey stick metaphor.
There are SOOOOO many books that have been addressing some or many aspects of what have been in discussion here, and in some cases for quite some years now.
That said … there are an awful lot of individual consciousnesses “it” has to seep and/or leap into before the mass hallucination(s) under which we have been living can begin to shift into some new collectively-generated-and-held mass hallucinaton ..
😉
Hi Jon –
You are correct – there are a ton of books out there.
I raise these two books in particular because they deal with the main thrust of the post – namely; 1) we are evolving at a faster and faster pace causing more chaos and 2) if you know your true “genius” (Godin’s word) then you should share it freely.
“Judy Consumer’s” acclimation of this technology means she has to apply her real world filters to the digital world. Networks act as a giant filter for all the information out there (and I agree that everything boils down to information). How do you know what to trust? That’s where the platform building piece comes in.
I am reminded of how complex ant hill are built without a single “ant” engineer 🙂
i love that you sensed the inspiration from kurzweil and godin. kurzweil has been so influential for me, i totally respect him. (he’s one of my “gurus”). i got to shake his hand at the Singularity Summit a few months ago and felt like i died and went heaven.
i was babbling like a moron, and he was just kind of looking at me strangely but with a patient smile on his face. hahhahahaha. turns out, we’re all just people.
i get that now!
and i love how (for me), the online space showed me that. we’re all actually really accessible people, you just have to get to know each other. (i.e. build trust!)
ha, it’s all so cyclical, isn’t it?
I am reminded of how complex ant hill are built without a single “ant” engineer 🙂
As mentioned earlier (I think in a comment to Venessa’s post of last week or the week before) …
See “Emergence – The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software” .. and this interesting interview with the author .. http://www.oreillynet.com/network/2002/02/22/johnson.html
Through connections from this blog_in I found a useful collaborative tool, and tweeted the demo page of it: http://dabbleboard.com/tour
A bot found that tweet and followed me, leading to:
http://www.groupboard.com another useful collaborative tool.
This is the nature of the connection revolution. Our desires are being predicted and addressed before we have expressed them, sometimes even before we have formed them. The statistics predict our actions.
Meanwhile we can see clearly expressed above that the discussion is diverging in many interesting and valuable directions. Each of those directions is capable of splitting similarly.
At its height usenet used to have massive chains of responses with only a dozen or so contributors, the same thing happened on dance forums. Twitter is in a different league. It will be necessary to split off some topics, close others and precis the main thread.
Good work all.
David, I’m intrigued that a bot followed you and provided a useful service. The bot’s an expression of some human’s intentionality, and that human is probably unaware of the service provided. I think there’s a metalayer to the network concept here, emerging before our eyes. Maybe this is how the singularity starts, where we engineer the network so that it can engineer itself.
I would like to ask those participating in this conversation for this specific blog post, if they comment and have any external links that they believe compliments this dicussion or any books, that you also go to the mindmap that has been created for this post and add your name under the participants category and the link.
http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/45227936
If you already see your name and have more links to add, just click on your name and click the add button give it a title, and then on the right hand side you will see where it says extra links and just add the url in there.
if you don’t see your name and want to add your link, click on participants and then click add, type in your name, then click add again and give it a title and then add the external link.
I’m experimenting with capturing the conversation going on as much as possible in real time so that nothing goes unnoticed and it’s a future reference for those that come across this blog post.
Thank you
Spiro
Source of inspiration: i find this write up fits in perfectly here:
Being human at this time means that if we are going to participate in life here on Earth, then there are certain rules that must be followed. As much as you would rather not live under such confines, you do have a duty or responsibility to honor this process
This is why evolution can take so long because even when something must shift, we continue making choices that reflect a certain pattern of security even if it isn’t good for us, it is simply familiar, and that represents a strange sense of security.
feeling thrown back on yourself due to the result of some choices that were not in alignment with your true nature. Just because something is natural does not mean it feels comfortable to express, especially if it has been repressed for a long time.
show your true colors of your natural nature. It is what the world needs now. It is what you need. It is what was intended from the beginning.
Show us what that looks like because when you do, the reward will be heaven sent.
You are in charge now if you want to be. You can take the lead in a difficult drama if you just put on that hat and wear it with intention, sticking to your guns no matter the cost.
Keep your feet on the ground and stay rooted in words that reflect a way through versus a road back into the jungle of the past.
For purging old patterns and feeling forever changed and in charge of your destiny.
Life is an unpredictable process. The element of a sweet surprise can sure be nice and yet when the unexpected surfaces in less desirable ways then it can take a mountain of strength to hold your own personal center of gravity. When the emotions are balanced, then it all flows from there- no better feeling than that.
calls for a super focus on this area of your life. just enough gumption and cosmic clout to stay rooted in your self while playing an active role in helping another.
You want it big and grand whether it is in the way you love and need to receive it in return or the scale at which you want to make a great splash, a real difference in the world. You have a larger than life heart which fuels all of your desires and this is about aligning your ego’s desires with those desires of your Soul.
You may have all the talent and skill in the world, but if you don’t believe in yourself and your abilities, then this can prove to dramatically diffuse the potency of your gifts and the degree of their impact.
you can toot that horn without words, you can sell your greatness to the world by the way you inwardly vibrate, energetically saying, “I have what it takes” and “I am here to serve my highest possible purpose on the path”.
inwardly listen to that which is stronger than self, the desires of the Soul and through extension Source, or what some may call God. It is then about accessing that confidence in order to make a significant contribution and establish something deeply meaningful for others and for yourself.
No one likes the feeling of losing control and yet it is advised now to allow the larger forces to direct your life, to let go and allow that invisible hand to lead.
The magic manifests when you find a way to harmonize with the larger life force of the universe.
Let go of the stronghold, give in to that energy that does happen to know where it is going, which in the end is precisely your Soul’s ultimate desired destination.
Take a moment to reflect about how far you have travelled and how much you have grown. You are forever focused on the horizon, so much so that you rarely if ever look back and measure the great distance that your Soul has journeyed. Considering this and what is now before you, is it not something that you can clearly take on and tackle? Has this reflection induced a greater confidence in your ability to take your life up to another octave of expression and reach greater heights? You have evolved from who you once were and it is in this current state of liberation and the freedom in that feeling that will sustain the change, leading you down the path of your own personal truth.
You have an animal instinct that is so reliable now. Combine that with your inherent intuition and that is all you need to lead the way.
The only way to traverse the unpredictable landscapes of life and make it to the other side in one piece is to be highly adaptable, open and accepting.
The why is simple.
– Madalyn Aslan
Fascinating, Vanessa! Reminds me of this presentation on Culture Networks.
Learning so much through your work here, thank you.
Finally got a chance to sit down and read this. Bravo.
Google has built an empire on information. That is, essentially, all they provide.
You might find some of the Google Graph API functions particularly interesting. Google knows a LOT more about your network than you might think. In fact, Google knows things that you don’t know you don’t know. You just have to know how to query that information.
Here’s what a “graph” looks like for one of my blogs. I have small blogs that few people read, and yet the structure of my data is such that Google can make [pretty] good sense of what’s going on.
http://socialgraph-resources.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/samples/findcontacts.html?q=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ralphthemagician.com
As the web becomes more semantic, networks will become better exposed. LinkedIn already shows interesting things like how many hops you are away from any given individual, but that’s really just the beginning. That’s a proprietary and rather amateur way to look at things. Give it another 5 years and Google will be able to tell you who you need to become friends with to contact any given individual on the planet.
Venessa and friends,
Metaphors are powerful tools. Through them we grasp the world and filter our way through the immense amount of information streaming at us.
The future is networks. Makes me smile. We read that, and we each filter for what we know about it. What we can tap into about it.
What I know is that the vital part is the connection rather than the node. But networks, like spider webs and strings of gum, are tricky things. You put your finger on a connection and it turns into a node of its own… and deeper and deeper we go into the rabbit hole. You could end up with a giant confusing mess on your hands.
Aliveness exists in the betweenness… elusive and yet evident. Keep exploring Venessa. Journeying with you is very delightful in a mind-tingly way. 🙂
We are what we are embedded in?
Pingback: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going « emergent by design
Pingback: Cooperation makes it happen. Working together. Dig it? | Erica Glasier: Oversocialized! Social media & interactive futurism from sunny Winnipeg
What we see emerging here could be called effects of the collaboration curve. Design has a part in it.
John Hagel III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison put it like this:
The more participants–and interactions between those participants–you add to a carefully designed and nurtured environment, the more the rate of performance improvement goes up.
I think every single word counts.
http://blogs.hbr.org/bigshift/2009/04/introducing-the-collaboration.html
My name is Piter Jankovich. oOnly want to tell, that your blog is really cool
And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
P.S. Sorry for my bad english
thanks, glad you like it. i’m not sure what this blog is. it started as a hobby, but i’ve invested so much of myself here, that i don’t feel like it’s really separate from myself anymore – if that makes sense. this blog is me.
Consider “this blog is me” I think it might be a datapoint for one more precise meaning of “becoming one with the Universe” at least in cognitive space.
I AM the distributed network.
🙂
I agree. feel as WE (become the distributed network).
Being the change we want to see.
I think about it as if we , and everything else, is an activity space. A wrinkle created by the tension created by the flows and eddies of cognitive space and physical space. The most sustainable path is a global cognitive space and a physycal space that starts with dinner and dancing.
Pingback: How to Spark a Snowcrash, & What the Web Really Does — Calculated Crunch News Freedom
Vanessa: Your post has been sitting in a FF tab on my mac for at least two weeks. Every time I tried to get to it, I was in a hurried state where I knew I couldn’t engage with the ideas you were sharing. Last night, I finally made time (quite a few more comments now…that’ll teach me…).
Ironically, during that two (or so) weeks, I’ve had repeated group conversation in which some of us were talking about the equivalent of “transportation” while others were talking about the equivalent of “cars.” (It might have been funny if not so painful).
I raise this because I think one of the most difficult challenges organizations and institutions (public and private) face in our more complex world is how to not just build the car while driving it, but how to find a new way to access what we were trying to get with the car while driving it – which may remove the need for the car in the first place, and possibly the institution along with it (a hard sell for leaders). While I am compelled by the depth and power of your point-of-view on networks (and try to push these ideas through SNA and network weaving myself), I’m also acutely aware that transitions take time – we need structures (? not sure that’s the right word) that help us make the shift by meeting immediate need, while simultaneously pointing the way toward different futures:
– Experiments, pilots, small innovations that can be grown or replicated
– More networks that take and sustain action as networks
– Alternatives for mitigating risks, which as you rightly suggest, are not commensurate with rewards or costs for most people
Opportunities (necessity) for reinvention seems so fantastic (work, school, natural resource management, energy, industry, food systems – our very economic model)! Difficult to figure out how to organize around them.
Grateful for your insights.
Go team (net?).
“compelling should be “compelled” – thought I changed that. Phooey.
i completely agree. this post was a lot of different ideas that all fell into place for me and i just had to get it down before i lost the thread. now that i’ve had a few weeks to let it sink in, i see that this is going on around us constantly. i mean, i knew that people were doing things, that people were focused on business transformation, and others focused on being ‘change agents,’ but i guess i didn’t completely understand what that meant.
as you said, transitions take time, and it’s already happening. there isn’t going to be a “transition.” we ARE transitioning. on all these different levels, from really personal internal spiritual levels to groups and communities and societies and then all of us. everyone is at different stages. some are going to make it. others will not. now i see it all around me. and it’s not like people are preparing for armageddon – they’re just being intelligent, seeing that new systems have emerged which are more effective than the norm. i’m so curious as to the number, but millions of people around the world get the message. maybe more? i don’t know. i mean, there is a revolution going on. i don’t really like that word because my mind associates it with violence and politics, and this to me is different. if anything, it’s a peace revolution. it’s people relearning how to cooperate and raise everyone’s standards in the process. i think what the web does is give us access to each other on a global level. because we ARE a global society, it makes sense that you would have a global network. i am still on the front end of learning how to do this, but i have people that i would consider an alliance in places from japan to australia to germany to the west coast. not thousands, not even hundreds, but a handful of amazing people that have become my distributed trust network. now i have them, and in turn access to who they know. now imagine if you had a consciously aware trust network. meaning everyone within it was aware that they were within it and aware of each other. lets say it’s even only 20 people. now imagine if each of those 20 people had their own trust network, also made up of people who were all aware they were within a trust network. i don’t know if this is making sense to you, but this becomes an extremely powerful situation. i think many of us are sloppily keeping in touch with each other and not really consciously doing this. what do you think would happen when all these mini trust networks spring up – which of necessity would be comprised of “enlightened” people, people who have accepted the cooperation/collaboration model – and then those mini networks started linking up with each other?
this is what i’m imagining. this is how infrastructure gets created. we basically each start consciously doing this, and slowly build a globally connected infrastructure of people who believe in a model where we can achieve more together than separate.
so that’s the web aspect. my idea is Junto (which i posted about last week), which would be a tool for collaboration and ideation and action. the idea is still embryonic, but i can see how it could grow out and include a robust profile database, which would then lay the foundation for a reputation system, which would be the foundation for a virtual currency system. i can see some kind of platform where people could display their area of expertise and their area of passion and their willingness to offer help to others about those things. then people would be able to self-assemble and make change happen faster. i think about the charity:water event that raised $250,000 via Twitter in ONE WEEK. and then they went and drilled wells in africa. what happens if we can duplicate that event, over and over, in all kinds of areas of need? and these things are already happening. i’m just interested to see if we can make it more obvious, more transparent, more inspiring. SHOW people how this thing could and does work. that’s how the groundswell will happen.
so that’s how the web plays in. at the same time, we have to learn what a resilient community looks like in our own lives. seeing what we can do to support local economy, encourage community gardens, setup mentorship programs for youth, and so on. i mean, i certainly don’t have the answers, but i have a vision of what this ‘new thing’ could look like. and i think if we start waking up to each other, connecting & collaborating, we’ll figure out what steps we need to take along the way.
could grow out and include a robust profile database, which would then lay the foundation for a reputation system, which would be the foundation for a virtual currency system. i can see some kind of platform where people could display their area of expertise and their area of passion and their willingness to offer help to others about those things. then people would be able to self-assemble and make change happen faster.
Arguably, this is the web that already exists, no ?
robust profile database = hosted blog platforms and wide variety of social network platforms with social profiles willingly offered by members
shared ad revenues or others sources from members, the kinds of currency exchanged in many online games, rapidly-growing online alternative and local currency systems
reputation system = your brand is what Google says, plus wide variety of public-facing platforms that ‘display’ some facet or other of members’ persona and behavior.
some kind of platform where people could display their area of expertise and their area of passion and their willingness to offer help to others about those things
isn’t this, effectively, what many peoples’ blogs are, as they go about trying to get attention and connect to offer their energy and skill (commercial or otherwise ?) ?
Beyond that is movement and collective (de-centralised or otherwise) action, and that takes shared purpose and then you get into politics, don’t you, in terms of rallying people around a wide range of flags.
But even that is already underway with a wide ranged of purpose-based socially-networked online communities, no ?
We just all want more, faster because there’s so much opportunity-and-problem to address, and we have to get at it together, somehow 😉
Trying to summarize Michael, Kristin, Venessa, and Jon, what I see is this: an emerging self-organizing pool of people forming bonds and networks, co-creating structures. Main purpose: recognize what needs to get done and do get it done easier and faster than prior feudal, hierarchical, command-and-control based social models.
Why the principle of self-organization works, see The Starfish and The Spider, Brafman, Beckstrom (2006).
How the principle of self-organization works, as in an unconference setting , see Open Space Technology Owen (1997) http://openspaceworld.com/brief_history.htm
How this ties in with what we are aiming to accomplish overall, and show by example with the emerging Junto, I am just exploring. Started reading Wave Rider – Leadership for High Performance in a Self-Organizing World , Owen (2008) http://openspaceworld.com/waveriders.htm
yes jon, everything is already happening. i’m just trying to find a way to make my contribution.
Vanessa,
Maybe this helps. One place to look for models of self organizing growth is in the world of plants. The great advantage is that it happens slow enough to see. Consider the life cycle of a vine.
My impression is that tendrils grow in the physical space probably driven by the micro actions of chemical changes at an invisible level. I’ve seen stop action photographs that demonstrate that the tendrils move through space “looking” for a place to attach. Once they do the proximate reactions at the point of contact cause them to wrap around what they find. In aggregate, they can overcome a forest. If they are trained they produce grapes.
In thinking about networks I’ve found it useful to use a plant narrative. “tendrils grow in the physical space probably driven by the micro actions of chemical changes at an invisible level.” At base is physics, then chemistry, then biology. The big deal about “web 3.0” or what O Reilly calls “web squared” is that for the first time it is now becoming the “internet of things.” Things – physical space – is where life really happens. The rest(2me) is fascinating, interesting, but at the end of the day, just talk in in the cognitive spaces that exist in our heads.
hey, I admire your ability to coalesce energy and further the spread of conversations, intention and engagement, and the evolutionary collaborative design is wonderful. There’s so much yet to be done.
I think there is a context in which one can say that “this thread wants to find a picture of itself.” I’ve stayed away from the convo about computer based visualization tools as that is not satisfying to me. I prefer my pictures to sit still so that I can scan them at my leisure. It’s probably why I’m a print and TV nerd, as opposed to a computer nerd.
Biomimicry seems to be a very useful approach to get insights into new methods to get insights on directions in physical engineering. I think it would also be a useful approach to getting a picture to guide communication engineering. Now that social media has magically made real time conversations visible, it creates a picture that we can see.
Consider this thread as a vine. It started because of some invisible(2me) set of exhanges in Vanessa’s body. Neurons firing together, outputting a blog post. The words contained the energy of that first creation. Some two hundred comments over a month is a data point that something “magical” happened. The email alerts are the tendrils. The proximate appearance of new words, started a cascade of reactions in those who are in the environment. Then other “magical” events occured. I get an email alert. It starts a cascade of symbols in my brain. I output some words. When I get here I scan the environment. Then “magically” my fingers create more words.
I respond to comment. The brain cascade continues. A bunch of previously disconnected word complexes are joined. Then I find myself writing this comment.
What’s the incentive? I don’t know. The proximate feeling is fun. The proximate benefit for me is fixing a narrative that has been growing like vines in the brain into a string a words that “make sense”. If they only make sense to me, that’s good enough. If they seem to make sense to someone else, that helps me believe that they might actually describe some part of chaos to help turn it into merely complexity.
Seeing patterns that are not commonly seen by others in one’s proximate environment can be legitimately described as a “thought leader”, an “artist”, a “creative” , “an entrerpeneur”,an “innovator” or a delusional lunatic. Through various stages of my life, I’ve been called all of them.
The joy and power of social networks for me is finding other delusional lunatics.
Love the way you put this –
>> “Seeing patterns that are not commonly seen by others in one’s proximate environment”
For me, the best way is usually to get airborne and look at the environment as follows: http://is.gd/bqsV7 .
Scanning the edges for standing/”stacked” waves may relate as well to the joy of serendipitous discovery, as noted in your latest EBDWiki “Learning Revolution” comment.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Michael i like how you used your comment to explain what you see going on. I think and i’ve said this and will continue to say it, that if your not conscious of what is going on, nothing is going on.
This blog post was/is a point of contact, it carries with it a wave or is resonating on a frequency that set out to attract/curiousity points of interest. Ex. all the replies and comments to this blog post,
By observing this, i felt the best way to see what was happening was to capture what was happening in real time.
The pattern i saw emerge the past two months is, once a point of contact has emerged, points of interest resonate or flock towards that point of contact. Those points of interest then begin the tension/conversion aspect of the process.
IN that tension, conversations, blog comments, side bar skype conversations, link sharing are all under some influence from the originating point of contact. Eventually, with so much tension the human interaction will cause two people at any given moment be “in sync” both Mark and I have experienced this “serendipity” this “in sync” feeling. It was evident when we shared or relayed the same information at the same time.
Another example that i saw was “intuitive” action/reaction without any logic or reason. This was evident in the boids article shared through my network in twitter then relayed into the twitter stream for the EBD group.
That article caused a next level connection.
My observations overall are when continuous activity from attractor factors have enough tension, then it creates breaktrhough in next level inspired insights otherwise that would go unnoticed if the tension/conversion of daily activity from people feeding the system would not be noticeable.
IMO and from the obserations the repetable pattern i see is the future of networks is allowing networks to emerge by themselves.
They almost seem to unfold on their own.
The problematic areas are in the human itself. There has to be a transition one that does need order in a chaotic environment.
Venessa is telling a story, and she’s telling it in a way that is not scattered but is transitioning chaos in some type of order, that is IMO a very important trait, to have when trying to oberve these repeatable patterns.
Just some morning thoughts….
Spiros,
So nicely put. I agree with “your not conscious of what is going on, nothing is going on.” with an addition “nothing is going on(2U) ” My focus is education. In that context making manifest the “learning” that has occurred in one’s head literally means that learning has not really happened.
I’ve seen how this works in Print publishing. The very creation of an information laden object that embodies intentional patterns of words is the “learning act.”
I need some more time to let your other words rumble around the brain before a shareable linkage of them form. 😉 See ya lata.
Hi Michael,
My focus is education. In that context making manifest the “learning” that has occurred in one’s head literally means that learning has not really happened.
Can you expand on this?
Longer story, but suppose learning is “nerves that wire fire together, wire together.” Sort of. the new connections have to be reinforced, grooved if you will.
One way is to practice with the muscles. Another way is visually. Having a print version of your thoughts means your eyes and hands groove the connections. A book published is a high emotional event. My take is the that the emotion further grooves the connections.
More? tell me which direction might be interesting(2U)
Michael, we are on the same wavelenght.
I totally agree in your understanding and use of words.
We all use words in different ways to express the same feelings and emotions.
You say fire together, wire together, Mark says, attractor, you say connections have to be reinforced, Mark says tension.
Emotions further groove the connections.
The observations are the same, just wording differently, i think now what would be interesting direction is how can we make it make more sense with less wording.
What’s yoru thoughts on symbols, to enforce understanding the connections on a EQ standpoint?
EQ SYMBOLS? that direction sounds intersting to me.
Does EQ symbols mean algebra +?
If yes, I’m down.
We are all a math problem, just waiting to be solved 😉
cool. mo lata.
It might cool to see a tonal scale of emoticons or emotional symbols.
Here’s one possible continuum –
Negative scale (descending in strength)
– hate
– anger
– fear
– anxiety
– irritation
Neutral
– uncertainty
Positive scale (ascending in strength)
– interest
– anticipation
– hope
– confidence
– flow
– joy
– love
A tonal system of EQ symbols along these lines could help members of online communities become more aware of – and responsive to – trending positive or negative emotions when they move out of the middrange.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
“It might cool to see a tonal scale of emoticons or emotional symbols.” Don’t know how this fits yet, but there is something here worth pursuing(2me).
My problem so far is the level of specificty that is required. At an given moment I would be hard to define my emotional reactions at a given moment. If it’s hard, I ain’t going to do it.
Maybe a useful approach might be Interesting, Intriguing, Useful. I think I can make that decision in a split second. From “Useful” we may be able to infer intent. “Interesting” says to be noted, at some point. Intriguing says “tell me more.” So from a system level, mostly junk of which some is interesting, some smaller amount is intriguing and a really small amount is useful.
Agree – any friction for symbol tagging (by message originators or third parties) is probably bad.
So how about a continuum of emotional symbols like this?
+ + (like a lot)
+ (like)
~ (equivocal or indifferent)
– (dislike)
– – (dislike a lot)
Bots or third parties might also parse these messages for further clues on emotional intensity, adding a richer layer of emotional symbols in cases where big swings are emerging.
Bernd (@cocreatr), is this a useful way forward? Having a way to sense the intensity of emotional states linked to “stacked” narrative fractals (or standing waves, as discussed earlier) would help socnets scan the environment, and decide where to shift attention and resources for best results.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Mark,
Just my $.02. I hope others will chime in either hear or at the wiki, but I would find it pretty hard to scale my like on a continuum. On the other hand, I could very easily say Interesting, Intriguing Useful. It seems sensible to me. What do you think I’m missing?
The analogs have it. How about this slider at PopTech? Imagine this along a timeline…
Meh. [ —– o —– ] Love it!
via @NedKumar
Fascinating visual and analysis using mobile data. Also using emotional mapping to plan cities. http://bit.ly/9yFRWQ (via @aaker) #MIT
Mark, thanks for taking the friction out. Tried to explain the concept yesterday to my wife, who is a great listener. Talked myself into focus – Junto style 🙂
Example: video dialog, open for others to watch. Everyone tagging their own highlights in aggregate will show us the shiny bits. For this to work it needs to be easy and open by choice of the people in dialog.
Spiros,
Here’s a first take. We should figure out the best place to continue to the convo. My personal preference is twitter, but whatever works(2U) , works(2me.
Take as given:
Everything is in motion. The appearance(2me) of stillness is the result of tensions that are balanced. The unit of analysis is interest represented by I. Energy is the name for the force that creates tension. Systems tend to move from states of high energy to low energy.
So:
I(2me) + I(2u) = energy
The amount of energy is dependent on the space/time of the appearance of I. The amount of energy is proportional to the time between I. If i(2me) is easily accessible when you are in a receiving space/time, the chances of a resonance increases.
A narrative(2me) is a well ordered string of I(2me)n.
e.g. I(2me)a , I(2me)b, I(2me)c . . . . I(2me)n
Once well ordered, a string can be collapsed into an idea. Then its ID(2me) .
If ID(2me) + ID(2u)a +ID(2u)b + ID(2u)c . . ID92u)n = E
The amount of energy depends on the number of elements in each string and the number of ID(2u) ‘
The nature of a personal cognitive space is that tensions in physical space resolve to I(2me). Bodies moving in physical space unavoidably create tension. With a well functioning body, tensions are resolved without the need for symbols. In the physical space without automatic body activity. When a tension cannot be resolved in physical space, it creates symbols – specific neural networks. If a particular network fires again and again, it becomes grooved.
Many more I(2me) are rumbling through my neural nets, but I want to stop now and see if this is I(2u)a or I(2u)b or ……
Oops : It reads “In the physical space without automatic body activity. ”
It should read ” In the physical space with “automatic” body acitivity.”
Hi Michael…
Interesting analysis, and it does resonate with me understanding where youre coming from.
Though there are many details for discussion in your comment, i think what resonates with me and matches in thought is when you said…
>>>The unit of analysis is interest represented by I. Energy is the name for the force that creates tension. Systems tend to move from states of high energy to low energy.
The way i’ve termed this understanding is the “I AM” potential, “I am” representing energy. Everything after that is probabilities.
thus, when you said…
>>>A narrative(2me) is a well ordered string of I(2me)n.
e.g. I(2me)a , I(2me)b, I(2me)c . . . . I(2me)n
Once well ordered, a string can be collapsed into an idea. Then its ID(2me) .
Probabilities: (2me)
Potential: I AM
Thus, (2mea) + (2meb)etc… is a formulation of probabilities. and when probabilities align accordingly they collapse into an idea.
We share the “I am” potential,
My probabilities (2me) have certain probables, that align (2u) which if turn align to another (2him)thus, if well ordered a string can be collapsed into an idea.
Thus, “I am’ energy/potential is consciousness, probabilities then become an interdependence of human’s probabilities.
Example: I am (EBD point of contact/consciousness/potential)
Probabilities: Spiro(2me) Michael (2u) Mark (2him) Venessa (2her) consist of probabilities and once well ordered will collapse the idea.
Just some thought playing, does something i said resonate with what you are observing?
I’ll just riff a bit and see where it goes…I have a hunch that this is going to turn out to be scale independent. So let me set the scale as that of the individual.
IAM is the answer to a central question: Who precisely am I?
So let’s say there are conflicting activity spaces in the nervous system. The most obvious is the brain, but the latest science suggests that the other activity space is the gut. Longer story outlined in The Second Brain.
So signals both internal and external evolve into I(2me) . Once so evolved they relieve the tensions created b non symbolic defined flow. Once so evolved they fire at different times. If the timing regulator is sub optimal it presents as ADHD, easily distracted, etc. At any rate, various forms I(2me) are in motion. If not moving they dis aggregate back into merely signals.
The speed and rhythm of the flows increase or decrease the probabilities of affiliation. I bet that slow and in sync is the optimal state. As the rhythm gains traction, organizing more and more I(2me) it evolves into IAM. That is the moment of “intentionality.”
Intentionality is the word that captures focus. Focus is the signal v noise filter. The problem comes when speed is mistaken for rhythm. It’s presents as neurosis in individuals and too busy, being busy in enterprise.
So suppose @toughloveforx @openworld @vanessmemeis are activity spaces living in unique cognitive and physical spaces which have evolved from their unique-by-defintion histories of movement.
In that frame an activity space is sensitive to signals which it converts into I(2me) which emit outputs. At the scale of the person activity space they evolve to IAM. That’s good.
The appropriate probabilities depend on the rhythm and speed of flows that can be observed through the lens of ever in motion I(2me.)
I think the analagous analysis can be used to articulate the mechanisms that define “educational” activity spaces.
So
Michael,
What resonates with me after reading this several times, is quantum physics topic of waves of possibilities and particles of experience.
Omni presence and higher self type of thinking comes to mind.
Then what your saying “makes sense” from my perspective on how I am is intentional to the sum total of variabls that come from the conscious awareness of I(2me), but only if aware it exists from observing it.
Does this resonate with you?
Now I’m even more sure we are bring similar strings to the problem. How can it be a wave and particle? My take, cause you can measure particles more precisely.
So in communication that act of intervention changes the reality. It’s the observer problem in anthro and sociology. Unfortunately the problem does not disappear with words on the web. The medium really is the message in the sense that it is the activity space in which words are emitted. And by it’s nature as a medium change the meaning of the words AND have an independent effect completley separate from the words and pictures.
But even given this limitation the web makes visible what was previously invisible – real time conversations. And the ability to track movements (GPS,etc) with a minmal effect on the behavior.
Ya think?
Spiro and Michael,
For your radar (FYR) – a new book will be coming out in June, called “Constructal Theory of Social Dynamics. ” It builds on foundational work by a Duke/MIT professor earlier this decade. A preview…
>>…[it] brings together, for the first time, social scientists and engineers to develop a predictive theory of social organization, as a conglomerate of mating flows that morph in time to flow more easily (people, goods, money, energy, information). These flows have objectives (e.g., minimization of effort, travel time, cost), and the objectives clash with global constraints (space, time, resources). The result is organization (flow architecture) derived from one principle of configuration evolution in time (the constructal law): “for a flow system to persist in time, its configuration must morph such that it provides easier access to its streams.”
>>Constructal theory predicts animal design and geophysical flows, and makes evolution a part of physics. In the social sciences, there is substantial literature based on the use of optima to deduce social, population and economic dynamics. The constructal approach of this book links social sciences with physics, biology and engineering. The book explores the deterministic principle that generates a broad array of patterned phenomena, in demography, geography, communications, hierarchy, and multiple scales. Examples are the distribution of living settlements, the occurrence of flow structure inside each settlement, ‘development’ as the relation between fast-flowing societies and advancement and wealth, migration patterns, and globalization.
>>Constructal Theory of Social Dynamics is novel and important because it puts the occurrence of social organization on a scientific basis. It brings social organization under the same physics principle that accounts for the generation of flow architecture (design) in geophysical flows, animal design, and engineered flows. This exploratory work adds a dose of determinism to the modeling and predicting of societal flows.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Thank you for the reference. Turns out they did a 2006 version. $125 for the Kindle version. I luv Springer. In any case Google books had a version for limited access.
So I searched for meme and got to only one hit in 335. I include it below as I think it sounds to me like this may be just the right approach to better articulate the mechanisms of media.
“”Volume 2006
Like minerals, cells, or plants, theories, ideas and instruments are non-intentional as well (if one wants to call them “memes,” then one has to put “non-intentional_ before the word) and like all beings are not “parts” of Nature but expressions of it.
amazing that after all these months michael still doesn’t know how to spell my name 😉
It wouldn’t surprise me. Have always been terrible with names and typos are normal. My apologies. Trapped in cog space, I guess. 🙂
Can’t you and Michael just change it to “@V” and “@M”? It will solve future typos, and let us the rest of us get more into our tweets. 🙂
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Actually a nice idea. But my twitter stream is much too entangled. Maybe next life.
Good publish. It is genuinely assist to us. Its offer us lots of curiosity and satisfaction. Its possibility are so great and working fashion so speedy. Its truly a great article. It gives me a lot of enjoyment and interest.
Was about to shut down for the night (3:30am here) but decided to have one last scan of the Meimis blog and found some interesting convo between some friends :-). So obviously can’t leave without my 1 cent of feedback.
@Mark – Agree with Michael on not using the continuum but going for more discrete states. My reasoning is that there is a vast difference in how people experience emotions. Some clearly distinguish among a variety of negative and positive discrete emotions, where as some experience it in a relatively narrow frame treating certain emotional states as interchangeable – the extreme being a two state expression along the pleasant-unpleasant dimension. So I think our scale should not be biased either way making one group more uncomfortable. Also, are we limited to a 1-dimensional scale? Just as an example, maybe we can combine your’s and Michael’s suggestion – say like & useful etc. We don’t have to go this route, but just a suggestion.
@Michael/@Spiro – as my brother would say, deep man, very deep :-). I had to read your comments twice to make sure I got it right. Mark’s reference is definitely worth reading. Constructal Theory is a cool idea and here is a good quote from the man (Adrian Bejan) himself: “For a flow system to persist in time (to survive) it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier and easier access to the currents that flow through it”.
Bottom line, we start simple and then extrapolate out to meet the situation. In other words, the system we build should have the flexibility to change its configuration as people get involved and needs/ideas evolve.
I2me(sleepy)+I2me(tired)=I2u(signing off).
So yesterday @openworld Constructal Theory of Social Dynamics Put Constructal Theory of Social Dynamics into the stream.All new(2me). Since there was no way I was going to pay $125 for previous 2006 pub in the Kindle version (Hey Springer! Are you nuts?) I did a little searching, and have come to my usual half baked conclusions.
My take is that the attempt to make sociology a science is a very long story both for sociology and science. Notable high points are Comte, Talcott Parsons and B.F Skinner. This approach is well within that tradition. That’s good.
But my hunch is that it is still informed by old science. New science says the brain re wires all the time. That the gut and brain interact to create thoughts and feelings. And that waves are particles…or maybe they are all strings. Plus what the hell is dark matter anyways?
In this context, I bet that this approach is less articulated than is needed re the mechanisms of thought. In the service of clarity, I think the convo we are having here might have something to add.
Consider, a central paradox of quantum theory is entanglement. What is the story that explains the fact that an observation of stuff here will have an immediate effect on an observation on the other side of the Universe. In the world of physics, I’ve got nothing.
But consider the world of learning.
A datapoint appears. It is I(2me) which leads to a cascade of I(2me) and a new string of I(2me)a , I(2me)b . . . I(2me(n). Note the string was created in my head. The proximate building blocks are a result of my unique path through my unique space/times. But one datapoint changes a collection of I(2me)s into a flow. Once that flow is formed, it resolves the tension of loose I(2me)s rumbling around the brain into an Idea – ID(2me.)
The point is that the mere presence of one seemingly disparate datapoint changes the relationship between many I(2me) and some ID(2me) with no apparent new information needed.
My bet is that it is the same process as hunger being resolved by food and a full lower intestine being resolved by elimination. If gives a context for the problem of being constipated.
Micheal,
If i can “philosophize” it a bit my thoughts on 2me is about understanding the sum total of your variables, each 2me has a unique description.
In relation to I, 2me is all the same. Just variables.
I in itself is the sum total of the variables, and each variable has it’s own sum total of variables.
2me’s social dynamics and it’s importance comes from the theory that through social media tools we are able to realize that conversing and filtering human networks based on the alignment of various 2me’s show that I unfolds/shows itself.
The future of human networks at this point of it’s future, is 2me has become conscious of itself, not all 2me’s but plenty of them who realize that 2me is important to “I” as long as 2me is transparent to I.
Points of contact are represented by the letter “I”
Points of interest are represented by 2me.
Get enough 2me’s conversing and aligning IT will always attract what it needs to unfold itself or create itself.
A new language (“EBDish”?) seems to be taking form before our eyes… looks exceptionally helpful .
Can a few diagrams be put up to help visual learners (like me) more quickly get a sense of the new symbols? It would be wonderful if @spirospiliadis, @gavinkeech, others can gallop to the rescue…
Best,
Mark
Mark,
Stop me before I keyboard again 🙂 But “EBdish? You don’t look EBdish.”
EBDish is a form of Elvish (for socnets emerging by design…)
I think a helpful catalyst is the one you put in the stream.
IAM.
So . . . I(2me) are emergent variables. Yes.
ID(2me) are strings of variables which have collapse to lower energy levels in an activity space. The points of contact occur in physical space. F2F, comments on a thread, in a book, on twitter, email – all physical space.
But IAM is when intentionality appears. Intentionality creates focus. Focus reduces the friction of finding more I(2me)
Intentionality has the same effect in a twitter stream, a string of comments to a blog post, a person, an enterprise, or a community or a government.
It’s described as “caring.”
Pretty cool.
I AM is the potential/consciousness
Variables are (2me)
Probablities are I(2me), I comes into place when it has become the conscious observer of (2me)
Each intention has then the formula of I(2me)n = I AM/ID(2me)
Focus: follow one course until successful
the process then is (2me) is born out of chaotic variables unconscious to itself, in transition I(2me) unfolds taking probabilities into focus/intent on revealing I am….
Expanding on (2me) = sum total of variables
Human Capital = I(2me) probabilities of variables
Measuring (2me) includes:
– improvised activity through social media, comments, tweets, interests, passions, delivering an unsolicited reaction to activity.
– variables that were born into natural gifts, measured by an understanding through examining tendencies such as kiersey temperment,
Once measured gives I to (2me0) awareness, becoming in transition ID(2me), once ID(2ME) Intention is born.
it creates the point of contact, and conscios I(2me) interestes begin to attract from point of contact.
What if: certain I(2me) are meant to align at a point of contact where instantly points of interests representing I(2me) merger variables, to reveal higher consciousness.
(2me)’s process is become conscious of your variables, aling yourself with them and bring that insight into all the other (2me’s) out there.
Perhaps this is where Venessa’s blog Tapping the network to faciliate innovation,
Michael/Spiro,
I totally dig your conversation but still a bit fuzzy on the language.
Michael, I agree with you that one disparate datapoint can play a pivotal role in both (a) coagulating other disparate data points into an idea, and (b) changing the relationships that exist between data points. However, the efficiency, effectiveness, and direction(s) of this process is highly dependent on the person – their background, interests, visualization capability, imagination, breadth of knowledge (more data points in play), and their multi and parallel processing capabilities.
As an example, let us say three people read the “Twitter launches Annotations..” article. Person A took this datapoint in, thought about it for 10 seconds and discarded it as of no interest and not worth exploring. Person B took this same data point and got really interested in its application in their domain (creative but the rearrangement of datapoints and creation of new ideas happen within the constraint of their domain). Person C took this datapoint and was truly fascinated with its usage. This person unleashed this datapoint on everything they had done and remembered – in other words, the data point was free to roam around anywhere in their mind. Now this is truly creative as the maximum number of rearrangements happen in this case and new ideas are created in multiple domains.
To Spiro’s point, at the end of the previous activity, I might consciously realize that only ideas 1, 2 and 3 are worth acting on or tweeting about or blogging about etc… and thus the ‘intention’ to do something takes shape.
Sheesh. I’ve had this post open in my browser for a couple of weeks and finally just realized I hadn’t read it yet.
This is, quite possibly, the most illuminating description of a whole mess of things that have been wreaking havoc in my brain for a while. Order out of chaos. And your writing is clear and simple enough that I “got it” right away. Brilliant, brilliant stuff.
Thank you for this gift. 🙂
thank you! they were wreaking havoc for me too and the finally ‘clicked.’ glad we can all benefit and push forward.
Mark,
Some thought on your question about symbols, what came to mind was David Hawkin’s work with power vs force, and kinesiology. and his map of consciousness.
Attached is a video representing those maps, what may be interesting is the way it’s described by word:
Emotion, process, LIfe View, God View
It’s interesting that he numbers the work with each emotion.
I don’t know where the connection is exactly but it may lead to something….
forgot to add the link
Thank you.
whoa, didn’t know you could embed videos in comments section. cool
Spiro,
Great video. Liked the content (and loved the soundtrack 🙂 ).
Mark, I agree with Spiro’s direction on the symbols. In fact, been mulling over it and came to a similar conclusion as Hawkin’s mapping words. Here is my reasoning:
Ideally we don’t want folks to “think” what symbols they should use to label — as soon as that happens (a) a strong bias creeps in, and (b) it might break the flow of thought. So if I have to choose between ‘like’ and ‘like a lot’, I might end up thinking about it and forcing myself to choose a category. Also, like the grading in school where with some Profs it is impossible to get an ‘A’ no matter what you do and with some you are almost guaranteed an’A’ with certain minimal work – I feel thinking about a symbol will result in a similar skewness (certain folks always picking ‘like a lot’ and some always picking ‘like’).
So what is the solution. One approach would be (I think) to create symbols that is part of the flow — and so the person can mindlessly label it as they move along the task. Not sure what they might be yet, but something like ‘applicable’ to represent if the work has in-use value for the person. (btw, this word just popped up and I am not saying we should use this – just spelled it out as an example).
That way as folks go along doing what they are doing, they can along the way also annotate the path with the appropriate symbols without taking a break or breaking their thought stream.
Regards,
Ned
I’m concluding that network theory needs to move beyond numbers to contribution. If so, it isn’t the people we know that matters, but their networks where we are involved and making contributions that do.
I go back ten years to reading Ron Burt’s Structural Holes, and realizing today that we’ve moved beyond the time where knowing individuals was where the competitive advantage is. Now, it is being engaged with a network is where it is. It is a trust issue, not a numbers one.
I’m sure network theory has could up with this shift. It is what I’m seeing.
Ned,
The reply thread was getting a little narrow so I’m posting it as comment. Regarding “fuzzy” Yep. Since I think it’s fair to say that we’re making it up as we go, fuzzy is to be expected.:-)
So here’s what’s top of mind to your comments.
“the efficiency, effectiveness, and direction(s) of this process is highly dependent on the person”
We agree. Each one is unique. But importantly -similar actors with similar history of movement through space/time are likely to have similar activity spaces. It’s like snowflakes.
” Person C took this datapoint and was truly fascinated with its usage. This person unleashed this datapoint on everything they had done and remembered – in other words, the data point was free to roam around anywhere in their mind. Now this is truly creative as the maximum number of rearrangements happen in this case and new ideas are created in multiple domains.”
Nice. So let me try a translation into EBDish.
Let’s say there are different scales of complexity. DtP are simplest, then I(2me), then ID(2me), then let’s say a knowl. The basic unit of knowledge.
So …a datapoint enters an actor’s activity space. It entangles other proximate datapoints, and/or I(2me) and.or ID(2me) that are roaming around.
When knowls are ordered by a narrative it becomes a stickier. When knowls are communicated and receive verification from another activity space, they receive energy to move forward.
re Intention. I think the important point is that intention is not only a property of an individual but of systems themselves. The system of systems and every sub system has a potential intention. e.g. The classroom on the 3 rd floor in the building in the district. All with their own systems. All with their own potential intent.
The implication for improvement is that if each nested system is conscious of its intent resistance to flow is lessened.
Maybe?
Michael,
Thanks – I now perfectly understand all the elements – except the the I(2me) component. I was thinking this is redundant, but maybe I am missing something.
Here are my axioms on the subject.
Axiom 1: Ideas(ID) are created as a result of combining data points(DtP). However, the same set of data points can create distinct ideas depending on the sequence in which they are combined and the proximity of any two data points.
ID=f[(sequence DtPs) + (proximity DtPs)]
Axiom 2: Similarly, Knowledge(Knowl) is a function of the sequence in which ideas(ID) are combined and the proximity of any two ideas.
Knowl=f[(sequence IDs) + (proximity IDs)]
Axiom 3: Ideas(ID) or Knowledge(Knowl) can be decomposed by the reciever into its compontent parts and then recombined in a different proximity/sequence to form new ideas and knowledge.
In other words,
Sender:
f[(sequence1 DtPs) + (proximity1 DtPs)] –> ID1
Reciever:
ID1 –> f[(sequence2 DtPs) + (proximity2 DtPs)] –> ID2
(same with knowl)
What does it mean in layman’s terms? Well, the data points are like lego blocks. The same set of blocks can be used by multiple people to create different structures depending on how they assemble it (sequence and proximity).
Similary, once data points are input into our system, our mind does a multi-dimensional scaling of its own to explore all the similarities and dissimilarities with existing data points, ideas, and knowledge. This in turn leads to a ‘matrix of transformation’ that eventually leads to a certain combination of or appending of the new data points.
And lastly, I find it strangely ironic that we are talking about our thoughts and ideas in this manner. The reason being that I find this approach parallel to those used in the genomics field for genetic mapping – where a certain DNA sequence identifies characteristics of the individual at the molecular level. Maybe it will be worth looking at something like the evolutionary tree (I think wikipedia has it as catalogued as Phylogenetic tree) — just a thought.
Regards,
Ned
memetics?
Why not? :-). A discipline focused on the study of memes, from creation to use, and its impact on society.
Well – just found that ‘memetics’ as coined by Douglas Hofstadter has a different connotation. So we will have to settle for memeology.
I think there’s more to it than memetics.
E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins suggest that natural selection favors assemblies of molecules (genes) that construct physical forms capable of processing memes (replicable logical constructs) that improve prospects of reproductive success. Evolution entered an “enchanted circle,” in their view, once genes and memes began to co-evolve in this consilient way.
Yet (2me) a third force in evolution is missing in this description. A mechanical system that processes datapoints (knowls/memes) in an unfeeling way hardly describes what is going on in biological systems. Living things, on virtually any scale above viruses, behave in ways that manifest an ability to value or care. Sparks of emotion/qualities of spirit perfuse life.
At a deep level, evolution may reflect the influence of qualities of spirit in the ‘enchanted circle’ of consilience. On a personal level, we feel the pull to help those who show admirable qualities of spirit – including beings in genetically/memetically-unrelated species – to thrive. On a cultural level, we respond to narratives – in songs, epics, movies and religions – that show such qualities responding to challenges, inspiring visions, animating strategies, confirming viability, and motivating decisions to act. Narratives seem to be (scalable) vectors through which lumines with universal aspirations contend, remix, and spread.
It’s thrilling to see the value of emotional tags and narrative patterns emerge in discussions of the future of social networks. EBDish as a language can do a lot to help individuals in social networks map a fuller range of forces at work in evolution patterns, advance the understandings, and act in ways that enable the qualities we love to flourish.
Venessa, Michael, Spiro, Ned, Gavin and all, do any symbols or diagrams come to mind that can express this?
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Mark,
Just to put $.02 as a comment.
My hunch is that we don’t need to posit a third flow to explain caring. The Art Instinct articulates a path that goes from biological evolutionary stresses to the creation of Art, Fashion,Music. In EBdish flows in Cog Space that manifest in Physical Space.
His new(2me) idea is that evolution is the product of two flows. One is to protect and manage risk. The other is to procreate which means taking risks. In his framework it’s not just fear and greed. It’s also sex and love.
Game on for a #TwitTennis on dyadic vs triadic consilience in evolution!
Then, maybe a mindmap or Debategraph on the bout, with a link here?
Thinking could be useful as a way for “budding off” of issues when we get too skinny on the reply columns, then rejoining the confo.
Also, it might be good to enrich the EBD commons with visuals as a backdrop to #hoontos.
What do you think?
Best,
Mark
@openworld
11:15 restate my assumptions. http://www.ubersite.com/m/46648
Ned,
First thanks for the clear formal statement. Very helpful.
So let me try to riff on ” the I(2me) component”
I(2me) articulates the steps between DtP and ID . 2me- the problem to be solved is to understand change in the service of being able to smoothly manage transitions. The thing I think I’ve learned is that we don’t have to change the world, it’s already changing all the time. The best we can do is to remove friction to allow the flow to move more easily with the minimum turbulence.
The (2me) or (2u) points to the fact that without context it is – in principle – impossible to communicate an Idea accurately. I also think it’s fair to get to Spiro’s point that an Idea does not exist unless someone is conscious of it.
I(2me) points to the central role of “interest.” That’s a property of the viewer, not of the world. The viewer, “me” can be a “person” but also “a system of systems.” In EBdish it’s an Activity Space When clearly bounded it moves to an Actor. The more porous the boundary the more it tends to an Activity Space.
To continue in EBdish, an Activity Space exists because of the tension created by two flows: a Cognitive Space and a Physical Space. The Cog Space is – in principle – unobservable. The Physical Space is stuff that can be observed. As far as we know so far, our bodies resonate to words, sounds, pictures, touch and taste.
Let’s say that flows are ever present. What changes are the speed and intermingling based on the Space/Time of the Activity Spaces they move through.
sets of DtPs -> sequences of DtPs
sets of I(2me) -> sequence of I(2me)
sets of ID(2me) ->sequence of ID(2me)
A sequence is created by a narrative that links DtP and/or I(2me) and/or ID(2me). The model of protein building from DNA probably works. An active soup of molecules from which some are selected. If I’m a dna, then some of the molecules are I(2me). As I move through the soup, a sequences of I(2me) are brought into a contiguous Physical Space. Let’s say each molecule also scans it’s environment looking for I(2me) . They are both Actors moving through their own Activity Spaces.
So then comes the really cool part. When I(2me) entangles with I(2u). If they increase the increase the strength of their entanglement with more frequent exchange of force fields then the total energy of that activity space decreases and energy is freed for further entanglements.
At the scale of molecules and dna, you get strings of bases. At the scale of people you get strings of Ideas. At the scale of a community you get a common narrative. All happening in cog space. When those strings are made visible in physical space, the Actor learns.
I think that’s why print is so cool. And people luv swag. Godin said somewhere that the way to make money in an economy of Free is to use the web to gather tribes, then sell them souvenirs of their tribal membership and do personal appearances.
Michael your comment resonated with me, kept silent to take it in and realize the “mathematical” implications we can formulate through the social dynamics.
Are we a mathematical formula waiting to be aligned?
sounds like a great sci fi movie. Except it’s a sci movie 🙂 no fi required.
After all as you said, we are making it up as we go along, improv is not fiction, it’s as real as it gets.
just saw this in the comments of @timkastelle blog. The Pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
btw…. we decided hoonto is just the name for the conversation itself…… but what of this larger thing we’re building?
what do we call it
you have already named her
E.B.D.
ebiidii
we’ll call her ebii for short
😉
Even shorter for me I’ll call her “E” cute huh? 🙂
thinking we should start a google wave…….
Is there a link for newbies on how to google wave, and see its value-add over Twitter? I’m all for anything that avoids learning curve friction in the communication channel.
Best,
Mark
This is a more focused version. To see the finer points on screen, click through to Youtube or watch it full screen.
Venessa, please delete my embed below, if it remains it is a distraction.
FYI to those who are developing a new syntax, grammar and / or master equation …
Sloan article “collective intelligence genome” http://bit.ly/a5cmeu … designer genes to harness collective intelligence
Jon,
That’s a wonderful piece on the collective intelligence genome – I especially like the “who, what, why, when” approach. The layout and simple graphics (tables) help in spreading its memes.
@CoCreatr, I also love the easy-on-the-eye information mapping ideas of Robert Horn, but am rusty on what’s happened with them in recent years.
Are there templates into which one can pour tagged blog convos, Google waves, and/or (soon) annotated Tweetstreams, and generate flowing, easily readable narratives?
If so, it would open lots of opportunities for PrinterNets to create on-demand books, along the lines that MichaelJ has been thinking.
Best,
Mark
@openworld
People, Process, Tools is a recommended sequence.
People:
Michelle James gives us a great rating framework. We can use it for self-declaration and as attributes others heap on us.
7 basic improv principles – all of which I believe tie in to complexity theory. There are others, but I have found these to be essential.
1. Yes and.
2. Make everyone else look good.
3. Be changed by what is said and what happens.
4. Co-create a shared “agenda.”
5. Mistakes are invitations.
6. Keep the energy going.
7. Serve the good of the whole.
More: http://creativeemergence.typepad.com/the_fertile_unknown/2009/12/improv-theater-and-complex-adaptive-systems.html
Process: Well, in our case #EBD as may be our new hashtag for what reminds us of #Junto brings us straight to tools. We acquire, shape or build the tools that enable the valuable process of “live talk that generates power”
Mark, Google Wave (beta) feels like a time-track wiki, clumsy at first, part of which is the unusal approach but it gets better with use. Out of more than 1:20 demo, watch from 0:27 to 0:37 to see how it might work for us. http://wave.google.com/about.html
Google wants e-mail addresses in return for access to a wave, so mail me (if you can) and I can set it up.
That’s a wonderful piece on the collective intelligence genome – I especially like the “who, what, why, when” approach. The layout and simple graphics (tables) help in spreading its memes.</i?
Mark / OpenWorld .. as I believe you and others on this thread will know, there's an enormous "bag o tricks" and previous thinking about emergence, fractality, etc. and how to design, encourage, nudge in the desired direction(s) from the OD (organizational development) world. I've written about it before .. IMO, most of what the vast corps of non-network-theory-lietarte out there in daily life & work need to have available to use has been identified and practiced .. just not (yet) in the sense-surround network environment.
Which is, I think, where this group and others, in their own ways, are taking all of us. Inevitable, inexorable, fraught with adventure, delight, opportunity, disappointment, peril and any number of other mythical angels and demons.
To cite a few OD pioneers whose work is IMO applicable to networks in a similar context / direction to what is unfolding here .. thinking of Stafford Beer and cybernetics, Fred Emery and "participative work design", Otto Scharmer et al's Presencing, Senge's work, Meg Wheatley's work, Dana Zohar Rewiring theme, Arie De Geus' "Living Organization" .. etc.
Dang .. apologies for unclosed italics tag.
The first para above should be the only one italicized.
Wow (i) – thanks for getting to the heart of the Google wave value proposition!
I’m seeing how it could work in cocreating documents that help teams explore issues and identify promising courses of action.
I’d love to be part of a Wave session that could prepare out a (publishable?) document useful to EBD, perhaps organized in an attractor->challenge->opportunity->strategy->test->next steps narrative flow.
The latest draft of Q&A prompts for such a flow is at http://j.mp/b1onIN .
Best,
Mark
@openworld
we have a Junto Google Wave goin:
https://wave.google.com/wave/#restored:wave:googlewave.com!w%252BS2l9UvmlA
perhaps optimization of the systems is favored before expanding the system. the whole system is fragile. the economic bias of capitalism to make each unit in the system function independently as to a whole. the fragility of the system is in my opinion is the electricity which flows through. if you take this away all humanity will be launched back to the middle ages. there is a mathematical notion the a person only needs to be acquainted to 6 people thus indirectly connecting to 6 billion. Remembering More’s law right now.
Michael,
Michael –
Thanks for sparking some ID(2me). In the service of continuing co creation of getting from here to there, I’m putting them in the convo.
ID(2me)
What if it’s not ” favored before” but rather “optimization (specialization) is what drives expansion (diversification) which in turn drives growth” Consider it not as stages but as a flow that waxes and wanes due to changes in the Activity Space through which it moves.
The Riff:
connecting a couple of other ID(2me) rumbling around the head.
In EQ symbols in EBDish in might look like ” SP -> DV -> GR If GR tends to further diversification then it’s sustainable. If GR tends to mono culture, then it’s not. Sustainable means outputting at least as much energy as is consumed.
Given that the scientists tell us there is a finite amount of energy in the world, it means more energy in a bounded Activity Space. The boundaries of an Activity Space have both a physical and cognitive dimension. The physical constraints are very hard to change. But the cognitive dimension just needs a MemeShift.
So boundaries on a Map are memes. as in
After World War I, the winners defined the boundaries on a map. For the first couple of years, they were mostly lines in the sand that meant little in physical space. But over time, the stresses of various tribes brought under the same rules, imposed from outside, created a “Nation.” Shake and bake for about 90 years, and voila we have the situation in the Middle East and “Pakistan” and “Afghanistan.”
Maybe a helpful data point on how I(2U) + I(2me) = Energy.
So yesterday a co creator I say co creator instead of the name, cause I think the rule for DM is it stays within the Activity Space it was offered. It is on “owned” by the person who sent it.
The words, without attribution are Public and therfore Common Property. If the intent were clearly to be public it would have been an @ me. I’m inferring intent to guide my typing. I could be right, I might be wrong. But it’s the least risky decision given that I want to continue building Trust with this person.
At any rate, The words in the DM were:
Was telling the gang today in the prototype #junto that after reading your posts I now dream about I(2me) and I(2u) . You messed me up 🙂
It which I DM;
Lol! Welcome to my world 🙂
The energy part is that the words typed in a DM resulted in me typing words. The typed words were the result of a cascade of some ID(2me)
The resultant string is
How amazing that a symbol in the form of I(2me) can enter an Other’s dream Activity Space. In think it’s fair to call that magic. It’s also worth nothing that I typed” Lol.” My hunch is that points to something about where humor fits into EBDish.
A lot more tensions(2me) have been created, but have gotten that word string into the Activity Space of this convo has relieved enuff tension for me to stop now.
In natural(2me) geezer wannabe language “It’s the joy of regularity.”
My interpretation of the “complex” Michael-Spiro exchange 🙂
Data and Consciousness
Ned,
Many thanks for the visual – it makes it much easier for me to see the relationships.
I’m wondering whether/how the following categories can converge –
1) Data (raw reports)
2) Information (trustable data)
3) Knowledge (info sequences or “generative scripts” to produce a result)
4) Wisdom (understanding of what knowledge is important – the rules for which may vary based on the Maslow state of the valuer )
It seems to me that these categories can describe flows in a scale-insensitive way (whether the frame of reference is that of internal subsystems, individuals, and collectives).
As long as the Maslow states of the “lower” frames of reference are operating within their levels of tolerance, consciousness in the the higher frames can operate by (non-zero sum) wisdom rules applicable to it and its and its environment.
What do you think? Is there a way to map this with EBDish symbols or flows, or perhaps add to the mix?
Best,
Mark
@openbworld
1) Data (raw reports)
Have to be attached to some thing that gives them context before they can pass through the boundary of an Activity Space.
2) Information (trustable data)
Trust might be a combination of two variables.
1. The content of the I(2me) about the persona who is speaking.
2. The number of I(2me) I(2U) linkages.
3) Knowledge (info sequences or “generative scripts” to produce a result)
Is Knowledge at constelation of knowls brought to bear on a problem?
4) Wisdom (understanding of what knowledge is important – the rules for which may vary based on the Maslow state of the valuer )
Maybe it helps to see the Maslow states as flowing through a seqeunce of realted activity spaces that are constantlyh in motion. Depending on local Activity Space stresses, one or the other defines which defines the cascade that results in either new thought or action.
So if the stress on the lower states are managed at a specific space/time, the other states have a chance to predominate.
Ned,
A gezillion thanks for the gift! It’s simply brilliant!
So if Me = the cell, the gut, the brain, the person, the workgroup, the division, the enterprise, or . . . the team, the startup, the IPO, and the family, the tribe, the bioregion.Or the consumer, the store, the purchase
Then what’s next(2me) is to articulate the power relationships. to get to Political Economy of Life. (OK, it’s a little over the top. But you got me really revv’d with your picture.)
Mark/Michael,
Thanks – I was trying to put a wrapper around our conversations so that we have a scaffolding to stand and build on.
I definitely think this framework can be expanded (this was more a ‘napkin-sketch’ of my thoughts). As you said there are other components that can incorporated into it – including symbolisms. Also, even the existing components can be expanded.
Will ruminate about it and do another take on it.
Regards,
Ned
Ned very nice diagram!
Taking a moment to observe this first thing that came to mind was the relationship between the ID(2ME) and the ID(2U)
and the two meet at the green oval ID’S
almost like a 45 degree invisible line going from where it permeats “me” consicousness and “them” conscious.
Spiros,
I noticed you tweeted about the thinking about the relationship between Junto and Blogs. Maybe this helps:
Suppose both a blog and a Junto are taken as Activity Space. in EQ “AS”. The mover in an Activity Space is an Actor “A” . A creates it’s AS. Sort of like a force field. An AS lives at the intersection of a Cognitive Space “CS” and a Physical Space “PS” The deep fundamentals are Time and Space, so:
Blog AS= 1 Actor, Time where ever, Space where ever a connected device lives. Speed of exchange – mostly none or slow. note: sometimes Slow is precisely what is needed as in the is comment thread.
Junto AS = Multiple focused Actors. Time specified. Space where ever a connected device with video lives. Speed of exchange – real time. With vid – rich communication with a signal v noise problem.
Twitter AS = A gezillion disinterested Actors. Time now or when ever. Speed of exchange none to massive with a #. Narrow communication. With twitter tennis, it moves to eliminate noise.
Ned-
When it’s ready to take out of the oven ( I tend to go for half baked myself:-) sometimes a feature, mostly a bug) what if Actor is substituted for You and Me. Then we maybe can visualize the created Activity Spaces to get to a moving and Scale Independent picture.
I’m sort of thinking of something like: http://ilnk.me/2435
Mark,
Since I’m now a convert to the value of lumines, I thought it would be interesting to add the vid below. They way I’m seeing it is that a meme is a quanta of information in words. A lumine is a quanta of information in art and music. The vid below adds music to the paramecium story. I don’t luv how it’s done, but I think it demonstrates the point regarding creating “emotion” in the viewer.
Venessa, i Love the pivot idea and it’s ideas on integrating with Junto.
Michael, in relation to junto and blogs, i find it’s the process that has unfolded from my observations.
Blog Topic: Point of Contact
Participants; Point of Interest
Three kinds of Points of Interest are (attracted)
– compliments on the blog
– add on information that compliments the blog
– links to related topics that compliment the blog
– arguing the point represented in the blog
The tension as the blog keeps attracting points of interest (participants) creates attraction among certain participants who’s information “go together” leading towards (inspiration).
Points of Interest: Participants (2me’s) forming their “information” through conversation. Your formula and Ned’s diagram fit into the scheme..
Capturing this information up to now has been only through comments. Thus, there is the idea of mindmaps that capture this information suggested by the model @cocreatr explains through concept maps, prezi and mindmaps.
Thus, Junto works the same way,
Junto: can be modeled in some away around blog processes. Junto then is available at any time to unfold this process.
For example, Venessa has a blog topic, she tweets that at so and so a time, this will be the topic, through filtering systems of “human capital” or how Pivot suggests, at that moment the system filters you out, beginning the conversation.
In the back channel hashtags are available, the concept map capturing this in real time that filters the conversation, links sharing, and the comments are the conversation.
This also put into play, Mark’s idea of how attractor, tension, inspiration model work, insteads as you said, it’s now or whenever.
Still working on the thought patterns but what i see Junto being is a new way blogging. According to the processes wev’e discussed here.
Some other thoughts that come to mind is Gavin’s diagram shown here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/venessamiemis/4526404386/sizes/l/ and this idea:
Michaels’ formula and Ned’s diagram can be the catalyst in relation to pivot for the way we can take what has been created thus far with the activity of twitter and our profiling and use what already exist thus far to filter groups of people who can meet at points of contact in a “formulated way”
For example, the moment is brought up to discuss, it’s tweeted to a general population because we now know with pivot we can use “variables’ to filter the people from what has taken shape thus far, from lists, from recommendations, from the activity space of each individual….
to be continued….
Some other thoughts, lurking are “serendipity” “in sync” “in the zone” consciousness at it’s peak between two people happens when they are in the same wave length of possibilities, based from the physical attributes of “(2me’s) connecting, a “particle” experience as Michael suggests in Activity space that has aligned.
We can’t dismiss when this happens, thus Junto also has the quality of a one push button when this happens to go into junto’s activity space to keep the “real time” going on, through conversation and junto’s background channel and capturing of this real time leads to inspired and innovative ideas that others would go unnoticed because of not measuring or being able to capture that “in sync” moment.
Can it be measureable? and what would it reveal?
Nice. Sounds like it’s on the right path. Nothing to add just now except that “to unfold this process” resonates strongly.
A further theorization that could help:
– Y. Rumpala, “Knowledge and praxis of networks as a political project”, Twenty-First Century Society, Volume 4, Issue 3, November 2009
(also available at http://yannickrumpala.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/tracing-and-reconfiguring-networks-to-build-a-political-alternative/ ).
CA thanks for the point. I haven’t a chance to read but will after this reply. I think one of the very important missing parts of this convo is how power manifest and shapes networks. For reasons I’m still trying to figure out, Power is not usually seen as a legitimate object of discourse when it concerns proximate power eg. Universities, Schools, Business Organizations. i think Foucalt’s work speaks directly to the issue and would help move it to clarity faster, rather than slower.
Pingback: A Pay It Forward Business Model [in transition to a new global society] « emergent by design
“a complex system can only function with independently acting agents who collaborate. That means you still have your own personal interests that you’re serving, but in order to serve your interests, your actions have to indirectly serve the whole.”
I think this is easier for biological altruism, as there is no intention, it just is http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/1078025375/biological-altruism-is-not-intentional-altruism
The invisible hand makes competition and selfish seem beneficial, but it’s not sustainable
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/1056289520/selfishness-as-the-root-of-indirect-public-benefit
http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/1056217298/calculus-of-selfishness
The benefit of selfishness (so to speak) came up in my last meditation class http://johntropea.tumblr.com/post/1054946075/interesting-activity-at-meditation-class-the-other
Content help me to create bank
Pingback: Economia criativa: estamos à altura da nossa potência « Idéias pra Inovar
Pingback: All Economy Can be Creative « Ideas to Innovate
“MerkleWeb – statistical Godel-like secure-but-not-perfect global Turing Machine”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=53062.msg654059#msg654059
I wrote there, linking to this thread, “Social networks of people. Merkle Tree networks of calculations and data storage. Open source networks of software. Mind maps linking ideas together. MerkleWeb could bring it all together in a public-domain unbiased way.”
Venessa, your post here, and what I learned about how the world works through networks in our talks, was one of the influences toward the creation of the MerkleWeb technical documents and hopefully later the creation of a prototype.
The SourceForge description is very technical, but its for purposes better described as “The Future Is Networks”.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/merkleweb
“Absolute minimalist open spec of whats needed to obsolete and rebuild entire Earth infrastructure, as global peer to peer 320 bit (256 space, 64 time) address quine Turing Machine, military-strength Bitcoin-like security on every bit and NAND calculation, from NAND gates, software NAND logic, recursive paravirtual hooks (run Windows, Mac, and Linux on global cloud through VMWare or other emulators) at paravirtual optimized realtime speed. Runs slowly on existing Internet. Best system would be wireless mesh network of new kind of Turing Complete routers. No system has an address. They’re redundant computing power and storage for the 1 global Turing Machine. End to end branch prediction, global rollbacks, snapshots and SVN-like branching whole network, recalculation if 1 bit is found through NAND-level quine Godel-like error checking codes in Merkle Trees. Supports evolvable hardware as paravirtual hook into global address space of SHA256 hash of NAND definition of new hardware. Freedom.”
glad to hear the post inspired you, ben
Pingback: How Will We Collaborate if We Can’t Trust Each Other? « emergent by design
Venessa, you have truly found your gift! Thanks for freely sharing.
Pingback: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Deep Trust, Shallow Trust, and Phyles
Pingback: A global discussion about the future of our species « emergent by design
Excellent post. Keep writing such kind of information on your site.
Im really impressed by it.
Hello there, You have done an excellent job. I’ll definitely digg
it and in my view recommend to my friends. I am confident they’ll be benefited from this web site.
Hey there! I know this is kinda off topic
however , I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested
in exchanging links or maybe guest writing a blog post or vice-versa?
My website discusses a lot of the same topics as yours and I believe we could greatly benefit
from each other. If you might be interested feel free to
shoot me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you!
Great blog by the way!
These are in fact fantastic ideas in regarding blogging.
You have touched some good factors here. Any
way keep up wrinting.
Very energetyic article, Ilikoed that bit.
Will thre be a part 2?