Provoked by Tim Wu’s review of the book Abundance, Chris Mitchell of ILSR asked whether abundance might not be too much. Won’t we get bogged down in all the choices we have to make?

I love this question because I think seeing abundance (and acting in ways that generate abundance) is a big piece of the solution to the world’s present woes. As a point example, here’s 8 minutes on how we needlessly create artificial scarcity in education, when in fact there is abundance.

We’re just so accustomed to the institution as it exists today — in this case, education — that we can’t see the abundance, which violates many of our dearly held beliefs.

The problem with sudden abundance that Chris described is the Tyranny of Choice (pdf), which Barry Schwartz has investigated well, and Malcolm Gladwell has popularized by writing and speaking about it in his appealing way (I think it’s in this TED talk). A typical story: When faced with 23 jam samples, people bought fewer than when they saw only three. Our mental fuses pop when there’s too much to consider.

When the Cluetrain cabal announced that Markets Are Conversations, a common complaint was that nobody wants to enter a negotiation or selection decision every time they are thirsty for a soda pop. Yup. No doubt.

The good news is that over time we get used to abundance. We form habits. We learn what we like, we share opinions, we groove behaviors that make us happy. Now and then we change them.

The advent of the Internet is the latest firehose of abundance in our lives (compare to the telegraph, then TV). Despite all the hyperbole already written about the Net, it is an amazing thing. Now we can communicate instantaneously with half the humans on this pale blue dot, at zero marginal cost.

Now everything people write on line is available, as well as their movies, tunes, scribbles and (sigh) breakfast photos (well, Zittrain and Pariser show how companies and governments are trying to stop this wanton open sharing, but I’m hopeful it’ll be around a while).

We’re at such an interesting moment in history. When I run workshops about the great change afoot, I’ll sometimes read out loud the semi-famous paragraph from Borges’ short story The Aleph, in which he describes seeing everything that ever happened, is happening, and will happen, through the Aleph (it’s the paragraph that begins “On the back part of the step”).

The Net is our modern Aleph. It just showed up a few years ago.

We’re overwhelmed now, as we should be. (It’s an Aleph!) Since the dawn of hominins (is that what we’re calling our precursors now?), nobody has been able to do what the Net now lets us do — a pretty good reason to preserve Freedom to Connect, if you ask me. It will take us a while to sort out how to deal with it all. Along the way, many of us will just check out or give up. So it goes.

But we humans do sort things out. We find clever mechanisms to sift through the torrent to find what we want. Today it’s hashtagsWODsplaylists, timelines, concept maps and pinboards. Tomorrow, who knows? We curate, share and recommend. We create better tools. Our perception of the environment evolves over time.

The bigger win, though, is when we let abundance back in to industries and sectors of life that have been denuded by notions like “scarcity equals value,” or by social norms and cultural conventions based on trying to stop bad actors from acting badly, rather than on cooperation, then dealing with the bad actors later.

Think about copyright overprotection. Treating the radio spectrum as if it were real estate along a beachfront. The compulsory education system. At the start of this post I pointed to that 8-min screencast about education. I amplify on it in my TEDx talk, which plays out this idea of designing from trust in education, and teases about more.

That’s all fodder for much more than these couple paragraphs. It’s the foundation of the Relationship Economy.

Early on, when the firehose opens up, the barriers crumble and all the new choices multiply, this process takes patience. But it leads to a better world.

Personal vs. personalized

Jerry —  November 5, 2012 — Leave a comment

Are you old enough to remember the first time you received something that was computer-personalized? For me it may have been a cover of Time Magazine with my name printed in it (I forget how; it wasn’t just the address block). Do you also remember how quickly the thrill wore off? Was there even a thrill?

Only four letters separate personal from personalized; the difference might seem semantic. But it’s a world of difference when it comes to service.

I’m all in favor of automated personalization, as long as it’s not manipulative. I love having things customized to my preferences. Dealing with merchants who remember you is far preferable to dealing with those that don’t.

But there’s something palpably inhuman about that automation. It doesn’t have the human, personal touch.

JP has been posting about how “the plural of personal is social,” starting with his fond memories of the stores and restaurants of his youth. His family patronized local small businesses, where they were known and welcomed.

I had similar experiences in my youth, but in Berlin instead of Calcutta. When I was 13, we lived with my grandparents on Uhlandstraße in Berlin (yes, the Wall was up then). Often in the mornings I would follow Omi (my grandmother) as she made her rounds to the baker, the butcher, the dry-goods shop and the fruit and vegetable store. They all greeted her by name (in that formal German way, by last name). They were friendly, though not family.

It’s easy to get stuck in nostalgia or pine for things gone by. After all, big stores are more efficient, have wider selections (don’t they?) and charge less than Mom-and-Pop operations. You can’t do personal at scale, the logic goes.

We miss personal so much that large corporations keep trying to use personalization to emulate it, but that approach doesn’t work. The two are not the same at all.

I’ll dive into the role scale plays in a separate post.

A one-minute REXplanation

Jerry —  November 5, 2012 — Leave a comment

Now and then you get aha!s that help you explain things better. I’ve had several on my way to describing the Relationship Economy eXpedition that I run. Here’s the one-minute (and three second) product of those aha!s:

The talk I gave a few months ago at Rebuild21 got me invited to speak at TEDxCopenhagen, which was a terrific experience.

A few days have gone by and our talks are now online. Here’s mine:

Some time back, I answered the excellent questions posed by the Pew Research Center about the future of smart systems. Enough time had passed that I was pleasantly surprised to read the results, and to see a quote of mine called out. It runs as follows:

Jerry Michalski, president of Sociate and consultant for the Institute for the Future, shared a comprehensive view of flaws he sees, writing, “A few years back, BMW and Mercedes Benz had to turn off some of the onboard electronics on their high-end cars because complexity gremlins were making things break. Those are smart German companies that one assumes have a lot of control over their components and their software. Diabetic Jay Radcliffe recently hacked into his own wirelessly enabled insulin pump, changing his dosage. The Internet of Things and the subsequent world of smart systems, from smart cars and smart highways to smarter cities and smart homes is mostly overblown, and, in fact, poses a significant risk of creating overwhelming complexity, which could take down the Internet we now have. It also opens the door to hacking scenarios we seem to not want to contemplate. Every security technology becomes obsolete. If we connect all these new things and expose them to external control, you can bet some of the forces controlling them won’t be the designers or owners. As these connected devices age, they’ll just become more vulnerable. Imagine also the court cases of people hit by autonomous vehicles, for example. I see our ‘smarter world’ much as I see genetically modified organisms right now: very powerful technologies that could do a lot of good but are being implemented poorly.”

I’m typically an optimist, though not a techno-utopian. Imagining how complex a world full of smart things will be, combined with how unlikely it is that we’ll have a satisfactory field-upgradeable infrastructure (meaning the ability to increase embedded devices’ security in years to come, once they’re installed) makes me extremely skeptical that this ends well for us all.

Rebuild21, held recently in Copenhagen, had a pretty ambitious goal: reimagining multiple sectors of the economy, all in two days.

I was pleasantly surprised, first by the open, smart, skeptical and foresighted approach the first few speakers took in tackling the financial sector – Richard Kelly and Jem Bendell – and then by the equally smart, inquisitive, friendly folks attending the event.

Sofus Mitgard and his crew created a special environment (nice hosting, Lori!).

Sofus asked me to do a short keynote on rebuilding education, one of my favorite topics. Here’s that talk:

And a few more resources:

  • The panel that followed my talk
  • A brief interview that Lori did afterward
  • The Prezi I created for the talk
  • All of this, linked in my Brain

Thanks for a memorable and very useful conference.

My better half and I recently had this OpEd published in the Washington Post, on the subject of how expertise is changing.

In the interest of enriching its context, here’s some of the background material in my Brain.

Recently I gave a talk at the Personal Digital Archiving conference, in which I described what I’ve learned from 15+ years of using TheBrain.

It was a really fun talk to give, both because everyone present is working on how to preserve our many-faceted personal information, and because my use of TheBrain has given me many insights.

For a quick intro to my Brain before you watch this, view this earlier post of mine here.

The projected Brain you see in the video isn’t that clear, for which I apologize. You can partly make up for that by tracking where I go from my online Brain, starting here.

At a recent workshop, I gave a talk titled “Other Kinds of Innovation,” based on this Prezi:

In it, I described three sources of innovation that tend to get short schrift in the whirlwind of books, talks and seminars abot innovation: social innovation, dark innovation and innovations by (not for) the poor.

The first of these, social innovation, is getting more attention thanks to books like The Wisdom of Crowds and Crowdsourcing, even though our culture seems to idolize the lone inventor. Fortunately, recent books like Steven Johnson’s Where Good Ideas Come From are tackling the myth of the lone inventor, but in our individualistic society, it’s a hard myth to shake. (In the Prezi above, this section is intentionally the least developed.)

The second kind of innovation that we often ignore is the category of innovations that are a net negative to society, which I’m calling dark innovations. These include defensive innovations by incumbents trying to postpone their doom, the unintended negative consequences of innovations created with good intent, and general overconfidence.

The third category is a subtle one in several ways. First, it’s not innovations for the poor, but rather by. Second, these innovations don’t always occur at the frenetic modern pace of innovation, so their pace can hide them. And third, some of these innovations are actually old, excellent ideas that have been buried for a few centuries and are now being rediscovered or reinvented, such as the methods of natural farming.

I intend to do a screencast of this Prezi, or perhaps several, but I’m posting now for a different reason.

Among the attendees as I presented was Peter Denning, who besides writing about innovation is the editor of the ACM‘s Ubiquity Magazine. Peter liked the perspective on dark innovation in particular, so we proceded to do an email interview, the results of which you can read here.

What do you think?

One of the two REX Fellows, Marti Spiegelman, is gifted in connecting executives to greater consciousness. Marti and I collaborate often, including a workshop we’re developing that melds the ideas of the Relationship Economy with indigenous technologies of consciousness. It’s a fun journey.

In this sequence of three short video conversations (go to the post’s page for all three), we take on the topic of ownership, as we tend to see and use it in Western society, and contrast it with the ancient notion of membership, as it has been passed to us through time from more ancient peoples.

We start with Marti introducing the idea of relational consciousness, which I then compare to the notion of the Ownership Society, a popular policy meme.

(Please click through to the full post; two more videos follow.) Continue Reading…