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
      9 Mar 2011

      from Are Algorithms The New Gatekeepers Of Knowledge?

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      The information overload debate spawns many a tired argument about our ability to cope with our digitally saturated lives but two pertinent points remain in spite of the hyperbole.

      In the words of Bowker & Star (Sorting Things Out: Classification & It’s Consequences);

      “when faced with too many alternatives and too much information (people) satisfice.”

      The second important point, is that nowadays the Internet content which we happen across is increasingly responsive to the sorts of content which we have previously searched for. In short, we are getting more of the same rather than more of what we need.

      In his recent TED Talk Eli Pariser contends that:

      We need the internet to introduce us to new ideas and different perspectives… and this cannot happen when the Invisible algorithmic editing of the web…moves us to a world where the Internet shows us what it thinks we need to see, but not what we should see

      Pariser’s arguments are bold if perhaps a touch reductionist in places, but he begs an important question: should internet giants like Google and Facebook have a civic sense of duty to inform us in a diverse manner?

      Eli Pariser

      [via Mashable]

      via psfk.com

      A set of ideas aligned with what I'm thinking of as "connections programming" or maybe the more appropriately counterintuitive "design for friction."

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      4 Mar 2011

      from: The Strange Powers of the Placebo Effect

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      via kevinmd.com

      Might end up calling this "manufactured value through cognitive programming."

      Again, I don't necessarily think there's anything less 'real' about the things that we don't immediately understand as 'real.'

      In fact, I'll probably expand on this later, but it's been on my mind that I've become something of a "modified relativist." That is to say, I'll argue against absolute truths like the "realness" of things, but I'll concede something like "there are levels of truth that - in an absolute sense - either matter or don't matter to humans."

      For example, the true nature of a plank of wood may be a strange blend of space and quantum particles that scientists are now starting to discover may or may not exist in two places at once, and on some level it's fascinating to question the nature of its reality, but when the plank hits you across the face that's probably not the first thing that comes to mind.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      28 Feb 2011

      Residual effects/encoded information

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Right now I'm reading Persuasive Technology. Since I'm working in the background to organize all the thoughts here on HTBA into something that you might consider a book, I find myself thinking about this sort of residual effect from reading books these days. I'm learning the content of the book, but there's also this metalearning of understanding how books are written.

      It's a concept I think about a lot, actually. Another couple of examples below:

      There's the value of following someone on twitter to read their thoughts, but then there's also the metavalue of following a service or cause to provide a bit of support (even if I never actually get to reading any of their tweets).

      There's emailing someone to give them information, but then there's also the residual effect of letting them know you're actively working/thinking on it (think: working from home). 

      I think of this as the act of compressing/encoding information, something like "linguistic programming." It's part of this larger framework I'm working on in the background, another sneak peek in the screenshot below:

      Screen_shot_2011-02-27_at_12

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      11 Feb 2011

      Fluid architecture and "Monopoly Live: Is A Game That Controls Everything For You Really A Game?"

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      An updated version of Monopoly has been recently announced, set to hit stores this upcoming fall under the title Monopoly Live. The game features a central tower-like structure, a device that calculates all transactions based on the digital payment cards provided with the game, and simulates dice rolls for players as well. Because the tower constantly monitors the positions of specially fitted game pieces through infrared camera, the game can ensure that pieces have moved the proper amount of distance according to the simulated roll, and is aware of the status of each player’s property assets.

      Some of the initial reaction to the new system is what you might expect – the game is strikingly devoid of any actual human interaction. There are a number of human elements within games like Monopoly that might initially seem superfluous, that end up having a significant impact on what it means to play a game. One can imagine that a board game that moved all the pieces for you allows no room for the subtle tensions that arise from trying to avoid landing on another player’s coveted spot. A game that calculates all the transactions for you allows no room for the negotiation process. And a game that constantly calculates the actual value off all players’ assets – making it very accessible and tangible – takes away the sense of mastery that comes with being able to asses, manipulate, and trade otherwise intangible value with others.

      In short, from an interaction design perspective, the game is becoming very close to a purely random-event environment, which would be something like a game where players just roll dice against each other to see who gets the higher score. As you might imagine this doesn’t make for a very enjoyable experience for very long. An important lesson here is that games aren’t inherently fun just because you call them a game – a lesson that seems to be emerging as many begin to think about game mechanics and how to make them part of more and more experiences.

      Monopoly

      [via Gizmodo]

      originally posted on psfk.com

      A bit of commentary in retrospect:

      Monopoly Live probably won't be that terrible of a game; I suppose I painted the picture a bit grim. It is interesting to think though: what is it about _____ [a game, a service, a product, or otherwise] that makes it genuinely enjoyable? It's usually not perfection. I've started to think about something I might call "fluid architecture," which I'm picturing as something like "design for error." I suppose it's somewhat similar to the conversation around serendipity.

      • 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
      24 Jan 2011

      1.5 explanations for why people might sign up for a service without knowing what it does

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Thousands of people a day are signing up for a service that nobody really knows anything about.

      Hipster is a new tool/service/network/magical potion that promises to change the way we interact with our community. At least that's what Hipster CEO Doug Ludlow explains in his answer to the question everyone wants to know, on Quora. But you'd never know that from the entry screen. No product promotion. No information. Just a single sign up box, over a provocative city image.

      Want to sign up? Use my link, and I'll have a better chance at an earlier beta invite. The more you share your referral link, the faster you get an invite. Next, we'll find that they've been valued at $35 billion. Freakin' genius.

      via brandflakesforbreakfast.com

      The above reminds me of two fascinating concepts:

      1) "Haha remember when everyone thought the iPad was going to be a horrible idea (right when it was announced)?"

      The first lines my roommate and I speak to each other each morning tend to be pretty abstract; the above happens to be what started our day this morning. The standard reference for this sentiment is captured in the Gartner Hype Cycle's notion of the "Trough of Disillusionment."

       

      I couldn't find any reference right away, but I remember someone mentioning that a Saturday Night Live skit during the first week of sales poignantly called the iPad something like "the first device everyone bought without knowing at all what it does." 

      I thought it reflective of an interesting development. Think about the fact that there's long been the notion that when you build a website, or web app, or anything on the web, that ultimately what *you* have in mind as its use doesn't really matter; what matters is what people decide to use it for.

      Move a bit forward to the app era, and you now have physical items that operate the same way - you've built a phone, but your users have decided to turn it into a remote control/DJ station/credit card instead. You've built a gaming system and tell people that they can control game characters with their body, and they decide to build autonomous robots and surgical aids and teach sign language instead. 

      I find it interesting because now the role of the producer no longer includes telling people what the product is. The idea that thousands of people a day would sign up for a service that no one really knows anything about isn't too far fetched. 

      2) Okay so if you're not buying into what the seller tells you about the product, what is it you're buying into then? There's the joke that Apple could paint bricks white and sell them for millions. Which is true, only because Apple wouldn't paint a brick white and sell it. There's nothing too profound here, it's the basic notion that people don't buy products, they buy ideas (I'm particularly fond of Simon Sinek's notion "start with why").   

      So I imagine that what people are buying into in the above "new tool/service/network/magical potion" is somewhere along the lines of "something potentially big because it combines elements of currently popular aesthetics with currently popular cultural discourse." 

      But there's something potentially very fascinating here. It probably comes from the same place as the tone captured in the statement "people signing up for something they don't know what it does [is a silly thing to do ]." And along the lines of one branch of what's (sometimes pejoratively) known as "social engineering." It's the following idea:

      What if the service did nothing?

      That is to say, it reminds me of an art project/social experiment I would consider doing: Build hype around an object that serves no purpose, so as to make a comment about the concept of hype and social spread. In this context, a wonderfully clever mechanism to help expose the core drivers behind social influence would definitely be something like "the more you share your referral link, the faster you get an invite."

      It would make for a wonderfully fascinating experiment in infusing value into otherwise valueless things. 

      That is to say, I hope Hipster *does* do something; I've got something of an art project now brewing in my head ;)

       

       

       

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      20 Dec 2010

      from: Streets & Sports - Choices made by teenagers in Trinidad and Tobago

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost
      via vimeo.com

      A rich visual exploration of the classic idea that our environment programs our cognition, which is nice because we have the power to construct our environments.

      • views
      • Tweet
      • Tweet
    • 0
      19 Dec 2010

      From: "Conversational UI: a short reading list" - Nonne and Num as cognitive primers

      • Edit
      • Delete
      • Tags
      • Autopost

      Nonne and Num

      Nonne and num are words in Latin that appear in questions, and all they really do is indicate the expected answer. They are sometimes loosely translated as “surely”. For instance: “Surely you’re coming out with us on Friday night?” is a nonne question, and “surely you’re not going to eat that?” is a num question.

      I like the idea that you can shape the language someone will use in an answer by the language you ask the question in. What are the equivalents in a conversational UI?

      via berglondon.com

      Linguistic priming as a form of programming the cognition of other minds

      • 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
      • game mechanics
      • emergence
      • experience
      • exposure
      • observe everything
      • philosophy
      • 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
      • cognitive environments
      • complexity
      • control
      • cyborg anthropology
      • gaming
      • happiness
      • human programming
      • information art
      • nostalgia
      • rationality
      • scarcity
      • technosocial
      • time
      • timeline
      • Entrepreneur
      • PSEA
      • asking the right questions
      • 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
      • New Production
      • ROI
    • Archive

      • 2012 (24)
        • February (11)
        • 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.])

    256362 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