Friday
More Context Management
Very enjoyable morning this morning talking to Euan Semple at the BBC, about the hidden rules which govern our social interactions, the echo chamber effect of the blogosphere, and the difficulties of creating disruption in an 'unconsciously incompetent' world.
Euan's blog today highlights one of the many paradoxes we spoke of.
What if...the individual positive feedback loops we experience from our best social interactions are actually a barrier to collective improvement?
This is another way of saying - what if, we are, as a species, er...doomed?
What if...the loathesome monolithic, self-destructive architectures of self-control which surround us are actually the least-worst solution to our own self-management?
What if...as we strip away the power structures of religion, state control, and corporate power in favour of a mutualist model of interpersonal interaction, the system actually deteriorates?
Scarcely likely, I know.
But to avoid this disintegration, we need to rapidly share new, emergent rules to govern our interactions. The blogosphere is a great example of how fresh codes and rules emerge in a new social construct. But it's also a salutory lesson that all interaction contexts carry implict rules, which inadvertently govern our behaviour.
IMVHO, the self-referential-monologue of the blogospshere is not a good paradigm for effective decision-making. Spiralling GroupThink is intrinsic to the context of the technology...
In a disaggregated futuree, the means by which we reaggregate individual goodwill, energy and commitment to collective progress need to be based upon a shared and explicit rulebook.
We need to own the source-code.
Think of mutualist governance codebook as a collective meta-wiki in which we gradually improve the decision-making rules.
By contrast, the lack of such a mutualist wiki creates a collosal global risk.
BIG EXAMPLE:
China currenty builds new powerstations EVERY YEAR equal to the total British generating capacity. When you take into accunt the fact that these are coal-fired stations, the multiplier effect means that actually they ADD 1.3 time Britain's energy-generating carbon emissions every year!
The implicit rules of capitalism and global governance, mean we are sleepwalking into a future
of our own destruction.
We need a new system. With new rules.
These rules need to be designed. They need to be shared. And they need to be flexible in the light of evidence.
We need a better global context management system....and it must come from the people.
Euan's blog today highlights one of the many paradoxes we spoke of.
What if...the individual positive feedback loops we experience from our best social interactions are actually a barrier to collective improvement?
This is another way of saying - what if, we are, as a species, er...doomed?
What if...the loathesome monolithic, self-destructive architectures of self-control which surround us are actually the least-worst solution to our own self-management?
What if...as we strip away the power structures of religion, state control, and corporate power in favour of a mutualist model of interpersonal interaction, the system actually deteriorates?
Scarcely likely, I know.
But to avoid this disintegration, we need to rapidly share new, emergent rules to govern our interactions. The blogosphere is a great example of how fresh codes and rules emerge in a new social construct. But it's also a salutory lesson that all interaction contexts carry implict rules, which inadvertently govern our behaviour.
IMVHO, the self-referential-monologue of the blogospshere is not a good paradigm for effective decision-making. Spiralling GroupThink is intrinsic to the context of the technology...
In a disaggregated futuree, the means by which we reaggregate individual goodwill, energy and commitment to collective progress need to be based upon a shared and explicit rulebook.
We need to own the source-code.
Think of mutualist governance codebook as a collective meta-wiki in which we gradually improve the decision-making rules.
By contrast, the lack of such a mutualist wiki creates a collosal global risk.
BIG EXAMPLE:
China currenty builds new powerstations EVERY YEAR equal to the total British generating capacity. When you take into accunt the fact that these are coal-fired stations, the multiplier effect means that actually they ADD 1.3 time Britain's energy-generating carbon emissions every year!
The implicit rules of capitalism and global governance, mean we are sleepwalking into a future
of our own destruction.
We need a new system. With new rules.
These rules need to be designed. They need to be shared. And they need to be flexible in the light of evidence.
We need a better global context management system....and it must come from the people.
Comments:
Tim
Interesting spin-off from the question I posed (and Euan quoted). I think you hit the nail on the head when you say of your putative new rules "they need to be flexible in the light of evidence".
My original point was that we all carry around beliefs about how the world works, beliefs that we often do not consciously recognise. From those beliefs are born our actions, and those actions often have unintended consequences.
I like your idea of a meta-wiki as a metaphor for these hidden belief structures, the question we need to tackle though is how to get people engaged with the problem and prepared to first see their own models.
Perhaps the answer is better dialogue?
regards, Julian
Interesting spin-off from the question I posed (and Euan quoted). I think you hit the nail on the head when you say of your putative new rules "they need to be flexible in the light of evidence".
My original point was that we all carry around beliefs about how the world works, beliefs that we often do not consciously recognise. From those beliefs are born our actions, and those actions often have unintended consequences.
I like your idea of a meta-wiki as a metaphor for these hidden belief structures, the question we need to tackle though is how to get people engaged with the problem and prepared to first see their own models.
Perhaps the answer is better dialogue?
regards, Julian
Quite so, Julian. You have in the past talked about blogging as a collection of monologues.
This is not sufficient.
It's the need to understand and value the externalities of future outcomes into present decision-making which is critical.
I spoke to Brand Strategy magazine about this precise issue this week.
The transparency of value-chains must be matched by transaparency of dialogue. And the system rules behind those dialogues.
Transparency means transparency of intent; not just transparency of outcomes.
We'll see what emerges...
This is not sufficient.
It's the need to understand and value the externalities of future outcomes into present decision-making which is critical.
I spoke to Brand Strategy magazine about this precise issue this week.
The transparency of value-chains must be matched by transaparency of dialogue. And the system rules behind those dialogues.
Transparency means transparency of intent; not just transparency of outcomes.
We'll see what emerges...
Yes, transparency of intent is a laudable goal, and when many of the true motivations for behaviour are unconscious it requires skill and patience to surface that intent.
Post a Comment
