My Photo

Subscribe

« September 24, 2006 - September 30, 2006 | Main | October 8, 2006 - October 14, 2006 »

October 07, 2006

Trusted Space - The Trajectory of Development

Steamhammer

We have been brought up to believe that we are part of a mechanical universe where the application of force upon us and upon our world will yield results. We apply force to the land and to animals and we call this Agriculture. We apply force to our children and we call it Education. We apply force to our workers and we call this Management. We apply force to customers and we call this Sales and Marketing. We apply force to enterprises and we call this Capitalism. In a more simple world - this used to yield quite good results. Now in a complex world, this approach is yielding more trouble than good. We are seeing the system limits of using this approximation of how the world works.

Trajectoryparabolic_1

This is a simple trajectory where the only forces in play are gravity and the wind. There are no other bodies in play. This is how we often think of our lives - a beginning, a middle and an end.  This is how we often think of the life cycle of a product or a company. But in reality, this is too simple a view.

All development involves an interaction between the subject - you and me or a product or an organization - and our environment. In the environment are many other bodies - other people, other aspects of nature. They all interact with us creating many variables along the way.  As we interact with these other bodies, we also change. We do more than change, we transform and become very different from what we were before. This is easiest to see in many insects such as a butterfly.

Butterfly_emerging

Transformation is not only found in insect life but in human life as well. Think along these lines about an organization. An organization of 8 people is very different from one of 15 which is very different from one of 35 which is very different from one of 150 which is radically different from one of 500. There is no smooth transition between each stage. As milestones in numbers are reached, a bifurcation in complexity takes place demanding that the organization transform its relationships or die. Any entrepreneur has experienced this.

We also go through this process as individuals as our world view is affected by those close to us. Think about your own life. You have transformed many times. At 2, the baby breaks from believing it is part of its mother to a troubled form of interdependence. . In the teen years - 14-18, the youngster breaks from child  and her parents to become a young adult in a social world of friends. Somewhere in the 40's to 50's the young adult breaks from the rat race and hopefully becomes an elder. All of these transitions are painful, messy and confusing. They are transformations. In humans they take place in our psyche. It is our world view that is transformed. If we miss a step, we regress and never fully develop.

There is also more complexity in development than in merely reaching the mature form of the single body.

An acorn's final destination is not an oak tree. It is to become a complex forest of not only many oaks but also of many other interdependent forms such as other plants and animals. Helium atoms want not only to become a star but want to become a galaxy. You also want to be more than a physically mature person - you yearn to be an interdependent part of a supportive community. No human is fully developed until we are a recognized part of a supportive community. A healthy community is our destiny. Those of us who fail to find our place in relationship with a group that accept and support us, are not fully developed as a human being. Those who have few healthy relationships are systematically unhealthy.

Chimp_group

We are not cogs in a machine. We are not interchangeable. We are not stand alone. We are not only individuals. We are primates for whom finding a place in our tribe is the best place to be. We are genetically all but identical to these chimps and we share our deepest needs to find a safe place, a Trusted Space, in a supportive community.

But until 10 years ago - we managed to do OK using a simple concept of the application of force and a parabola as the typical trajectory for a life cycle or the pathway. So what has changed in only a decade?

It is the advent of the web. What did the web do? It has added an all but infinite amount of new interactions with other bodies into the development equation. The complexity of our environment has broken through the simple metaphor that we have used for 5 thousand years - ever since we gave up hunting and gathering and settled in simple hierarchies in cities.

This bifurcation in complexity is overwhelming our institutions and our fragmented society. All the institutions that we set up to serve us now serve only their masters or the survival of the institution itself. So our food system poisons us and our land. 30% of boys in school have to be on medication to cope with being nagged. Chronic disease caused by stress is an epidemic. Our companies serve only the insiders. Our politicians serve not us but their party and the office itself. Communities have become dormitories. Families are collapsing into individuals watching their own TV and eating dinner alone. Marriage has no power to sustain a couple and we risk becoming alone. Our children are increasingly lost.

What to do? Nature can help us if we would only step back and see the advice that she offers.

Now we live in a truly complex world again, we have to relearn how nature itself copes with complexity. We will have to understand that nature has a very simples set of rules that govern relationships. So simple that nature has found one set of relationships that is best in all circumstances and at all scales. If we understand this one set of rules, then we can remake our world to work in partnership with nature rather than as her enemy. The stakes are high as nature always makes those who take her on pay for their foolishness.

So what is the simple rule about relationships that nature uses? First an example of how we know this and how we apply this already.

Moontrajectoryjpg

This  (nice animation here) is how you get a rocket to the moon. You do not use a parabola. This is the development trajectory that nature uses. It is designed to maximise the benefit of working with a complex relationship between interdependent bodies that both exert forces upon each other.

Fibonaccicurvejpg_1

See the resemblance? This is the non linear curve that drives development and relationships and the rectangles are the proportions that show this in linear form. The numbers are the Fibonacci numbers  that originate in the Golden Mean or Phi. (Here is a link to a treasure trove of information on this subject)

Nature has found over 14 billion years that the ratio of   1.618033988749895... is the best relationship for complex interaction in the known universe. It applies not only to galaxies but even to parts of the human body. It defines beauty in all human cultures and it defines what most think to be attractive in architecture. It is found in the design of DNA, in our heart beat, in the relationship of the planets to each other and the sun, to Saturn's rings. It is found everywhere.

It is the Lego kit rule of how nature fits object into complex arrangements.

Over the next few weeks I am going to explore with you what it would mean to redesign our world and our lives by using this essential rule of nature. I intend to start with how this would apply to how we raise our children.



Google - You Tube - Why?

From the New York Times today -

“YouTube figured out what Google and Yahoo and Microsoft and all the others in the marketplace didn’t,” she said. “It’s not about the video. It’s about creating a community around the video.”

October 06, 2006

Kathy Sierra - Her best Post yet?

Kathy Sierra - never dull - sometimes really brilliant - now and then amazing - today TOTALLY rocks

She can tell the truth like few others

Natural Scale - PHI and Our World

Oldmedia

(Pic - Thanks to Cyberbarf)
All around us we see large organizations floundering. They cannot cope with the complexity of modern life. We learn that the one room school house had better literacy results than our current schools. Small firms drive all the best innovation. Large firms such as Ford and GM seem incapable of coping. Newspapers are in trouble. FEMA cannot met its mandate and so on.

Why do we see all this failure? Is it because people are bad or stupid? I don't think so. I think that our problem is one of metaphor or design. We have fallen in love with a mechanical metaphor that worked quite well in a more simple world. But we seem to have reached a level of complexity where an approach that demands mainly knowns cannot cope.

In the natural world there are limits to scaling a mechanical design. Over a certain size the laws of diminishing returns set in. The largest dinosaurs were the largest body shapes to be seen on Earth. In historic times, only whales, supported in water have bothered to come close to the largest dinosaurs. Really big animals seem to have been a failed experiment. Really large mechanical designs do poorly in a complex world. Nature has tossed them aside as a failed experiment.

The same is surely true with organizations. As schools based on a mechanical model become larger, their social friction reduces their effectiveness. My daughter is struggling to get care in a very large mechanical urban hospital but cannot get their attention. You cannot get the phone company's attention if you have a problem. Why? Again is it because everyone who is a teacher, a doctor or in customer service is a bad person? No!

There is a design problem. There is too much social noise! Merely scaling mechanically drives the noise to signal ratio so high that nothing gets through and the organization becomes too stupid to act intelligently.

I think it is clear that mechanical models cannot scale and remain competent in a complex world.

So what do we see in nature as a shape that does scale in complex surroundings?

Hurricane2

This is the largest force we see in our local system on Earth.

Galaxy_whilr

This is the largest force that we see in the universe.

Galaxy_mandelbrot

This - the Mandelbrot Set - is one of the most fractal of all shapes - it can exist at all scales.

So where am I going with this?

Spiralmosaic

Nature has perfected over 14 billion years the most effective design for relationships. Phi drives all the best relationships to be found anywhere in the universe. Linked into Phi are the Fibonnacci Numbers which express Phi as a curve.

Golden_section_image_2_rectangular_divis

If this is so - then maybe PHI and Fibonacci will be at the heart of all organizational designs  for space for humans that wish to reach their full development potential.

Fibonaccicurvejpg

Note how the Fibonacci numbers link to the Magic Numbers that are the ideal groupings for human groups and relationships.

It is my conjecture that PHI and Fibbonacci will become the metaphor that will enable us to break free from the constraints of a mechanical metaphor and that it will become the core idea that will propel humanity forward and hopefully give us a chance of avoiding the fate of the dinosaurs.

In 1905 Einstein put out an idea. He concluded that Time and Space - fixtures of a mechanical universe - were variables and that only certain key relationships were constant. Until now it was felt that this established view of the universe only worked in the very large scale of the universe itself and that the Newtonian world applied to the life of man.

It is my conjecture that the web has eliminated the costs of time and space for man. We now live in the same universe as galaxies and stars where time and space are variables. I therefore conjecture that relationships are the only constant. So what then are the best relationships? Is there a "Best"?

It is clear that nature has provided us with its "Best Design" for relationships. It is PHI/Fibonacci.

If I am right in making this connection then exploring PHI will offer us a framework of design that has the potential to improve the health, effectiveness and potential of the individual, the family, the community, the organization and our intersection as a species with the rest of the natural world

In the next few weeks I intend to share with you my thoughts about how we can see PHI as -

  • The pathway for the development of all new things - people and ideas
  • How the shape of the PHI curve shows us the nature of Trusted Space and how it is needed to set any living being or any idea onto the track for reaching its full potential
  • How PHI links into Chaos Theory and its observation that it is Initial Conditions that determine the success or failure of any project, journey or life
  • How PHI tells all those that have leadership roles - as parents, as organizational leaders - what to focus on to be successful
  • How PHI tells us how pathways for learning and health are set up to do well or badly

Future of Public Radio - Doc Searls tells us

Here in a paragraph - Doc shows the way

In other words, be more public 

  Just came off a long and interesting conference call in which the topic was public radio, and the challenges of adapting to what Terry Heaton calls an "unbundled" world, and David Weinberger calls a "miscellanized" one. (His new book is titled "Everything is Miscellaneous".)
  I've gotta run out and do some errands right now, but I want to get some thoughts down before I leave.
  First, radio isn't about "content delivery". At its best (and the best of public radio is its best), it's about informing people and relating to people. "Content delivery" is less than either. When you truly inform people you form them. They are changed by what they now know and didn't know before. This is equally mundane and profound. That we are all authors of each other is to the great advantage of public broadcasting. Many years ago, in one of my few conversations with the great and underappreciated Larry Josephson, he told me his philosophy of radio is simple: it's personal. That's not easy to admit or deal with, but there's a big pony in there somewhere.
  Second, quit copying commercial broadcasters. This means, a) relying more on listener relationships and contributions than on "underwriting" that amounts to advertising, and b) simplifiying complex websites that ape the worst of what commercial broacasters (and, for that matter, newspapers) do — which is put up craploads of internal links that trap the user in a maze and exposes them to advertising along the way. Look into River of News approaches to what the station is doing. Think about how people listening to radio in cars also have mobile phones and iPods. Add that up.
  Third, face the fact that everything you broadcast will, and should, be available on an a la carte basis to everybody in the world, eventually. Then support making that happen. Then make it possible for listeners downloading individual podcasts of those items to pay for them on a voluntary basis. Concentrate on making this stuff valuable, not scarce.
  Fourth, look to relationship for saving the local stations. With individual listeners, and especially to individual citizen journalists who can contribute to news coverage.
  Fifth, get in front of the citizen journalism movement. This is where the most sources for the most stuff will come from. Think in terms of AND logic, not OR. For example it's not BigTime Journalism vs. Podcasters and Bloggers. It's BigTime Journalism PLUS Podcasters and Bloggers. CJs of today are going to be the first sources and stringers for all kinds of news and public affairs programming of tomorrow.
  Sixth, get ready for VRM, or Vendor Relationship Management systems, that support the user or customer expressing their intentions for whatever it is that you provide as a station, and which support payment by the customer for exactly the stuff that they want.
  Gotta roll. Might add some more later.

 

October 01, 2006

Education - The Grail in Sight?

Something important is going on in the Pioneer education community - several of the community have made milestone posts recently that show that they are in sight of the future.

Here is Barbara Ganley

Here is Will Richardson

Here is Harold Jarche

Just a bit more talking and then maybe we get some money and start something?





Photo Albums

Powered by TypePad
Member since 08/2003