How To Break Anything

Innovation + experience-minded design strategy. The pieces of a working model for understanding culture + change in an increasingly complex world.

  • About
  • Weak Signals
  • nanotrends & links
    • 0
      13 Sep 2011

      Music Kombat iPad App Pits Musicians Against Each Other

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Music Kombat techcrunch sf disrupt

      Competition is a powerful force. Do you really think those weenies who spent 10,000 hours perfecting their Guitar Hero chops would have done it if it wasn’t a game? No way.

      Applying similar logic to the art of playing real music, Music Kombat, one of the music hacks demonstrated at the TechCrunch Disrupt SF Hackathon, lets two instrumentalists (or, we assume, singers) match wits by seeing who can sightread segments of a piece of popular music the best.

      “Music Kombat is a music app that teaches and reinforces note recognition and sight reading,” explained the group’s spokesman, who then plucked out a few notes on a ukelele. (The group included Kenneth Ballenegger, Brandon Goldman, Joselle Ho, and Jonathan Nesvadba.) ”Musicians hone their skills by competing with other players. I’ll be competing against my friend, Ken. I’m going to be Ziggy Stardust and he’s going to be Mrs. Robinson.”

      Indeed, the game includes cartoonish avatars culled from the annals of popular music, which is a nice touch. To play, each player looks at notes on an oversized musical staff on their own iPad and tries to play each one in order. The iPad 2′s microphone picks up the sound and compares it against the notes.

      “Notice that as we progress, I’m actually taking away his life, like it’s a fight simulator.”

      via evolver.fm

      Since the angle of Rock Band 3 is that you get a real-ish guitar to learn via gaming, I remember trying it and feeling like something was missing. What I ended up thinking is that what's missing is strategic competition. The kind that Starcraft and Halo players feel when they've intelligently and genuinely outsmarted the other players. I got to wondering if that dynamic could be a part of a music learning game. The above gets close to it.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      13 Dec 2010

      Defining 'epic' through the idea of the Epic Win, points vs strategies

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      I was recently asked to describe and define the concept of "epic." While there are many ways to approach this idea, I first thought of the notion of the Epic Win, likely because of my background playing online games on Xbox Live. I spent a lot of time doing this. Before long, it was crystal clear that what I liked most about online gaming was simply that it gives plenty of opportunites to completly and intelligently outsmart another human. There were certainly ranks and leaderboards and all the classic mechanics in games like Halo, the Splinter Cell series and Rainbow Six 3. But all of that was just filler around the core prospect of facing another thinking being that is constrained by the same set of rules, and understanding the rules (and their implications) deeply enough that victory over opponents became a triumph of wit and resourcefulness.

      An Epic Win coincided often but not always with what the game developers had defined as wins and losses, and was even less related to any visible system of points and rewards. This was most evident in my favorite of the series of games mentioned above - Splinter Cell. The multiplayer element of Splinter Cell (when I was most interested in it) was played between two teams of two players, each side with conflicting goals and related but counterbalanced stregnths/weaknessess. Think of it like "gun-toting brute mercanaries" vs "stealthy, ninja-like spies." This counterbalance took shape in the use of different tools that each side had at it's disposal - environments were almost always very dark and the spies could activate nightvision goggles, but the mercenaries could switch to goggles that visualized electromagnetic frequencies (making any spy using their goggles or any other quipment look like a christmas tree). Mercenaries had sonar equipment running in the background of their heads-up display that notified them of any noise or movement, but spies could employ devices that made artificial noise to throw them off. Spies were fast, but the mercenaries had guns. And so forth.

      Because of this defined complexity, wins in Splinter Cell were almost always epic. In order to reach your goal you had to genuinely outsmart your opponent. The game was built so that each player had many different tools to use along the many routes to the multiple goals; no one combination of the above was ever best in more than one or two conditional permutations. By 'conditional permutations' I mean to express a fundamental truth about what makes a game worth playing:

      Games are about strategies, not points. Strategies lead to points, but points are just the tangible representation of one's choice in strategies. Strategies exist when one has multiple methods with which to collect points, and must choose what they assess will result in the greatest reward. Thus what makes competition fun is not necessarily that you have more points than another player; a competition is fun because you have chosen a strategy that is better than another player's strategy.

      Consider a path where at certain points you are asked a trivia question, which if you get correct you earn 5 points. You could call it a game if you had many people go down this path, and at the end the winner was whoever had the most points, but this doesn't feel much like a game.

      Consider now that at the halfway point there is a fork that splits the path into three, and each of these new options has the potential to win you more or fewer points, depending on various conditions that could be assessed with a little thinking beforehand. This feels more like a game. Winning is no longer about just collecting stuff (points), rather it is now more about assessing conditions and making better decisions accordingly.

      I used to joke about it a lot when playing online games, but what makes a win epic is that it allows you to prove you are smarter than others. This is probably one of those points where you shouldn't get your game design/motivation advice from the self-centered, but it's a deeply satisfying and validating feeling. The ability to collect stuff does not satisfy this; in fact this is one of the reasons leaderboards are only motivating in a very specific, non-epic way.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 1
      24 Nov 2010

      Tangible/intuitive feedback, as illustrated by my broken jump rope

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Img_8316
      Not too long ago I was thinking on how we're limited to acting only in response to tangible/intuitive change we see in the world [see: Epic Win: to-do lists as a game, and how feedback loops are critical to motivation].

      Just this morning roommate brought up the fact that he's been using Epic Win, to which I responded in all seriousness: "oh yeah, I've been thinking of using that."

      I then went out to go jump rope, and had to come back in early because my rope finally broke from wear over the years. 

      I couldn't help but satisfyingly think to myself, "hmm. Talk about tangible feedback." 

      A timely occurrence to help explain what I mean when I say 'tangible/intuitive.' The idea is that when you're jumping rope, you're performing an action that doesn't necessarily manifest itself in something you can intuitively see. The rope is indeed wearing down, but as far as our limited visual capacity is concerned, nothing is happening. The same goes for the weight one loses, of course. We need things like scales and body-measuring tape to make the results more tangible. That, or we feel compelled to craft a system that turns chores that seem like work into numbers and points that seem manageable.

      We're limited to acting only in response to tangible/intuitive change we see in the world. In the case of evaluating the impact of our action (jumping rope) on the world, the reality of the world has indeed changed whether we can perceive it or not, we just need tools to turn that reality into numbers we can understand. Otherwise we feel like our action is a meaningless and uncomfortable waste of time ("why should I keep jumping rope/running/studying this book? I'm not getting anything out of it.").

      This is probably a good time to insert a favorite recent thought of mine, that reality is just reality, and it couldn't care less about what humans think about it. 

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 3
      6 Oct 2010

      Play and exploration: the value of measurement vs the value of gaming

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      The video above is Dan Hon of Weiden+Kennedy London, speaking at the PSFK Conference London last month on the state of gaming and the spread of game mechanics. 

      To paraphrase, Dan notes that we're at a point where we've stumbled onto game mechanics as a way to potentially motivate behavior, and there's a lot of people rushing to implement them as the next layer over reality. But it's not necessarily game mechanics that make a game - what makes something a game is that it is playful and moreover it's fun. Game mechanics layered on top of anything else is gimmicky at best, and distracting/cluttering/dull otherwise.

      In the following, I posit that for as many people are rushing to turn everything into a game, there aren't nearly enough who are comfortable with what it requires to make something playful and fun. 

      Let me being with a couple thoughts on play. The first is a classic definition crafted by Mark Twain, as he explains Tom Sawyer's memorable fence-painting episode:  

      "If [Tom] had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign."

      The second is a thought brought up by Matt Jones at another PSFK Conference London talk, speaking on his experience with interaction design firm BERG and their involvement in projects like Making Future Magic below:

      Making Future Magic: iPad light painting from Dentsu London on Vimeo.

      Matt noted simply that the goal of many of their projects is merely to explore. Just to tinker around with ideas and see what happens. This thought resonates with me as an excellent way to think of play. Taking the thoughts we have so far, we arrive at the conclusion that: 

      1) Games can indeed be motivating 
      2) Motivating games are characterized by playfulness
      3) Play is the freedom from obligation - the freedom to explore without any set goal in mind

      This prospect requires the ability to act without being able to intuitively measure the value of your action, and this is not a talent suited to everyone. Indeed, it's a method many actively oppose. It's easy enough to think of how this applies on the individual level - many people advocate the idea that if you're not actively working towards a goal, then you're wasting your time.

      But it's even more pervasive on the organizational level - how often do you hear of money budgeted to a project with no measurable metrics of success, just because? Organizations like BERG are rare indeed. 

      Measurement is obviously a valuable tool, but it's important to note that it necessarily obligates you to short-term success. I say short-term because measurement is by necessity defined by our ability to intuitively perceive meaningful change, which humans are notoriously unequipped to do.

      In other words, by calculating interest I can easily measure the effect of putting $50 into the bank for 10 years, and say that taking that action was good for me by pointing to those numbers. However, I have a limited cognitive capacity for understanding how using that $50 to buy an insightful book seeds many ideas over 10 years, so I can't say that I can measure the "goodness" of that action. I can look back in retrospect and say that I created groundbreaking change because of being inspired by ideas in that book, but I can't intuitively measure the value of that original $50 purchase.

      If reading a book seems more "playful" than putting money into a bank, it's because it is. Just as institutions of higher education help us understand that reading books that seem to have no practical use do indeed deliver long-term, nebulous value (what we call "education"), games are helping us understand that wonder and exploration unlock goods that are uncovered only in the unmeasurable long-term as well.

      IBM, Jane McGonigal, and plenty of others are helping to bring these ideas to the public mind, as well as a recent favorite: Jessie Schell on The Long Now, talking first on his idea of the Gamepocalypse but later getting into great thoughts on creativity and innovation. 

      Hopefully it's clear that measurement and obligation can be very useful tools. And hopefully it's also clear that gaming, play, and undirected, exploratory behavior can be very useful tools as well. Hopefully with this understanding you're better equipped to think about which is more valuable to you, and when. 
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 4
      29 Aug 2010

      The potential for games to inspire collective action towards a common goal

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Screen_shot_2010-08-29_at_11

      No, Human Gameplay Trailer from woodn on Vimeo.

      The above game No, Human looks interesting because it has this story that's something about doing your part as a human to save humanity (or work to destroy it?? I can't really tell from the above...).

      And as in the screenshot below, the game even collects the total scores from all players over time:

      Screen_shot_2010-08-29_at_11

      There's no indication of this from what I can tell so far, but it would be very interesting to see these points applied to some common, collective goal. Especially considering the backstory, which seems to naturally lend itself to this kind of concept. Imagine a system with normal in-game goals just like any other game, but also meta-level goals where players are working to accomplish something larger through the collective actions of all others playing.

      Perhaps the human race is only saved when a certain number of aliens are destroyed - and individual players can only combat a small number of them on their local copy of the game. I'm picturing a system where each player has a small part of the universe to defend, generated for them upon download; perhaps they can even see where their small piece of the world fits in relationship to other players nearby?

      This reminds me of something I remember hearing a long time ago, regarding Katamari Damacy. If you're not familiar with Katamari Damacy, its a simple game where the goal is to roll a sticky ball (Katamari) over stuff (really, just anything), collecting bigger and bigger stuff as you go on to create a bigger Katamari.
      Beautiful_katamari_2
      When the Xbox Live/PS3 version was in development, I vaguely remember hearing that it would feature some kind of online multiplayer feature where the sum of all players' Katamari sizes would be totalled somewhere. And when that size reached a certain astronomical threshold, some new content would be unlocked. Looking around online I see that the total is collected, but I'm not sure that the unlocking of a new level or other content actually came to fruition.

      I can see this concept also being applied to the above humans vs aliens game to create this sense of collective action with other players, working towards a common meta-goal. Maybe when enough players accomplish some goal a new weapon is available. If there's one thing compelling to humans its the idea of belonging to a group - I expect to see someone innovative to fully take advantage of this to create some kind of compelling collective/social game sometime in the future. 
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 1
      12 Aug 2010

      How immediate feedback drives the rise of game mechanics

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Method Gaming for Behavior Change

      Design experience firm Method has been publishing a series of explorations in human-centered design called 10×10. The most recent installation, Gaming for Behavior Change captures insight into the nature of game mechanics, and how these mechanics engage individuals in ways that are important for all interaction designers to consider. Below are the four critical attributes of games the report covers, alongside my further insight on how these concepts impact design and behavior.

      Make it fun and entertaining. Nintendo’s Wii console engages people in exercise through a new and entertaining game experience. Exercise is a by-product of the experience, which is perceived as play rather than work. Nintendo effectively converted “no pain, no gain” into “have fun, will exercise.”

      Games are an abstraction of reality. As noted in our recent post How Gaming Can Change The World, this abstraction can be precisely what motivates and provides value to individuals. We traditionally think of ‘reality’ as inherently better than ‘gaming’; studies in cognitive science are discovering that this is not necessarily the case.

      Make it competitive for users. Nike+ is a small device that records the distance and pace of a walk or run. Nike+ also allows runners to meet and challenge other runners, ask questions, and give feedback.

      The emergence of social competition is fueled by the availability and sharing of personal data. When personal behaviors are translated into points and digital values, these can be easily tracked and shared and compared with others. The upcoming Epic Win to-do application translates otherwise mundane tasks into points and digital displays; we expect to see this idea evolve into individuals comparing and getting social value out of being the best “doer” among their networks.

      Make it visual. When Toyota began visualizing fuel consumption for drivers in their Prius models, they created a “fuel economy game,” allowing the driver to minimize gas usage with real time information.

      This concept speaks to the idea of “glance-able information” – the idea there is value to be created in making complex information easily understandable and accessible at-a-glance. Manifestations of this range from concept umbrellas like Materous’ Forecast, which gives off a colored glow based on your likelihood of needing it, to foursquare visualizations like Weeplaces that allow individuals to quickly understand their habits and react accordingly.

      Make it rewarding. Research shows that financial rewards are not effective at encouraging sustained, long-term behavior change. Rewards that create social value tied to a meaningful cause are more effective over the long term and have a greater likelihood of encouraging others to do the same.

      The reason rewards are important to motivating behavior is because we need to feel that the actions we will do in the world result in an intuitively linked reaction from the world – an idea sometimes expressed as the feedback loop. Because of the complexity of the world, it is often the case that our actions in reality don’t have any related impact on the world that we can intuitively infer. That is to say, that for simple actions like flipping a switch, we can intuitively see that a light will then come on, but it is less intuitive for us to see how doing something like going to the gym will result in any feedback – the end result takes shape only months or years later. Game mechanics like those captured in Epic Win provide that tangible, immediate feedback for actions that we would normally see no feedback from.

      Gaming for Behavior Change

      [this post originally appeared on psfk.com]

       

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 2
      29 Jul 2010

      Games vs Reality: How Gaming Can Change The World

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Reality Vs. Games- How The Value Of Games Will Change The World

      The following is a collection of research and insights that point to how games are at least as valuable as reality.

      A year ago, games researcher Jane McGonigal developed SuperBetter as a game-based method for recovering from the traumatic brain injury she was suffering from at the time, and has now announced the upcoming launch of a Kickstarter project aimed at funding a published game guide. In the 5-minute video below (and in a longer TED talk here) she gives her take on how games can change behavior and the world.

      Jane’s thesis challenges our notion of what it means to play a “game.” A glance at traditional definitions of “game” will lead the reader to notions of a game as an abstraction of reality (and therefore less valuable than reality) or a mere form of entertainment: games are what children play, reality is what adults engage in.

      Jane argues that it is in fact this very abstraction from reality that makes games valuable. Games can provide an environment where:

      • difficult things are possible, encouraging optimism
      • things are naturally interesting, provoking curiosity
      • players have a sense of agency, providing motivation
      • actions are immediately meaningful, inspiring awe and wonder
      • there are plenty of collaborators ready to tackle complex tasks along with the player, as in MMORPGs, fostering trust and cooperation

      In her other works, Jane goes on to describe how games are in fact developing important skills within societies (and have been, since the advent of dice) - skills that will be critical to overcoming global challenges facing humanity.

      Games as design for the better

      Jane’s charge is in opposition to the idea that reality is the only proper training ground for developing these skills. The primary difference invoked between games and reality is that games are narrated by a designer, while real life is complex and unscripted. Other opponents to the rise of gaming often point to the value of the classroom.

      As for the narration issue, it’s worth noting that to the extent that games are designed and “less than real,” so too is the professor’s lecture. Both can be well designed, constructed for efficiently challenging others towards real learning. Alternatively, either can be a mind-dulling exercise built to captivate people just long enough to accomplish some short-term goal – beating the game or passing a test – doing nothing for long-term or valuable learning.

      In a discussion of how to build systems for understanding the impact of pollution and CO2, professor and game programmer Greg Niemeyer of UC Berkeley talks about the critical difference between telling someone something important – however critical it is – and having them experience the meaning behind it themselves. Games provide an means through which difficult environments can be more directly experienced in this way.

      On the inherent value of reality

      It’s also worth considering the inclination to view reality as a value in itself. This is sometimes based on the complexity of reality as the source of it’s value, as noted above. Kevin Slavin of the game design firm Area/Code has noted that it is again abstraction of reality from complexity to simplicity that shows the value games have, by isolating key concepts. The value of virtual currencies in games like Farmville (”who would pay $1 for a sheep that doesn’t even exist?” is the question often asked) helps illustrate the strong social component of the things people actually value – something doesn’t necessarily need to be tangible and ‘real’ to be valuable.

      More often than not, though, the argument is simply “reality is just better – period.” Psychologist Joanna Starek studies the nature of self-deception, and takes issue with the absolute value of reality, most notably in a Radiolab episode on deception. She primarily studies athletes, finding a relationship between those who are able to perform better than others who are their physiological equals, and their ability to better abstract themselves from reality (as measured by Sackeim & Gur’s classic self-deception test) - in this case, the measurable physiological reality of their ability to perform. In short, the athletes who recognize the reality of potentially over-exerting themselves fall short of their physiological equals – “reality” does not necessarily translate to “better.”

      As we see increasingly more innovators abandon the traditional conception of “games” as subordinate to “reality,” we will see more developments encouraging behavior change for the better through the values McGonigal points to above. These will range from the Epic Win to-do application with individual-level implications to IBM’s CityOne Smarter Planet game with global-scale implications.

      [this post originally appeared on psfk.com]
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      12 Jul 2010

      Epic Win: to-do lists as a game, and how feedback loops are critical to motivation

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Epic Win

      A primary principle in studies of behavior and motivation is the idea of the feedback loop; this basic concept describes a cycle initiated by us engaging in some behavior or action, that action impacting something external, and that external thing responding back to us in a way that we can infer the link between how x action causes y result.

      This principle helps illuminate many manifestations of motivation or behavior (and lack of). As a basic example, many healthy living behaviors result in no feedback that we can causally link in ways that are intuitive to us; the result of living well is “not being unhealthy” – in other words a lack of feedback.

      A similar thing can be said for many of the things we mentally think of as chores. As relatively short-sighted beings, we often have a hard time making that intuitive jump between how the daily tasks we do today translate into long-term value years or even months down the road.

      It is with these principles at work that we see the development and spread of applying game mechanics to more parts of daily life. Epic Win is a app-based task manager that brings elements from the role-playing game world to the daily to-do list. As items are marked off as done, experience points are collected to improve a player’s avatar, turning slow-developing long-term tasks (say the task of working out every day) into discrete and immediate forms of feedback. The user’s selectable character moves along a quest map towards new locations, unlocking items that are sharable on Facebook and Twitter for instant social feedback as well.

      Watch a video explanation below:



      We are seeing the points concept emerge in other disciplines as well. The XP system is something that professor Lee Sheldon of Indiana University has implemented into his courses on game design. Instead of work detracting from a students final evaluation for being wrong, students’ work is translated into experience points that accumulate as learning tasks are accomplished.

      As new ideas develop that attempt to uncover new ways of inspiring better behavior,  we expect them to follow closer to themes of social motivation and immediate feedback loops, and further from the idea of the coldly rational, will-driven individual.

      Epic Win

      [this post originally appeared on psfk.com]

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      8 Mar 2010

      How games/reward mechanisms work, and an interesting perspective on the definition of "game"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      Media_httpcdnwwwcrack_dopgj
      via cracked.com

      5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted

      This article is fascinating and of course hilarious, being Cracked (though I'm not prone to calling these types of things "creepy"...). Some things it calls to mind:

      • Sheena Iyengar's The Art of Choosing, a brief section where she makes a bit of a case analogous to the "you're in a prison" idea of The Matrix
      • Skinner Box? There's an app for that.
      • Seth Godin's Linchpin, and the work culture we've created to indoctrinate employees. From the Cracked article:

      Why do so many of us have that void? Because according to Everything Expert Malcolm Gladwell, to be satisfied with your job you need three things, and I bet most of you don't even have two of them:

      Autonomy (that is, you have some say in what you do day to day);

      Complexity (so it's not mind-numbing repetition);

      Connection Between Effort and Reward (i.e. you actually see the awesome results of your hard work).

       

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      16 Feb 2010

      "Why can't you just *tell* someone about the meaning of something (presumably important)?"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      GS: Why can't you just tell people what the meaning of, say, polluting is?

      GN: You can. It's called propaganda.

      GS: Why shouldn't we use propaganda then? Why do you have to let people discover the meaning of such things for themselves?

      GN: The discovery of radical alternatives happens in smaller steps and in individual minds and hearts. For example, I love baking and I used to do a lot of it in my big old gas oven. Then I put a sensor in my kitchen and learned that a lot of CO2 gets produced. Even after I turn the oven off, hours afterward, CO2 was still sitting in my kitchen to a tune of 2,000 parts per million. The cookies were long gone and I was still sitting in a soup of gas. Once I became aware of that, my wife and I got  a convection oven instead, and now we bake with that. I bake less and the oven is a little smaller, but I don't have a CO2 lake in my kitchen anymore. It became actionable to do less because of harm reduction, essentially.

      via citris-uc.org

      Greg Niemeyer is an artist and game programmer working with interactive art at UC Berkeley. He integrates game mechanics and behavioral economics into projects that get people to change their behavior. I love the above quote from his interview with CITRUS, referencing one of his latest sensor projects that allows people to easily monitor their own air quality.

      We try to force meaning onto people all the time. It's not just called propaganda. It's also called advertising.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • Search

    • Tags

      • perspective
      • value
      • metasocioculture
      • culture
      • long-term thinking
      • decisionmaking
      • offline inspiration
      • cognitive fallacies
      • future
      • time-orientation
      • limitation
      • perception
      • causality
      • definition
      • irrationality
      • art
      • behavioral economics
      • emergence
      • experience
      • exposure
      • observe everything
      • philosophy
      • programming
      • human insight
      • illusion
      • paradox
      • privacy
      • reactionary
      • want
      • worry
      • adaptation
      • advertising
      • behavior
      • design strategy
      • evolution
      • identity
      • metaphors
      • networks
      • optimization
      • shortsightedness
      • social interactions
      • weak signals
      • connections
      • counterintuitive
      • doomsday
      • feedback loops
      • indirect
      • meaning
      • tangible data
      • context
      • glanceable
      • motivation
      • seeming
      • trends
      • utopia
      • cognitive environments
      • complexity
      • control
      • cyborg anthropology
      • gaming
      • happiness
      • human programming
      • information art
      • memory
      • nostalgia
      • rationality
      • scarcity
      • technosocial
      • time
      • timeline
      • Entrepreneur
      • PSEA
      • chronological proportionality
      • classification
      • cultural narratives
      • data
      • deception
      • design thinking
      • filter theory
      • games
      • information theory
      • intelligence
      • levels of abstraction
      • linguistic programming
      • metaphysics
      • nonlinear
      • optimaization
      • organization
      • patina
      • pattern recognition
      • truth
      • wisdom
      • wonder
      • youth
      • Artist
      • MTurk
      • ROI
      • Scientist
      • adversity
    • Archive

      • 2012 (15)
        • February (2)
        • January (13)
      • 2011 (188)
        • December (14)
        • November (6)
        • October (6)
        • September (9)
        • August (9)
        • July (26)
        • June (21)
        • May (12)
        • April (17)
        • March (21)
        • February (25)
        • January (22)
      • 2010 (214)
        • December (22)
        • November (14)
        • October (8)
        • September (7)
        • August (13)
        • July (17)
        • June (16)
        • May (16)
        • April (22)
        • March (36)
        • February (31)
        • January (12)
      • 2009 (95)
        • December (6)
        • November (9)
        • October (9)
        • September (8)
        • August (6)
        • July (2)
        • June (9)
        • May (17)
        • April (7)
        • March (8)
        • February (7)
        • January (7)
      • 2008 (47)
        • December (10)
        • November (12)
        • October (7)
        • September (7)
        • August (4)
        • July (3)
        • May (1)
        • April (1)
        • March (1)
        • January (1)
      • 2007 (4)
        • October (1)
        • September (3)
    • Contributors

      Kyle Cameron Studstill
    • Obox Design
  • How To Break Anything

    Hello friends and collaborators. I deal in innovation, working to build fantastic experiences enabled by the digital world. As part of this I track cultural change, primarily through observations guided by models and filters calibrated over years to sort out the cream.

    These pieces of thoughts here reflect concepts that are elements of those models: ecosystem thinking, long-term value, information filters, and pattern recognition.

    ("How to break anything" is an abstract notion that reflects my background in observation and analysis. Rules are meant to be broken, but only through understanding the rules - observing them with an empathetic eye - can they be broken constructively.

    So how to break anything? Observe everything.

    [You can't observe everything so how do you know what to observe? That's another project that I call Filter Theory - see the About link above.])

    254066 Views
  • Get Updates

    Follow this Space »
    You're following this Space (Edit)
    You're a contributor here (Edit)
    This is your Space (Edit)
    Follow by email »
    Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.
    Loading...
    Subscribe via RSS
    TwitterFacebook