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
      29 Jul 2011

      a flavor of Chronological Proportionality, from "Why The Concept of 'Technology' Is Dangerous"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      We amplify the hazardous character of the concept by investing it with agency—by using the word technology as the subject of active verbs. Take, for example, a stock historical generalization such as: “the cotton-picking machine transformed the southern agricultural economy and set off the Great Migration of black farm workers to northern cities.” Here we tacitly invest a machine with the power to initiate change, as if it were capable of altering the course of events, of history itself. By treating these inanimate objects—machines—as causal agents, we divert attention from the human (especially socioeconomic and political) relations responsible for precipitating this social upheaval. Contemporary discourse, private and public, is filled with hackneyed vignettes of technologically activated social change— pithy accounts of “the direction technology is taking us” or “changing our lives.”
      via etc.technologyandculture.net

      I see this as related to Frank Gavin's notion of Chronological Proportionality, which he describes in Five Ways To Use History Well: http://longnow.org/seminars/02010/jul/12/five-ways-use-history-well/

      Misattributing chronological proportionality to tangible events is the danger of underestimating the complexity of information and impacts.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      26 Jul 2011

      Some information decays beautifully

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      Shanghai: button patina

      An at-a-glance understanding of which buttons are pressed most, based on the patina of the two left-most options – at the Shanghai customs checkpoint.

      via janchipchase.com

      Patina is a long-term, indirect, emergent notion - the idea of aesthetic decay. Many things today are designed for perfection (perfection in the short term, at least), which is quite a direct, linear mode of thought. Jan Chipchase points to an unintentional example of patina above; Tom Armitage over at BERG is at the following on the value of imperfect design: http://berglondon.com/blog/2010/09/03/patina/

      Patina is a notion that in many ways can apply only to physical objects, but perhaps information is similar in some way. Not that information decays, but its value does change over time to become context. My metaphors may turn out to be a bit mixed, but for now I'm thinking that information decays towards the more abstract notion of context, in the way that aesthetic objects decay towards the more abstract notion of having "character."

      Some information decays beautifully.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      16 Jun 2011

      Douglass Rushkoff on the long-term evolution of short-term thinking

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      How does the Internet change the way I think? It puts me in the present tense. It's as if my cognitive resources are shifted from my hard drive to my RAM. That which is happening right now is valued, and everything in the past or future becomes less relevant.

      The Internet pushes us all toward the immediate. The now. Every inquiry is to be answered right away, and every fact or idea is only as fresh as the time it takes to refresh a page...

      This is not a bias of the Internet itself, but of the way it has changed from an opt-in activity to an "always on" condition of my life. The bias of medium was never towards real-time activity, but towards time shifting. Unix, the operating system of the Net, doesn't work in real time. It sits and waits for human commands. Likewise, early Internet forums and bulletin boards were discussions users returned to at their convenience. I dropped in the conversation, then came back the next evening or next week to see how it had developed. I took the time to consider what I might say — to contemplate someone else's response. An Internet exchange was only as rich as the amount of time I allowed to pass between posts.

      Once the Internet changed from a resource at my desk into an appendage chirping from my pocket and vibrating on my thigh, however, the value of depth was replaced by that of immediacy masquerading as relevancy. This is why Google is changing itself from a search engine to a "live" search engine, why email devolved to SMS and blogs devolved to tweets. It's why schoolchildren can no longer engage in linear arguments, why narrative structure collapsed into reality TV, why and why almost no one can engage in meaningful dialogue about long-term global issues. It creates an environment where a few incriminating emails between scientists generate so more news than our much slower but more significant climate crisis...

      — Douglas Rushkoff, THE INTERNET MAKES ME THINK IN THE PRESENT TENSE (Part of the Edge.org roundtable "How Has The Internet Changed The Way You Think?" via Stowe Boyd

      via rhizome.org

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 1
      9 Jun 2011

      A type of change blindness that distinguishes "microtrends" from "macrotrends"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      Google's search for future profit targets the Sun, not just the cloud
      Published on Teradome. | shared via feedly
      Google's search for future profit targets the Sun, not just the cloud:

      These humble-looking contraptions were revealed in a Google patent application for a “heliostat control system” that automatically adjusts solar thermal mirrors to their optimal energy-harvesting angle. […] Sound like a strange distraction for an Internet company?

      Nope. Internet doesn’t exist without power. Therefore, Google should have an interest in the energy industry.

       

      Imagine for a moment that you, ten years ago, started thinking about a world in which the major players were competing on the level not of their products but of their ecosystems. Then enters Apple/Google/Facebook.

      The "who would have seen Apple and Facebook and Google being so influential back in 2001" point is now something we're familiar with. But back then it would seem a bit unfamiliar. Another idea that would seem a bit unfamiliar is a world 10 years in the future in which the major players compete again not based on their products or even their ecosystems of apps and data and developers, but the surrounding industries that provide resources and power as alluded to above.

      The above thoughts remind me of that unfamiliarity, and remind me that we all get the microtrends (the gamifications, the connected screens, the cloud thinking, etc), and it's easy to think that follow "trends," but the macrotrends that the above article alludes to still catch all of us off guard.  

      When people ask about trends I tend to find myself needing to distinguish between micro and macro trends, a model I've taken from Magnus Lindkvist's Everything We Know is Wrong!: The Trendspotter's Handbook. I'm guessing he'd refer to the above as a form of change blindness, the kind of change blindness that manifests in the inability to detect large change because it looks too different from our current model of the world. 

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 4
      1 Jun 2011

      Research that matters - observation, filtering, prototyping and iteration

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Designers thrive when they have a working concept of what makes people tick, a context that allows them to shape their ideas by considering what people covet and use, and somewhere to focus all their creative energy. Research can provide the fuel for new ideas. To Ben's point, design research isn't a scientific endeavor aimed at finding truths. Our clients typically can't afford the large sample sets and extended time frames necessary for such a "scientific" process.

      And sometimes design teams don't have the patience to see the value in dragging out a study in an effort to make it scientifically or statistically significant. We're just not wired that way; we prefer to make and experiment and then analyze later. So what is research good for?

      1. Learning about people's behavior

      Behavior is fertile ground for design. Not just human behavior, but systems behavior: social, technical, environmental, political, and economic systems.

      2. Understanding and analyzing culture

      ...Culture is another important system when it comes to understanding design because it deals with the relationships we build between each other, our things, our routines, our view of the the world, and our beliefs. 

      3. Defining context

      Context includes the physical and virtual settings that behavior occurs in and that culture shapes and emerges from. Identifying touch points—the decisive moments where a customer and a business intersect—is an important part of defining context.

      4. Setting focus

      Ill-defined problems, short project schedules, and a lack of patience are common conditions in design, and these can often lead to poor solutions. Doing research demands being comfortable with ambiguity in the early stages of a project in order to attain eventual clarity.

      ...Even the legendary Charles Eames expressed a similar sentiment when asked about the boundaries of design. He responded, "What are the boundaries of problems?"

       

      Design research is not "a science" and is not necessarily "scientific." It gives designers and clients a much more nuanced understanding of the people for whom they design while providing knowledge that addresses some of the most fundamental questions we face throughout the process. What is the correct product or service to design? What characteristics should it have, and is it working as intended? "The research" won't necessarily provide cold hard answers. But it will generate some good and feasible ideas. 

      via designmind.frogdesign.com

      The above is taken from the longer full article The Art of Design Research (and Why It Matters). I think it's important to consider particularly while having the sentiment expressed by Faris in mind, in a piece called All Market Research Is Wrong. If you're interested in research both the above piece and Faris's thoughts are worth reading in full, because they both express the sentiment that research is of course valuable, but in a way that we often overlook.

      The phrase is "research is often used like a drunk uses a lamppost - not for illumination but for support." The idea at hand here requires a bit of long-term thinking - research that matters isn't the means to an end, rather it's a way to frame the beginning (#4 above). 

      Hence, the research that is important is often what takes place before and after you're actively researching. The first is something more like observation and filtering; the latter we call prototyping and iteration.  

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      21 Apr 2011

      Chronological Proportionality as applied to "You're Missing Out on Everything"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      This article below resonates with me because I've become increasingly amused by notions like Fear Of MIssing Out, and by statements like "MUST READ," "essential," etc. These notions are fascinating in their ability to affect us in spite of their meaningless - but I'm not sure it's necessarily a good kind of impact. 

      Because we have a finite amount of time with which to focus our attention, and because we feel the pressure to make the "best" decision around where to do so, I'm laterally reminded of Frank Gavin and his notion of Chronological Proportionality. A historian by trade, this is Gavin's way of expressing our tendency to place proportional relevance on specific events an an attempt to better understand causality, specifically as it relates to our understanding of history. As Gavin notes in his talks on the matter, humanity has an entire history of being completely wrong when going about this task.

      While focused on understanding the causal relationships between events, I think the idea applies just as well when it comes to the causal relationships between decisions and happiness. That is to say, we feel the pressure to always make the best decision about how to spend our time - regardless of the fact that we're almost certainly completely wrong about whether this MUST READ or that *essential* article really is that proportionally critical.

       
      You're missing out on everything
      Published on Kottke | shared via feedly

      There's just not enough time in a lifetime to see every movie, read every book, travel to every country, hear every song, watch every show, or view every sculpture. And that's ok:

      It's sad, but it's also ... great, really. Imagine if you'd seen everything good, or if you knew about everything good. Imagine if you really got to all the recordings and books and movies you're "supposed to see." Imagine you got through everybody's list, until everything you hadn't read didn't really need reading. That would imply that all the cultural value the world has managed to produce since a glob of primordial ooze first picked up a violin is so tiny and insignificant that a single human being can gobble all of it in one lifetime. That would make us failures, I think.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 5
      13 Apr 2011

      Two kinds of intuition - evolutionary and multiplexed

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      Yesterday I was reflecting on Thad Starner's distinction between mutlitasking and multiplexing. It reminded me that not too long ago I made made the statement "most things worth thinking about are counter-intuitive, because human intuition is wrong about just about everything."

      To which my smart friend Alicia promptly replied that she strongly disagreed. Smart because it got me thinking that there are in fact at least two different kinds of intuition.

      There's a first kind of intuition that I was originally thinking about when making the statement - this is intuition based on biological and evolutionary process. This is the kind of intuition that is captured on my favorite page of all the internet, Wikipedia's list of human cognitive biases. This is a list commonly referred to as "all the ways that you could be completely wrong about everything."

      So, well-designed environments (both physical and cognitive) - the kind I mentioned are worth thinking about - are the types that recognize that humans are constrained by these limitations, as seemingly unnecessary their design elements may be. The Mother Bear Proverbial Wallet for example, shown below - it's seemingly counter-intuitive to build a product that is intentionally hard to use (the opening mechanism is wirelessly synced to your bank account - becoming more tense as your funds get lower). Though, like great architects might masterfully make use of physical limitations to create efficient physical space, great interaction designers use human cognitive limitations as design constraints for better behaviors. 

      Screen_shot_2011-04-13_at_9

      But there's also a second kind of intuition, the kind Alicia reminded me of -  which is more akin to muscle memory or something from the Gladwell-popularized idea of "10,000 hours." This kind of complex intuition is developed by way of individual microexperiences, over time, perhaps through Starner's notion of multiplexing. The kind of intuition that gets me wondering if perhaps much of the charge of long-term memory mechanisms can be characterized by the process of reconstructing neural pathways from disconnected to synergetic, when long-term experience and exposure shape them to do so. (sorry, that statement's a mouthful; see David Linden's The Accidental Mind for a nice primer on the biochemical basis of experience-based memory.)

      This kind of intuition is what makes a magician's slight of hand truly "magic" - magic is impressive not because there's some secret that could be divulged, rather it's because the magician has put in the hundreds of hours of work necessary to make 15 seconds of performance seamlessly invisible.  

      This is the kind of intuition that is behind the original charge of this blog: "how to break anything? observe everything" -  a statement about pattern recognition through broad and unrestricted exposure. 
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      12 Apr 2011

      from "Multiplexing vs Multitasking"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

       

      Multiplexing vs Multitasking
      Published on KK.org | shared via feedly

      Thad Starner is one of several pioneers who have been personally experimenting with continuous visual input devices, sometime called wearable computing. To most people it looks like he has a screen attached to his eyeball. Starner wore his for years (as has others like Steve Mann, who started doing this earlier). They are living the dream/nightmare of being on the web 24/7, even while walking. So what is it like?

      The main question: If your brain is connected to the internet, can you think of anything else? Michael Chorost interviewed Starner (below) in World Wide Mind: The Coming Integration of Humanity, Machines, and the Internet, p.142,160) As far as I can tell, research with the population at large to date suggests that our ability to multitask is not as great as we think it is. In other worlds, when we multitask we do less well on more tasks. When Chorost asked him about this, Starner makes an interesting counter claim:

      Mike chorost and thad starner

       

      Starner replied that he multiplexes rather than multitasks. Multiplexing means doing tasks that reinforce each other. For him, taking notes and having conversations are tasks that parallel and enrich each other. They are multiplexed. On the other hand, he doesn't try to manage email during a conversation or while walking down the street. That would be multitasking. "If the wearable task is directly related to the conversation, the the user's attention is not 'split' and multiplexing can be pretty effective."

      As Thad Starner explained to me, distraction can be avoided by multiplexing rather than multitasking.... We have no difficulty absorbing all at once the music of a parade, the sight of uniformed marchers, bright sunlight, an autumn breeze, a pain in one's knee, the smell and taste of hot dogs, and the clasp of a loved ones's hand.

      I can think of other multiplexing combinations like driving a car while auditing to a book. In theory this should not work. How can you read and drive at the same time? I know that when I am listening to an audible book I am totally engaged. If it is a great book, I am transported to that world 100%. I would think my conscious mind would not be capable of doing anything else. Yet, I am pretty sure that my driving while listening to books is very safe. I must be multiplexing the two actions, though I don't know what synergy they have. There seems to be some non-rival part of my brain that takes over the driving. That part of my brain has been driving for many years, and it has also been driving *while listening to books* for almost 30 years! (Zero accidents so far.) Both are fairly high-order tasks. I haven't researched the science on auditing while driving so I don't know if I am merely fooling myself, but it sure feels like multiplexing to me.

      We can listen to music while cooking. Some folks do bills while watching TV. There may be other multiplexing combinations I don't know about. Is there an example of multiplexing you do?

      Originally posted in The Technium

       

      This is a perspective worth considering. I think about this notion when people admonish texting while biking while forgetting that we accomplish tasks of a much more complex nature just by driving a car ("safely," even). It's easy to overlook the fact that this kind of procedural memory doesn't just appear - humans have been consistently been developing these kinds of complex skills slowly over time.  

      It gets me wondering if perhaps much of the charge of long-term memory mechanisms can be characterized by the process of reconstructing neural pathways from disconnected to synergetic, when long-term experience and exposure shape them to do so. (sorry, that statement's a mouthful; see David Linden's The Accidental Mind for a nice primer on the biochemical basis of experience-based memory.)

       

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      9 Mar 2011

      humanity 4.0: a nice bit of cultural-historical systems thinking

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      via brocklemieux.posterous.com

      Rough in some places but smart systems thinking/long-term thinking in others. Nicely articulates a lot of thoughts that float around in my head, and page 39 might be my favorite - evolution of human ideals based on our current stage of understanding the world.

      [an aside: If you study human perception and decision-making long enough you know it's natural human instinct to say "right now is a special time - a fork in the road unlike any other!" So I tend to take issue with those kinds of descriptions. I suppose I'd say this: the above is a good case for why the way we think about the course of humanity is important now - and it is important; though the next era will be faced with entirely new and equally important challenges, just as all the preceding challenges have been critically important as well. in short: I'm not much for doomsday scenarios]

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      25 Feb 2011

      Instant mapping of environmental conditions for better understanding of long-term health

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      (download)
      Click here to download:
      Real-Time_Pollution_Monitoring.mov (12.71 MB)

      A couple weeks ago I was asked what I'm most excited about regarding real-time data, from someone referencing the PSFK Future of Real-Time report. My answer is captured in the video above; mostly it's about seeing interesting things like the Warning Signs project in the image below develop, alongside the thinking captured by people like Bill Davenhall in his talk Your Health Depends On Where You Live.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      30 Jan 2011

      from Scott Adams Blog: "Comparing"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      If I could add one required course to every student's education, it would involve learning the skill of comparing.  You might think that comparing alternatives is the domain of common sense, but it isn't. It takes actual training. People who study law, engineering, economics, psychology, and business get different subsets of that training. But many people get none. And it's one of the most important skills that we humans need. Every decision involves some sort of comparison.

      In our current system, the skills you need to compare alternatives are broken into little pieces and spread across several disciplines. A business student might learn about the time value of money while the psychology student is learning about confirmation bias. The math major is studying statistics while the religion student is learning that people will believe just about anything if the context is right.

      My hypothetical curriculum for a course in Comparing might include the following topics:

      Sunk costs

      Time value of money

      The illusion of fairness

      Evaluating risk

      Considering the source of the information

      Considering the wider context

      Limits of human perception

      Statistics (basic)

      Cognitive dissonance

      Confirmation bias

      Famous Lies and Hoaxes

      If I may overgeneralize for a moment, most disagreements have at their core one or more of these four basic causes:

      1.       People have different information

      2.       People have different selfish interests

      3.       People have different superstitions

      4.       People have different skills for comparing

      Of the four causes for disagreement, one is king over the other three. People with strong skills in comparing alternatives can quickly identify in each other where they have differences in information and in selfish interests, and that can be enough to suggest ways to reach agreement, or at least accommodation. (People with skills in comparing generally don't engage in debates about superstition.)

      Lacking the basic skills needed to compare alternatives, two people with different information and a couple of drinks can argue all night long and produce nothing but bad feelings. The same goes for people with different selfish interests and different ethical/moral standards.  But people with good comparison skills can quickly find common ground. In our increasingly complex world, where different cultures are colliding, we'll all need a lot more talent for making the right comparisons.

      Consider the budget debate in the United States. Every knowledgeable observer recognizes that the solution involves both deep cuts in expenses and higher taxes on those who can afford it. And yet our elected officials have framed the issue as one of higher taxes or not, and budget cuts or not. Politicians get away with false comparisons because the majority of voters are not trained in the skill of comparing.  Borrowing a strategy from Gandhi, we need to become the change we seek in the government. Leaders will only make rational comparisons, and therefore rational decisions, when they know that the voters can tell the difference.

      via dilbert.com

      Smart, in a very subtle way. It might not even strike you why immediately. Reminds me ever so slightly of Jason Kottke's idea of "Liberal Arts 2.0" over on kottke.org

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      20 Jan 2011

      Discarded rubbish

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      (download)
      Click here to download:
      discarded-rubbish-boDtaatIgnIjDbjcCBhd.zip (2.99 MB)

      If you click through the second image, you'll see the placard from the Rose Center for Earth and Space describing this photograph from the Apollo 17 mission:

      "The Sculptured Hills appear in the center background, and the flank of South Masif looms at right. A discarded plastic rock sample bag lies alongside Apollo's final footprints."

      What a strange choice of words. I'm reminded again of a passage from Bruce Sterling's Shaping Things (PDF):

       

      If we were to judge ourselves by the efforts of ours that survive the passage of time, we'd be best described as Man The Rubbish Maker . We've been polluting since before we were human. Chipping rocks into tools is a messy, haphazard process. When archeologists investigate ancient rock foundries, they always find vastly more rock waste than they ever find tools. Rock waste is the earliest form of pollution. 

      As you might imagine, there are a number of people actively debating the complicated ethical questions surrounding how to approach our exploration of extraterrestrial environments. (see: Martin Rees, Life's Future in the Cosmos)

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      8 Jan 2011

      A brief thought on the efficient use of data

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      I'm presently setting up a number of rules and triggers for various automated web actions on If This Then That. 

      Anyone who thinks about information flows becomes quickly aware that you can be more or less efficient at programming rules and automating tasks. Usually this is defined by the number of steps taken; a program is more efficient if you can to a 10-step task in 5 instead. 

      One measure of efficiency struck me a moment ago, not concerning the efficiency of number of steps taken to complete an action, but the amount of data required. For example, I can choose to set the trigger for the automatic posting of an article to be a Google Reader share, or an email instead. 

      For a brief instant I felt a twinge of guilt when using email as a trigger, capturing the entire text of an article instead of just the small bit of code that makes up a Reader share. Like I was wasting data space, no matter how small. It felt like leaving the water running when brushing. 

      It may not matter for x number of years, but since data takes up physical server space it's not inconceivable that we start treating tangible data like a precious resource at some point in human history.  

      (PS I have one of two invites left for the ifttt beta. For what it's worth I haven't been this excited about a platform in a long time. Lego-block internet APIs, just the way people like Bruce Sterling always imagined.)  
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      29 Nov 2010

      Wikileaks, social intelligence, and the challenge of chronological proportionality

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      One thing the last 30 years have taught us that the media is consistently terrible at identifying what's going to be important 30 years later. [see: Frank Gavin - Five Ways To Use History Well]

      Watching the wikileaks conversation spread gets me thinking that I suppose in 30 years we'll see how much better "empowered networks of individuals" are at it. ('it' being the task of correctly assessing the chronologically proportional weight of events, in the present, without the advantage of historical perspective aka hindsight)

      My initial response is to reflect on our characteristic short-sightedness and propensity to get excited about *seemingly* important things and think "probably not much better," but then I get to thinking what we'd be talking about would be an emergent display of social forecasting, and a key property of emergent behavior is in fact its unexpectedness.

      Sort of like ants that correctly predict the oncoming of a flood and build barriers accordingly, that might be the quintessential example.

      • 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
    • 1
      20 Oct 2010

      "How to Have an Idea" - Frank Chimero

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      Media_httpwwwfrankchi_ipugo
      via frankchimero.com

      I think I'd just supplement the "alogical, but hopefully meaningful" bit with the notion that meaning comes from the limitation of alogical connections towards the logical.

      • 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
    • 0
      5 Oct 2010

      [long-term thinking] "Little idea #7 - break the tyranny of the big idea"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Big' has been the historic gold standard of advertising - big ideas delivered in  big way by a big name supported by a big budget.  It felt a really weird premise when I entered the industry and just plain wrong now.

      We live in a culture full of depth, nuance and complexity.  Yet we insist on the singular idea and message and keeping it simple.  We place all our bets on one idea when we live in an environment where experimentation and diversification is critical to survival.  

      The wonderful thing about digital is that it's helped create a culture of do then learn thanks to the cost of failure being so low.  This is the antithesis of the usual marketing practice of learn then do.

      So I think we need to create an environment where we do lots of little things (albeit held together with some sense of purpose).  It's a more responsible approach as well as being more fun.  And it can make big companies feel small.  

      via garethkay.typepad.com

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      3 Oct 2010

      [offline inspiration] "Some great goods are logically bound up with certain evils."

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Photo

      [Bertrand Russell interpreting Spinoza and Leibniz, from Simon Van Booy's "Why Our Decisions Don't Matter"]

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      17 Aug 2010

      The goal is not necessarily just to know things, it's to figure out what matters

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      As I go through my RSS this morning, I inevitably see a bunch of short-term thinking and can't help but think: the goal is not necessarily just to know things (in this case, hot items of public discourse that quibble over the 2-3 year impact of things), it's to figure out what matters. The even more difficult - but appropriately valuable - task is to figure out why it matters.

      I'm reminded that this has been the case ever since those story problems in 3rd grade that would try to add extraneous info just to trick you. It turns out this is a useful exercise. I remember everyone hated story problems back in elementary. It's probably very telling that a rare few kids saw the value in them anyway. 

      (Another related thought I had this morning: without fail, I run into at least one story a day that captures and explores some fascinating sociocultural development, that then devolves into the line "what are the implications for brands?" or "marketers will be able to take advantage of this by...." or some other such nonsense. At which point I just close my eyes, sigh, kind of laugh, and shake my head disappointingly. Probably more than I should, in all fairness, because there's clearly a level of value in those kind of conversations...)
      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    « Previous 1 2 Next »
    • Search

    • Tags

      • perspective
      • value
      • metasocioculture
      • culture
      • decisionmaking
      • offline inspiration
      • cognitive fallacies
      • future
      • time-orientation
      • limitation
      • perception
      • causality
      • definition
      • irrationality
      • art
      • behavioral economics
      • game mechanics
      • 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
      • memory
      • motivation
      • seeming
      • trends
      • utopia
      • chronological proportionality
      • cognitive environments
      • complexity
      • control
      • cyborg anthropology
      • gaming
      • happiness
      • human programming
      • information art
      • nostalgia
      • rationality
      • scarcity
      • technosocial
      • time
      • timeline
      • Entrepreneur
      • PSEA
      • asking the right questions
      • classification
      • cultural narratives
      • data
      • deception
      • design thinking
      • filter theory
      • games
      • habitat media
      • historical context
      • information theory
      • intelligence
      • levels of abstraction
      • linguistic programming
      • metaphysics
      • nonlinear
      • optimaization
      • organization
      • patina
      • pattern recognition
      • reactive culture
      • serendipity filters
      • truth
      • wisdom
      • wonder
      • youth
    • Archive

      • 2012 (58)
        • May (9)
        • April (14)
        • March (9)
        • February (13)
        • 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.])

    267052 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