d.d.d.d.
once upon a time
Reply
this is an e.g. of writing
Prosthesis on Healthy Limbs
I’ve been noodling on Alan’s recent barf for a while; this piece struck me:
Cars amplify but take away physical activity. Bikes let you exercise flat-out and then amplify that. [...]
In other words we don’t want technology to act like putting a prosthetic on a healthy limb — but which then starts to wither. We want to keep all the “limbs” — physical and mental — strong, exercised, and then amplified.
And would today’s commercial consumer world even introduce the bicycle as a product if it were newly invented? — it takes considerably more than a minute to learn how to use it. Would they introduce a personal computer as it was originally conceived today?
I suppose I am a little upset/disturbed by this because it’s a reasonably simple filter to apply to ideas and technologies; many of which purport to offer more than new coping mechanisms. What does this technology give me, what does it take away? Is this a game of checkers or a game of chess?
Interface design today seems to sit at this weird place; it is disempowering (the chief virtue of an interface in a consumer product today seems to be simplicity) while having almost unimaginable capacity to empower (truly modern education forms [a ha! moments, when the idea "clicks"] helping to empower truly modern minds [beyond the caveman/briefcase]).
It’s hard not to worry that the skills and technologies used to produce the technologies we see around us are undermining our capacity to make truly new and better technology. It comes back to McLuhan; we are building deep, resonant modes of understanding – ones that we hold right inside us and perpetuate at all costs – around crummy ideas. We go on to build more cargo cults in praise of things that are un-knowable and not that great anyway. It’s going to take happenstance or genius to show us an oppositional idea. It would be nice if progress didn’t need to rely on the once in a century mutation.
It is very hard and not-so-satisfying to look back on my own work to try to filter the cars from the bicycles. The cars are definitely in the majority. Making mirrors is fun and easy and pleasurable. Trying to go beyond the obvious and the simple and the shiny is bloody hard.
What does it really mean to take something seriously?
Why do we have to take things seriously? Why is it important to be serious about things that are important? Aren’t we dreaming?
Importance is completely subjective. The concept of importance is part of the dream. Seriousness is also part of the dream. I interpret “taking something seriously” as giving something more importance than other things; it’s automatically a relative term.
In terms of actions, taking something seriously means making a decision about how much importance you alot to a specific thing, in relation to the other things in your life. Taking something seriously is acting accordingly to those decisions, too. Perhaps there are things that most humans will consider important, such as nutrition, family, safety, but when it comes down to the day-today, every head is a different world.
I’m trying to think about how this relates to powerful ideas…
Powerful ideas are powerful only if people take them seriously. If a lot of people accept that something is more important than other things (such as education, for example), then change is possible. Is that a new powerful idea? That seriousness becomes determination, and determination becomes change in the world?
The Mayan Shell
I wake up with the sun. The air smells fresh and dewey. I smell tortillas cooking outside; the women are up.
I eat tortillas and I drink cocoa. I haven’t slept very well in weeks. I’ve been struggling with a concept, a mathematical concept. The answer is close. I can feel it just behind my eyes, inside my forehead, and above my nose. It’s a symbol. It will solve big problems, big numbers.
One dot represents one unit. Two dots represent two units. A line represents five units. Three lines and four dots represent nineteen units. That’s simple enough. But this cannot go on forever, can it? There are an infinite number of stars; we cannot count them all. But even if we could, how could we ever finish writing down that many dots?
After nineteen there is twenty. Twenty is a good number… a solid number. Easy to understand. What if we wrote a dot, and then a symbol for twenty? Perhaps a shell? One unit of twenty, a system based on twenty.
But why twenty? Is it possible to keep inventing symbols for larger and larger numbers? What kinds of things require such large counts? Not the ears of corn in a basket, but definitely all the stars in the sky.
I find some sticks, some pebbles, and a shell from the lakeside. I have been thinking all day, walking around the city. The shell glistens, still a little wet, in the copper red sunset. I am close, I know I am close. A pebble and a shell. Twenty. But what if I take the pebble away? What remains? No units of twenty?
My mind tightens in a knot. No units of twenty, that’s impossible! Or is it…? Should there be something… a symbol… for nothingness?
I chuck the shell back into the lake, chuckling. A symbol for nothingness… who could wrap their mind around that?
Brain Barf
What does it mean to take something seriously?
To be diligent is to take something seriously. It was a common theme in both readings. Doing something consistently in order to improve is a worthy pursuit in itself. I believe that this is part of the foundation of a good education.
The more interesting question is how do we get people inspired and motivated enough to take something seriously. Here are some ways that could help achieve this.
One is vision. I would say “dream,” but it would be different from “the dream” we have been talking about throughout this class (wouldn’t it?). The times in my life that I have been most inspired are when a clear vision has been communicated. The idea that I could help build an organization that uses technology to connect teachers to with people who want to help inspired me to quit my job and work at that organization. Similarly, the best teaching I have experienced usually mean emphasizes the new possibilities that can result from the learning itself. This is a crucial element of the “lightly guided” education that Alan talks about.
Another is necessity. In Atul Gawande’s book, he tells stories about the dire situations of those who work in medicine in India. Out of necessity, cutting edge surgical techniques were born. If we create environments and situations where it is necessary to learn, we may inspire diligence. There are also obvious downsides to this. For example, in the current education system, achieving high test scores can be seen as a type of necessity. While this does inspire people to be diligent, it is not ideal.
In addition to diligence, the other elements that Gawande talks about in his book, ingenuity and doing right, are also important parts of a good education. His five tips for being a ‘positive deviant’ are simple steps that form the basis of a good education as well. These are all aspects of taking something seriously.
Brain Barf #11 – Swan Song
One of the things that stood out to me most in Alan’s e-mails is when he said, “the complete accident of winding up in that research community was the luckiest thing that ever happened to me.” This is resonated with me because I feel like it’s quite similar to my own experience. While for me it was no accident that I ended up at ITP, I have no doubt that it’s been the best decision I’ve ever made.
I’ve been going through this phase where I’ve been framing and reflecting on my experiences here, as my time here is beginning to draw to a close, and I was also recently asked by one of my classmates from undergrad what I think the value of coming to ITP was. It’s true that for me that’s perhaps not as easy of a question as for others here, because I already came into the program knowing the design and technical skills that most others don’t learn until they get here, so skill acquisition plays a much larger role in their experiences here than in mine. But I think for me it’s been a question of acquiring the confidence that I can do the things that I want to do.
The consequence of my undergrad experiences, being the black sheep in both the Design and Computer Science departments at CMU, is that I graduated undergrad feeling like I wasn’t capable of doing the things I wanted to do. I started applying for jobs and I would always sell myself short, assuming that I didn’t have the skills or relevant experience, going for the easiest ones that seemed most within reach, but nowhere within reach of where I wanted to be going. I felt so incredibly beaten down (and that seemed so ironic, since I’d thought the entire time that I was pursuing my dreams)…
The thing is, while I was in undergrad, I didn’t really understand the importance of community — the kind of collaborative, supportive culture like we have at ITP. It’s difficult to say if that was my fault or not — in some sense, how could I have known the importance of community when I had never experienced it? How then would I know to look for it? But eventually the absence of support and my own lack of confidence drove me to the decision that I wasn’t ready to go out into the real world, and that I wanted to come to ITP instead. And now I know what I was missing, and Alan’s words really ring true.
So essentially, great ideas are born in communities of thinkers and makers who support one another. I wonder whether that was also the case for all of the powerful idea thinkers of the past, but then again — look at Plato and Socrates and Aristotle and their philosopher schools, their disciples. Millennia ago and even they understood. It could almost be another human universal. It certainly seems to be the rule and not the exception.
In any case, to answer Nancy’s question of “what does it mean to take something seriously” — I think the answer is to find a community of people who also take the same thing seriously, or who take things that are very similar or strongly complementary seriously. You’re much more likely to find a solution to the problem you’re trying to solve when you’re working together, or when you at least have a group of people supporting and inspiring you.
Another way of putting that would be “finding the ITP for you” — the same sense of community we have here, but tailored more specifically to what you want to do. I think that’s what most of us who graduate from here would like to do. I know, now, that that’s what I aim to do.
Barf No. 10 – Progress
Often times, we talk about “progress” as if we know which direction is good. But what resonates with me is when Alan talks about finding “the attitude and perspectives to be profoundly dissatisfied without plunging into the immobility of depression.” I begin to question the direction of what we call progress, and try to find hints of direction that better support some greater goal. But when we come to what we call the practical questions, these concerns arise again.
For example, one would assume it’s “progress” to figure out how to get people to exercise and limit their appetite for sugar. Or maybe it’s “progress” to design a substance that is sweet, burns calories and is full of vitamins. These things are, I guess, progress. But each solution would bring about a whole new set of questions — in this case, questions about overpopulation. And as someone said in class, problems like overpopulation and environmental preservations are only real concerns because it affects our well-being. So the purpose of our lives is what? To continue living? To feel sensation?
Now, much of this course has focused on redirecting what masses of humans are universally disposed to do — what we’re calling “human universals,” which often lead to poor societal results. But often times, we talk about these things — like improving education — without truly understanding why we need to change these systems. We just assume what is good and bad, but we’re so afraid to spiral down into root causes of these so-called problems. We say things like, “It will inevitably lead to a dead end, so this discussion is useless.” In our previous class, we began talking about science, religion and the individual — and, inevitably, we got to the point where we said, “If we’re all purely physical matter, then there is no individual.”
But the alternative is, perhaps, talking about these very practical things and thinking of powerful ideas in these safe, fenced-in fields.
A few years ago in baseball, there was a huge shift in thinking among executives in terms of using statistics. Previously, baseball decisions were often made by the “gut” and with basic statistics that lacked rigor. But the sabermetrics movement took hold and executives began hiring full-time statisticians to advise them on what moves to make. In fact, several of these math nerds ended up being hired at general managers, which would’ve never happened a few decades ago. And all seemed to be right. But then these guys began to get fired because they weren’t winning, and the question was: Why wasn’t it working? And the answer seemed to be that these people were using advanced statistics because it was supposedly a more accurate way of measuring the game. However, not everyone realized *why* it was a more accurate way of measuring the game — and why this approach offered an advantage. And that’s why these teams struggled when everyone began using the same methods of player evaluation. Currently, teams are having a tough time finding ways to get an upper hand, because their advanced statistics aren’t finding them better players any more. Very few people understand that, really, what made advanced statistics magical in this context is that it found a way to predict player performance (as related to wins) better than everyone else. There has yet to be an innovation that does the same; we’re still stuck on those stats.
So this is a very long way of saying: Perhaps we miss out on the true richness of an idea if we focus just on innovative methods. Perhaps the true richness — and the real powerful ideas — are about understanding why those things work, and how they connect. I’ve been inspired by the way Alan relates his ideas to so many different fields of study. Often times, our thinking is limited by the way we’ve arbitrarily decided to split up disciplines in higher education. But, if nothing else, he’s taught me how to critically think about ideas by looking at causations and how they relate to humans, not just on some psychological level, but also on a physiological level. It has pushed me to think beyond the “I feel” and “I think” statements.
Maybe taking something seriously is just that. We tend to feel or think a lot of things. We tend to learn plenty of skills and habits which may be useful to our lives. But when we take something seriously, it’s not about usefulness, but about sheer curiosity and maybe about understanding what progress is in that field — and why it is progression. Yet in the end, I still wonder whether we can universally define progress — not just as humans, but what progress is to the universe. It still paralyzes me, though maybe that’s not always a bad thing.
BRAIN BARF
The bike would still catch on today if it was newly invented. However its adoption rate would be severely slower than the recent Razor Scooter craze.
Kids unable to drive would certainly latch on to any sort of transporation device, and of the other, easier to learn things such as roller skates and scooters. They are much less efficient than a bike and when it comes to transit machines requiring effort the efficiency should outweigh the cost of learning. Though there is a great difference between a bike and a computer, or a scooter and an iPad. Bikes can be used for physical transportation. Cars can do this too, but you need a license and cars are more expensive and take up more room. Kids and people living in cities would be more likely to learn the bicycle to get around than spend the money or wait the years to obtain a car.
Bikes offer transit as a utility and accomplish this better than other methods that require physical exertion. The utility of a computer, as compared to the iPad, is much greater but also is not as necessary or relevant to much of the computer-buying population. It is the relevance and motivation that are more important than interface or capability of a device. If a user doesn’t believe they need or want to do something they won’t try to figure out how to do so. There are plenty of people who before the existence of a tablet device did not use their computers for anything more than tablets now can provide.
Getting someone to want to use their computer or tablet for more than just YouTube is very similar to getting someone to exercise and eat less sugar.
It’s a matter of motivation and desire. Merely making computing or exercise more visually appealing, cheaper, or any sort of tweak to improve the computer the real change needs to be in a person’s desires, a change in behavoir.
Linear and Exponential Learning
It surprised me that many people could not recall if they had self-directed interests outside of the school system as children. I like to imagine that most people, especially at a young age, do have these self-directed interests and they just don’t recognize them as such because the education system and other institutions so strongly define what we consider “productive” activities. And in the case that some people genuinely never develop their own self-directed learning, then I have some advice about how to recognize and start such journeys.
We often use the word “passions” to mean these activities that a person so strongly wants to develop that they can build a fulfilling life around such activities. But I find this word and framing not so useful. You can’t really go out actively “looking for your passion”, as some people try, and if you’ve never experienced the feeling of an enriching activity, you may think that you are passionate about something that really has just been passed down onto you by society.
Instead I’d like to frame the issue of life development around linear versus exponential learning.
In many of the activities we do–by choice and necessity–we never really get better at the activity. Or, if we get better, we only make linear, incremental improvements. Here are some examples of such activities: filling out forms, reading Facebook, reading and sending links, commuting, watching TED talks, making small talk, running errands. I don’t mean to say that these are unproductive or unworthy activities (I do all of them), only that one can only get a little bit better at such activities. You never “level up”.
Contrast with these activities: drawing, playing chess, making costumes, programming, baseball, playing violin, riflery, swimming, performing surgery, reading difficult books, writing, teaching. In these activities, by doing the activity you improve your ability to do the activity. The activity is its own practice. Further, by alternating reflection and practice, you can make exponential progress in learning. With persistence you can truly level up your ability. And although each level presents its own new challenges, there’s really no limit to the ability you can achieve.
The activities themselves do not imply linear or exponential learning. My examples only stem from how I see most people approach these activities. If you applied sociological analysis to reading Facebook you could potentially “level up your Facebook game”. On the other hand you could certainly do the latter activities and never improve if you don’t push yourself to the next level. Further, you must reflect on your practice in order to improve exponentially. Reflection makes all the difference in activities which could be linear or exponential depending on the approach, such as taking photographs, using computer software, or listening to music.
In general, I feel that when people speak of “passions” in the life development sense, they mean any activity where a person is exponentially learning as they perform the activity. I would argue that one needs such practices in order to have a fulfilling life. In my own experience, I find that my phases of depression end at the same time that I begin new exponential activities.
So why do we often spend so much of our time in linear learning mode rather than exponential learning mode?
One reason has to do with how we manage our time. As our schedules fill up, we often end up with only small chunks of free time. That is, we may have a good amount of total free time, but it’s divided into small chunks. In general, linear activities don’t take too much time and we use them to fill up these small chunks.
Exponential activities often take a longer time to engage in. They require an uninterrupted session of attention, usually ranging between half an hour to 3 hours. Further, the exponential curve has a slow start. If you start playing chess or violin you will not be very good at it at first. You need to get past this frustrating slow period before the exponential curve overtakes the linear curve. On a smaller scale, this is also the reason that exponential activities require longer sessions of attention; the first half hour is ramping up the slow part of the curve. On a larger scale, exponential activities will not immediately be useful in your life (say as a job skill) until you begin developing mastery (i.e. getting past the ramp).
So exponential activities require a time and energy (attention) commitment at multiple scales. You have to put in the activation energy to get them started and you have to reactivate every time you level up. But once the exponential curve overtakes the linear curve, you get energy that can be used elsewhere in life and in other exponential practices. Each practice complements the others.
Thus I would argue that the ability to recognize and engage in exponential activities is one of the most important values we can grow in ourselves and our children. Rather than telling children which activities and interests they should pursue, we should evaluate a child’s own interests on a case-by-case basis in order to encourage the exponential learning mode.