Archive for January, 2003

Front Page

Tuesday, January 7th, 2003

Reposted from EDGE.


Assume President Bush asked you the following question: ”What are the pressing scientific issues for the nation and the world, and what is your advise on how I can begin to deal with them?”

Dear President Bush

Steven Pinker

Your father called himself “the education president,” and you have promised new educational policies in which “no child is left behind.” These affirmations of the centrality of education in a modern democracy are admirable. As our economy comes to depend increasingly on technology, and as modern media present us with unprecedented choices – in our lifestyles, our workplaces, and our political commitments – a child who cannot master an ever-increasing body of skills and knowledge will be left farther and farther behind.

Unfortunately, the goals of the Presidents Bush are not being realized. Most debates about education in this country focus on issues of administration: vouchers, charter schools, class size, teachers’ unions, budgets, high-stakes testing. Fewer have focused on the actual process of education: how events in the classroom affect the minds of the pupils. This is an area in which science – in particular, the sciences of mind – can make crucial contributions.

Your immediate predecessor was enthusiastic about applying research on the brain to education and child development. But as exciting as the field of basic neuroscience is, I suspect it will provide few insights into the process of education. All learning must change the brain, but the changes at the level of brain cells are pretty much the same in all complex organisms — including mice, which don’t learn to read, write, or add. It is the patterns of changes across billions of neurons that determine the distinctively human forms of learning that face us in the classroom, and to understand them we need to understand how intact human beings perceive, think, and act. These topics are the province of the sciences of mind, particularly cognitive science, psychology, cognitive neuroscience, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary psychology, must be brought to bear on education in a more systematic way than has happened so far.

First and foremost, we must apply a scientific mindset to the educational process. People outside of the educational establishment are often shocked to learn how little in instructional practice has been evaluated using the standard paraphernalia of social science–control groups, random assignment, data collection, statistics. Instead, classroom practice is set by fads, romantic theories, slick packages, and political crusades. We already know that some methods of teaching reading work better than others; we need more of these assessments, and faster implementations of what works into classroom settings.

Second, the sciences of mind can provide a sounder conception of human nature, which ultimately underlies all educational policy. What is the mind of a child inherently good at? What is it bad at? Without answers to such fundamental questions we will be groping at random or plunging headlong in wrong directions. An emerging view is that the human mind is impressively competent at problems that were recurring challenges to our evolutionary ancestors – seeing and moving, speaking and listening, reading emotions and intentions, making friends and influencing people. It is not so good at problems that are far simpler (as gauged by what we can program a computer to do, for example) but which are posed only by a modern way of life: reading and writing, doing mathematical calculations, understanding the world of science or the mechanics of a complex society. If so, this has obvious applications for education, both positive and negative. We should not make false analogies that assume that children can learn to write as easily as they learn to speak, that learning math can be as fun as learning to run and throw, or that children in groups will learn to do science as readily as they learn to exchange gossip. On the other hand we can try to co-opt the mental faculties that work well (such as understanding how objects fall and roll) and get children to apply them to problems for which they lack natural competence.

Third, we can use an understanding of the mind to set priorities in education at all levels. The goal of education should be to provide students with the cognitive tools that are most important for grasping the modern world and that are most unlike the cognitive tools they are born with. Observers from our best science writers to Jay Leno are frequently appalled by the innumeracy, factual ignorance, and scientific illiteracy of typical Americans. This has implications in countless areas of the public and private spheres – for example, when people fall victim to scam artists and irrational exuberance in their investments, when they squander their money and health on medical and nutritional flim-flam, and when they misunderstand the advantages and disadvantages of a market economy in their political decisions. The obvious cure for these fallacies is enhanced education in relatively new fields such as economics, biology, and probability and statistics. Unfortunately, most high-school and college curricula have barely changed since medieval times, and are barely changeable, because no one wants to be the philistine who seems to be saying that it is unimportant to learn a foreign language, or English literature, or trigonometry, or the classics. But no matter how valuable a subject may be, there are only twenty-four hours in a day, and a decision to teach one subject is also a decision not to teach another one. The question is not whether trigonometry is important, but whether it is more important than statistics; not whether an educated person should know the classics, but whether it is more important for an educated person to know the classics than to know elementary economics. In a world whose complexities are constantly challenging our intuitions, these tradeoffs cannot responsibly be avoided.

Copyright ©2003 Edge


More about Steven Pinker

Front Page

Sunday, January 5th, 2003

We humans face a major crisis, our only solution is to work together.


Working Together

Synergy means working together—creating together as in Co-Creation—laboring together as in Co-Laboration—acting together as in Co-Action and operating together as in Co-Operation.

Co-OPERATION –def–> Operating together to insure that both parties win, and that neither party loses. The negotiation to insure that both parties are helped, and that neither party is hurt.

Cooperation is an old word with lots of different meanings and feelings attached to it. Similar words are uniting, banding, combining, concurring, conjoining, and leaguing. Individuals who cooperate are affiliates, allies, associates, or confederates.

To some cooperation seems a losing word associated with socialism and communism. This is not what I mean. Co-Operation in synergic relationship means operating together to insure a win-win outcome.

Co-Operation is the mechanism of action necessary whenever an individual desires to accomplish a task beyond his individual abilities.

Imagine, you and a friend are moving a heavy piece of furniture. Neither of you are strong enough to move the furniture by yourself. You decide to co-operate. You decide to operate together during the lifting. You would negotiate to insure that both of you win – to insure that both of you are helped.

The conversation might go like this, “Are you ready?” “OK.” “Ready, 1.. 2.. 3.. lift!”, and if things are going well that is fine, but if one end gets too heavy then synergic co-Operation requires that you also protect each other from loss. “Whoops! Set it down.” This is the synergic veto. This is the true meaning of co-Operation. The negotiation to insure that both parties win, and the synergic veto to stop the action if either party is losing.

A very limited form of cooperation exists among some animals. We see it the hunting pride of lions and within the hyena pack. Human co-Operation is a much more powerful mechanism. Animals have no voice with which to negotiate an action in which they win. They have no voice to veto an action in which they lose. Their primitive cooperation is guided by instinct, and it is quick to breakdown into the fighting and flighting of the adversary way.

We humans share the animal body, to survive we must also eat. We are omnivores. We meet our basic needs and survive by eating both plants and animals. Physiologically, we humans are also a dependent class of life. So adversary behavior comes to humans legitimately. But we humans are much more intelligent than the animals and that intelligence gives us the synergic option to avoid fighting or flighting.

True co-Operation – working together, teamwork, joint effort, alliances – these are only possible to a life form with symbolic intelligence – to a life form with a voice and with language – to a life form able to negotiate and veto. On earth, synergic relationships are only available only to humans.

Synergic relationship means sometimes I depend on other and sometimes other depends on me. Synergic relationship makes humans the interdependent class of life – interdependent on each other.

The goal of synergic union is to accomplish a larger or more difficult task by working together than can be accomplished by working separately.

We invite individuals of integrity to join us in solving those problems presently threatening our human society. We are seeking those humans committed to co-Creating a world where I win, you win, others win and the Earth wins, win-win-win-win.

If we wish to make the Earth safe for ourselves and our children, we must solve our problems. But today’s problems are much too large to be solved by any one individual, no matter how talented or brilliant he or she might be. We need a community of minds whose mission is to solve humanity’s big problems through co-Creation, co-Laboration, co-Action and co-Operation. It is a complete waste of time to expect big government, big business, or big religion to help us. They are the problem. They are invested in a model of society that depends on separation and scarcity. We need individuals of integrity to join with us to build a new model of society that generates co-Operation and abundance.

Working together, we humans can solve our problems. We can organize a synergic thinktank to focus on those problems. We can use a system of “Open co-Laboration” modeled after the “Open Source Software Community” used to create Linux. This is well described by Eric Steven Raymond in his seminal paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

The SusCom website and SusCom EZ-Board will act as a virtual meeting places to  co-Ordinate a growing group of Co-Laborators who will join together in proposing, defining, and refining solution candidates created to address various aspects of the problems facing humanity.

All decisions in the Synergic Solutions projects will be made using Synergic Consensus. This is an advanced method of decision making that is beyond democracy.

Anyone may join the development group by simply proposing a way to make a developing solution candidate work better, or identifying a problem with a developing solution candidate, or repairing an already identified problem. In other words, help us help you.

The quality and power of our developing solutions candidates will grow as the best suggestions are incorporated into our model solutions. Any “bugs” in these solution candidates will be fixed or removed. When no more improvements can be found and all bugs have been repaired, the solution candidate will mature to graduate status. At that point it will be promoted from the Candidate list to the ACTION list.

Solutions on the ACTION list will be made completely available to the public, and the public will be encouraged to begin using those solutions immediately. The solutions will be released as TrustWare and protected by TrustMark. This will open up a revenue stream for the project which will benefit Synergic Solutions, the development teams, our users, humanity and the Earth. Again, win-win-win-win.

With your help, we can develop viable solutions to some of the largest problems challenging our species. As we post our solutions on the internet, humanity will beat a path to our door. What better way to attract individuals of integrity than by solving those problems that threaten everyone on the planet and for which no one else has an answer.

Hopefully, our projects here at SusCom will attract an evergrowing group of individuals of integrity committed to solving many of the problems threatening our human species. But this, like all journeys, will begin with a single step.

After much thought and reflection,  I propose we focus our initial attention on solving one of the largest problems  presently threatening humanity. That problem is the fossil fuel depletion crisis and I designate it as Problem # 1. The mission of this project is the co-Creation of  Sustainable Communites.

Bound through synergy,

Timothy Wilken, MD 


“We must all hang together,
or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

—Attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Front Page

Friday, January 3rd, 2003

Leader-Follower

Dee Hock

Leader presumes follower. Follower presumes choice. One who is coerced to the purposes, objectives, or preferences of another is not a follower in any true sense of the word, but an object of manipulation. Nor is the relationship materially altered if both parties accept dominance and coercion. True leading and following presume perpetual liberty of both leader and follower to sever the relationship and pursue another path. A true leader cannot be bound to lead. A true follower cannot be bound to follow. The moment they are bound, they are no longer leader or follower. The terms leader and follower imply the freedom and independent judgment of both. If the behavior of either is compelled, whether by force, economic necessity, or contractual arrangement, the relationship is altered to one of superior/subordinate, management/employee, master/servant, or owner/slave. All such relationships are materially different than leader-follower.

Induced behavior is the essence of leader-follower. Compelled behavior is the essence of all the others. Where behavior is compelled, there lies tyranny, however benign. Mere behavior is induced, there lies leadership, however powerful. Leadership does not imply constructive, ethical, open conduct. It is entirely possible to induce destructive, malign, devious behavior and to do so by corrupt means. Therefore, a clear, meaningful purpose and compelling ethical principles evoked from all participants should be the essence of every relationship, and every institution.

A compelling question is how to ensure that those who lead are constructive, ethical, open, and honest. The answer is to follow those who will behave in that manner. It comes down to both the individual and collective sense of where and how people choose to be led. In a very real sense, followers lead by choosing where to be led. Where a community will be led is inseparable from the conscious, shared values and beliefs of the individuals of which it is composed.

True leaders are those who epitomize the general sense of the community — who symbolize, legitimize, and strengthen behavior in accordance with the sense of the community — who enable its conscious, shared values and beliefs to emerge, expand, and be transmitted from generation to generation-who enable that which is trying to happen to come into being. The true leader’s behavior is induced by the behavior of every individual who chooses where they will be led.

The important thing to remember is that true leadership and induced behavior can be constructive or destructive, but have an inherent tendency to good, while tyranny and compelled behavior have an inherent tendency to evil.

Over the years, I have frequently had long, unstructured discussions with hundreds of groups of people at every level in diverse organizations about any subject of concern to them. The conversations most often gravitate to management; either aspirations to it, dissatisfaction with it, or confusion about it. To avoid ambiguity, I ask each person to describe the single most important responsibility of any manager. The incredibly diverse responses always have one thing in common. All are downward looking. Management inevitably has to do with exercise of authority — with selecting employees, motivating them, training them, appraising them, organizing them, directing them, controlling them. That perception is mistaken.

The first and paramount responsibility of anyone who purports to manage is to manage self, one’s own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts. It is a complex, never-ending, incredibly difficult, oft-shunned task. Management of self is something at which we spend little time and rarely excel precisely because it is so much more difficult than prescribing and controlling the behavior of others. Without management of self, no one is fit for authority, no matter how much they acquire. The more authority they acquire the more dangerous they become. It is the management of self that should have half of our time and the best of our ability. And when we do, the ethical, moral, and spiritual elements of managing self are inescapable.

Asked to identify the second responsibility of any manager, again people produce a bewildering variety of opinions, again downward-looking. Another mistake. The second responsibility is to manage those who have authority over us: bosses, supervisors, directors, regulators, ad infinitum. In an organized world, there are always people with authority over us. Without their consent and support, how can we follow conviction, exercise judgment, use creative ability, achieve constructive results, or create conditions by which others can do the same? Managing superiors is essential. Devoting a quarter of our time and ability to that effort is not too much.

Asked for the third responsibility, people become a bit uneasy and uncertain. Yet, their thoughts remain on subordinates. Mistaken again. The third responsibility is to manage one’s peers — those over whom we have no authority and who have no authority over us — associates, competitors, suppliers, customers — the entire environment, if you will. Without their support, respect, and confidence, little or nothing can be accomplished. Peers can make a small heaven or hell of our life. Is it not wise to devote at least a fifth of our time, energy, and ingenuity to managing peers?

Asked for the fourth responsibility, people have difficulty coming up with an answer, for they are now troubled by thinking downward. However, if one has attended to self, superiors, and peers, there is little else left. The fourth responsibility is to manage those over whom we have authority. The common response is that all one’s time will be consumed managing self, superiors, and peers. There will be no time to manage subordinates. Exactly! One need only select decent people, introduce them to the concept, induce them to practice it, and enjoy the process. If those over whom we have authority properly manage themselves, manage us, manage their peers, and replicate the process with those they employ, what is there to do but see they are properly recognized, rewarded, and stay out of their way? It is not making better people of others that management is about. It’s about making a better person of self. Income, power, and titles have nothing to do with that.

The obvious question then always erupts. How do you manage superiors-bosses, regulators, associates, customers? The answer is equally obvious. You cannot. But can you understand them? Can you persuade them? Can you motivate them? Can you disturb them, influence them, forgive them? Can you set them an example? Eventually the proper word will emerge. Can you lead them?

Of course you can, provided only that you have properly led yourself. There are no rules and regulations so rigorous, no organization so hierarchal, no bosses so abusive that they can prevent us from behaving this way. No individual and no organization can prevent such use of our energy, ability, and ingenuity. They may make it more difficult, but they can’t prevent it. The real power is ours, not theirs.

There is an immense difficulty in this perception of things. Failure is constant and certain. If one’s conduct, intelligence, and effort are deficient, as at times they inevitably must be, it is a failure of the first magnitude. If one fails to gain the confidence, consent, and support of superiors, it is a failure of the second magnitude. If one is subverted by peers, dominated by competitors, or hamstrung by mindless regulators, it is a failure of the third magnitude. If those over whom we have authority are not induced to understand, accept, and practice the concept, it is a failure of the fourth magnitude. One must look to self for every failure.

At first, it seems an impossible burden to bear. Upon reflection, it is neither to be dreaded nor feared. It is no burden at all. Success, while it may provide encouragement, build confidence, and be joyful indeed, often teaches an insidious lesson-to have too high an opinion of self. It is from failure that amazing growth and grace so often come, provided only that one can recognize it, admit it, learn from it, rise above it, and try again. There is no reason to be discouraged by shortcomings. True leadership presumes a standard quite beyond human perfectibility, and that is quite all right, for joy and satisfaction are in the pursuit of an objective, not in its realization. The only question of importance is whether one constantly rises in the scale.

It is easy to test this concept. Reflect a moment on group endeavors of which you are an observer rather than participant. If your interest runs to ballet, you can undoubtedly recall when the corps seemed to rise above the individual ability of each dancer and achieve a magical, seemingly effortless performance. If your interest runs to sports, the same phenomenon is apparent. Teams whose performance transcends the ability of individuals. The same phenomenon can be observed in the symphony, the theater, in fact, every group endeavor, including business and government.

Every choreographer, conductor, and coach, or for that matter, corporation president, has tried to distill the essence of such performance. Countless others have tried to explain, and reduce to a mechanistic, measurably controlled process, that which causes the phenomenon. It has never been done and it never will be. It is easily observed, universally admired, and occasionally experienced. It happens, but cannot be deliberately done. It is rarely long sustained but can be repeated. It arises from the relationships and interaction of those from which it is composed. Some organizations seem consistently able to do so, just as some leaders seem able to cause it to happen with consistency, even within different organizations.

To be precise, one cannot speak of leaders who cause organizations to achieve superlative performance, for no one can cause it to happen. Leaders can only recognize and modify conditions that prevent it; perceive and articulate a sense of community, a vision of the future, a body of principle to which people can become passionately committed, then encourage and enable them to discover and bring forth the extraordinary capabilities that lie trapped in everyone struggling to get out.

Without question, the most abundant, least expensive, most underutilized, and constantly abused resource in the world is human ingenuity. The source of that abuse is mechanistic, Industrial Age, dominator concepts of organization and the management practices they spawn.

In the deepest sense, distinction between leaders and followers is meaningless. In every moment of life, we are simultaneously leading and following. There is never a time when our knowledge, judgment, and wisdom are not more useful and applicable than that of another. There is never a time when the knowledge, judgment, and wisdom of another are not more useful and applicable than ours. At any time that “other” may be superior, subordinate, or peer.

Everyone is a born leader. Who can deny that from the moment of birth they were leading parents, siblings, and companions? Watch a baby cry and the parents jump. We were all born leaders; that is, until we were compelled to go to school and taught to be managed and to manage.

People are not “things” to be manipulated, labeled, boxed, bought, and sold. Above all else, they are not “human resources.” They are entire human beings, containing the whole of the evolving universe, limitless until we start limiting them. We must examine the concept of leading and following with new eyes. We must examine the concept of superior and subordinate with increasing skepticism. We must examine the concept of management and labor with new beliefs. And we must examine the nature of organizations that demand such distinctions with an entirely different consciousness.

It is true leadership; leadership by everyone; leadership in, up, around, and down this world so badly needs, and dominator management it so sadly gets.

Copyright ©1999 by Dee Hock
 

The above text is quoted from: Dee Hock’s Birth of the Chaortic Age, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, 1999. You can buy his book in most bookstores or on the net. He is affiliated with a very interesting group of humans at: http://www.chaordic.org/

Front Page

Thursday, January 2nd, 2003

This essay is an excerpt from a little book called Harmony, which I highly recommend. 


A Story about Partnership

Arthur Noll

A person riding a donkey illustrates partnership, very well.  The donkey has excellent senses, and has instinct to listen to those senses.  The donkey doesn’t suffer fools who don’t listen to signs of possible danger.  It stops at such signs, and no persuasion short of threatened death will convince it to advance into the death it senses ahead.  It is master of the event. The person riding a donkey is going to be a partner, or they aren’t going anywhere together.  Force a donkey too much, and it will end up looking for a chance to kick you in the head, or run away.  But if a person is willing to listen, a donkey is also willing to listen.  If no danger is sensed ahead, the donkey will concede to carry you forward.  People have liked horses better than donkeys, because while horses also want partnership, they aren’t so conservative about fears down the road.  Horses have evolved to outrun any danger down the road, and this fits nicely with the instincts of people, who also feel like they can outrun, outfight, and outsmart anything they meet up with.  A human riding a horse makes a good  metaphor of instinctive leadership leading instinctive people.  A human on a donkey makes a good metaphor of how leadership rationally should be.

If you deal long enough with a real donkey, you will sometimes find that their instincts are incredibly stupid, as instincts often are.  The problems with instincts are most obvious when the animal is taken out of the environment where the instincts evolved, and put in another environment.  Donkeys, for example, evolved in dry climates.  Water sources in such places are predator traps, as many animals must go to drink at these specific spots.  Water puts donkeys on high alert for danger.  To step in mud around a place where predators lurk, is an instinctively dangerous thing to do, since even being slowed by a step can be the difference between life and death.  If you take a donkey out of its dry climate, and put it in a place where water is abundant, and try to ride it anywhere, good luck to you.

A person living in a dry climate might look to the hills, and see a mighty storm going on, and on, and reason tells him to get out of the low lands, get to higher ground, because a flood will be sweeping along rather soon.  The donkey is saddled, and away they go, until they come to a small stream that is running, a warning of what is to come, and lo, the stupid donkey will not cross.  It is not a time to bend to instinct.  You tie a strong rope across the stream to the beast, get behind it with your staff, and let it know that you will kill it, if it doesn’t go.  A drowned donkey is no good to you, and doesn’t do itself much good either.  Given such a choice, most donkeys will go, and they go before they get seriously hurt, too.  The death in the stream is only a chance, after all, while the pain behind them is quite real.  They don’t get out paper and pencil and calculate the odds.  It is just a reality that they have evolved with.  If a lion were behind them, a donkey that feared the stream more than the lion would die, while one that crossed might live.

We have a barrier to cross, a dramatic shift in our lives in the kind of society we live in.  I want to roar like the lion, and ask who out there wants to compete with me for leadership on these things?  Who has better ideas, and specifically why are they better?  I look to scientists, whether they have advanced education or not, and they are tied across the stream by their belief in rational thought.  I would hit you from behind, calling you fools to not see, threaten to kill your reputation and livelihood as scientists, pull in the logic,  point by point, like a powerful winch fastened to the rope.  If you are like the donkey, you will come.  Reluctantly, braying, a tentative kick or two, but you come.  If you are like the wild zebra, you take no direction from me, but fight madly the rope, kick wildly at me, break the line of rational thought with claims of mysticism, or of the infinite cleverness of technologists, and run away to drown.