The Not Model

As we have been discussing, intentionally choosing models as a way to navigate ones way through the infinite incoming impulses and stimuli we each face every waking moment, is a powerful way to assert a clear intention and thereby increase the odds of getting to your desired goals. Some of us in the name of organization, attempt to begin with top level goals, missions or visions and drill all of the way down to specific scheduled tasks. For those of you who amazingly are able to perfectly line up their lives from top to bottom, congratulations, you are officially awesome.

There is however at least one other way to attack the entropy lying in wait to envelope us and that is through Not-To-Do Lists. We all have literally more than we can eat on our plates. Many of us want to shrink parts of us, physically and also in terms of commitments (two sides of the same coin). It can be worth while thinking about what not to eat and what not to do.

But that is not what I am going to talk about this morning. Instead I am going to kick things up a level to considering what not to believe in some ways a superset of what not to do. At a minimum this can function as a context within which we can discard lower priority activities.

We all begin to accumulate beliefs, models and understandings as soon as we could hear, see and sense, which is to say before we were conscious of what we were absorbing. Unconscious accumulation can be paralyzing for pack-rats never letting go of anything. Eventually we each develop filters and a filtering process by which we protect ourselves from indiscriminate acceptance whatever incoming we are standing in the way of. We begin to establish a sense of priorities and sense of what seems reasonable and what needs to be rejected.

But, how often do we take a deep look at ideas we have accepted as true, and attempt to revalidate them? Our to-do-lists become more manageable when we establish some Not-To-Dos. Our lives also make more sense when we get rid of ideas that are holding us back. Oftentimes these ideas entered into our belief structure before we set up protective filters. Some are useful and some are not. If you grew up in a family where everyone was an athlete or a musician or really great at making money, these positive preconscious beliefs can be worth carrying forward. Alternatively, if you grew up knowing love nor success would be forthcoming, those limiting beliefs could cripple an otherwise capable healthy person.

As a younger man I was attracted to people who had lived during developmental years in other countries, They seemed to have consciously determined which beliefs, values and tastes to hold onto and which to let go of, because they could not take it all with them. This was true of physical items and thoughts which made these people interesting as they seemed to have consciously considered through necessity what to care about and what to let go of.

The same phenomena exists within people who change physical locations, professions or social milieus. None of whom could take it all with them, having had to let go of things and beliefs. Could we voluntarily do regular dump runs on obsolete ideas and limiting beliefs? This would make room to grow and perhaps permit us to become what we always wanted to be to achieve our hearts desire(s).

As an example I grew up in a family who all believed we could not sing and therefore could not. Decades later I discovered that I could which felt pretty good. On the other hand, I was born with club feet and unable to walk until I was two. When I made the track team in junior high school no one in my family was surprised, but my orthopedic foot doctor was and his colleagues thought it was impossible. My parents were extremely physically strong making this seem much more reasonable than singing which pretty much everyone can do.

Most of us have accumulated limiting beliefs that we can let go of to great effect. Models put in place and accepted about strengths and weaknesses need to be examined, with some kept and some discarded. Outmoded societal values, like girls can’t do math persist in some circles in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Another is people become too old to learn or get in shape. An ever increasing army of high functioning eighty and ninety year olds beg to differ.

The bottom line is the largest input into all of our lives is ourselves. Our self talk is the dominant talk we hear all day long. If it is limiting, than we are limited. If it is positive, reinforcing and upward looking, we can change the world or at least change ourselves.

Be at least as careful about things you tell yourself, as you are about eating leftovers. Smell them first to see how old they are. If they have gone bad then toss them out and do not consume them. If you don’t, you may end up with a life-ache instead of a stomach-ache.

Attitudinal Ancestors or Is Parking Karma Just Showing Up

Ever notice how some people seem to almost always manage to get excellent parking spots even in the middle of big cities like New York?  Did you also ever notice it also seems to be hereditary? That peoples whose parents had or have great parking karma seem to have it as well?

This phenomena seems to apply to adeptness at mathematics, business, creativity and perhaps everything. Could it be the parents are simply modeling a good behavior that their offspring sometimes embrace? I am wondering if this phenomena is in some way related to the well known principle that “you miss 100% of the shots you never take” which in its most generalized form may be about “simply showing up”.

If you do not look for a parking spot right outside your destination, but instead get into the habit of parking several blocks away anticipating there will be no parking at your destination than this becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.  If you never show up at your destination you can never find a spot right there.

Innovation is exactly like this. If you assume there is a better way to address any situation and can have some sort of insight you are ready to apply, then you are the kind of person who will drive right up to the situation and not park several blocks away.

In other words, the people who think they are innovative are far more likely to be, than those who think they are not.

The good news is you can choose your inheritance and therefore do not necessarily need to be born with it. As there does not seem to be a gene for parking or math or innovation it appears what is inherited is an attitude. As there is no attitudinal  blood or genetic material being shared with your ancestors you can choose your ideational attitudinal ancestors.

You can choose your influences. Choose your fiends. Choose who you spend time with. Choose your models.  Chose what you want to inherit! Create your own karma. In fact create your own Dharma too while you are at it.

All of these choices can be considered to be examples of manifestations of “clarity of intention”. Intend to inherit. As a corollary, choose what to not inherit as well. If you think you can not park in New York City and there is no reason for driving there at all, you may have a point there. On the other hand if you view it as an adventure where there is a good chance of finding a spot right out front, than go for it.

The odds of getting into an elite institution or becoming a professional athlete are far lower than finding a parking spot in NYC. The odds of innovating in the face of the opportunities known as problems are quite good if you believe you can. And if you do not than the odds are completely against you.

Innovation is far more about attitude than about talent. Perhaps insight is significantly in the realm of talent. But Innovation requires one to Apply that Insight and application is considerably more about effort than about talent.

What matters more than talent and effort, is attitude. Attitude is more of a belief or faith, than a rational stance entirely based upon facts.

Innovation is about audacity not algorithms. Choose your ancestors from your heroes. Read books about innovators and declare yourself to be their offspring.  Is it considered audacious to choose your ancestors? Sure it is. But not any harder than finding a parking spot in Manhattan. In these and most other situations, the  first thing to do, is show up which is necessary but not sufficient. Human potential is unbounded. We can all bring our attitudes into alignment with this fact and show up.

Developers Can Make the World Feel a lot Better 

Lets face it when endusers are made to feel stupid because of using new products or apps it is not their fault. Endusers are not stupid they are human. On the other hand when a product is designed that reduces the self esteem of the enduser this is not the endusers fault!  We have been learning over the last thirty years to greatly simplify and even eliminate in some cases documentation.  Some companies do this to save money and others do it because they value people’s time and state of mind.  Evolved designs do not need much documentation to operate. Case in point – the automobile. Many people happily operate their cars without ever looking at the manual at all.  Manuals come in cars in an attempt to make complex systems safer, more usable and as on ramp to advanced features and maintenance specifications.

The flattening of the world internationalizes product usage, increasing the importance of simplifying or eliminating operating directions. The fastest and easiest way to learn, is to ask questions. Some of our devices now permit this in forms which bring smiles to some and frowns to others.  Fortunately, the degree to which out products adapt to us instead of us adapting to them is increasing.  However there are very many situations inexcusably where the customer is made to feel stupid.

This can be radically reduced by making out interaction with machines more like our interactions with people in one very powerful way. By making interactions both hands free and eyes free, through the better use and integration of sound.  This will not be accomplished by simply replacing the keyboard, mouse and trackpad with a microphone, and continuing to use the same operating systems.  Sound centric communication is potentially the largest killer app of all time if executed excellently because it will increase instead of decreasing the self esteem of all of its users.  When adults encourage children to learn to speak they do not do it by making  them feel like something is wrong with them. They encourage any attempts at all as much as possible.

We can design systems in the same way. Imagine your computer saying this to in response to you saying “print”.

 So you want to print something? 

 You have been working on five different files int eh last twenty minutes which one do you want me to print?

 By the way there are three different printers you use regularly I know about. The one in your house, in your office next to your desk and the shared high volume color one.

 Which one do you want me to print to?

 Do you want me to format it in your usual manner – two sided with page numbers?


And as you use it more it asks less questions and can summarize – “printing two sides to the color laser at the end of the hall, is that okay”.  This completely eliminates the need for menus, windows, or possibly even being in the same room as your devices.   Kind of like having a staff member.  Breakthrough operating systems development has somewhat stalled. I for one am ready for a hands free, eyes free, menus free, windows free mode of operation.

This does not have to be instead of but in addition to. Why do you think we still have radios? Because we do not want to stop what we are doing to do something as trivial as checking the weather or printing a document.  Now I hear some of you saying wait we have devices in our house listening to help us buy stuff isn’t that the same thing? Well yes they are on the path and at the same time they are also listening to you, in order to capture information making it easier to get things done in the future. Presently they are more about consuming than producing.  Lets bring this technology to leverage ourselves in creating and producing.

In prior lives, as the primary sound guy at Apple after being the primary computer guy at Bose I have been part of this dance for a long time.

Learning to Learn

As our world continues to accelerate, generating increasingly more information and knowledge, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine exactly what to teach the next generation to best prepare them for the future. Increasing complexity and interdependence is added to this somewhat overwhelming situation, where the half-life of what we know continually shrinks. To exemplify this, earlier in my professional development, science training seemed to be more persistent than engineering training. As an electro-acoustician and digital signal processor, it seemed the laws and practices of acoustics, a primary branch of physics required far less reading to stay current, than the more rapidly exploding field of electrical engineering which digital signal processing was part of.  The notion that knowledge could have a half-life, directly impacts the ratio of learning to creating. It was taking more energy to keep up in engineering, than it did in science, leaving less energy to be creating tomorrow than learning about the past. Perhaps this was because science tends to ask Why, while engineering tends to ask How.

Why, a more conceptually abstract notion than How, relies more upon principles than recipes. As most facts are manifestations of underlying principles, it is more economical to retain concepts than facts, although it can be more difficult to learn concepts. Perhaps this is why there are many less physics majors than engineering majors in schools. Or perhaps it is because engineers are more employable than scientists.

Humans have always had a lot to cope with and keep track of. This lead to generating and compiling the wisdom literature seekers have been returning to for thousands of years. Most of the expanding crop of self-help books are recycled wisdom literature. It is easier to read about what to do, than about the way things are. Is life more difficult now than thousands of years ago? This is doubtful, but life is becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of today, raising the issue of how to best educate ourselves and next generations. If we have to get better at getting better, than the only hope for each of us is to learn how to learn.

Many currently relevant facts, tools, apps, recipes and algorithms will no longer apply in five or fifty years. Therefore, the notion we can fill up a person’s mind with what is needed so they can stop learning is no longer true, if it ever was. In order to navigate the increasing complex world, we live in, we have to be constantly learning, for the world is constantly changing. And it is not changing slowly, it is changing quickly further increasing the criticality of learning to learn, fast and well.

The evolution from agricultural, to industrial to Information Age has enabled a shift of mental models, where confidence and abundance can replace fear and scarcity. The world’s population has more than tripled in my life so far. Clearly we cannot solve our problems simply by taking things away from each other, but only by creating more resource, a skill which humans have a demonstrated a terrific proclivity for. The only way this is going to happen, is by each individual contributing more value to the world, not by each individual consuming more. Those who are the better learners, will become the better earners.

If we want a world with less fear, we had better spend a little more time learning to learn – than learning to consume. There is no other way we will find our way to a more equitably distributed abundance. We already have created and continue to create plenty of abundance. Technology and the tech sector have been deriving the world economy for decades. Agricultural societies required the majority of their populations to focus on creating food and shelter, and harvesting energy. In the information age under 10% of the population provides all of the food, shelter and energy we need. There is not scarcity, there is a distribution problem. Greed and hoarding are artifacts of a different age. In an information society it is the sharing of information that creates value. Information has very little value in isolation.

In short, fixing out world is quite straight forward – shift from the insecurity and fear of a scarcity model which causes hoarding, to the ebullience of distributed shared abundance. There is only one way to create more, and that is through innovation, applied insight. If fear continues to cause people to resist new ideas like sharing and abundance, we may have a great dieback when much of humanity perishes.

The way innovation and new ideas can be embraced, is through a better educated population, who learns how to learn and does it pretty soon. There is no question humans can solve all of their problems in the same way they always have, and that is through innovation. But just because a person has potential does not mean they will flourish. Talent is not enough to save us. Hard work is not enough to save us. Clarity of intention is not enough to save us. Integrating human’s proclivity to adapt, create and innovate with hard work, clear intentions, clarity of purpose, and learning how to learn, to make our efforts are more effective can solve every single problem we are facing.

Time to stop trying to cram our heads full of soon to be obsolete facts. Time to stop cramming our closets full of soon to be obsolete possessions. Time to learn to learn, so we can focus on solving problems by letting go of what we do not need whether it be obsolete mental models, pieces of information or stuff.

Humanity has the goods – we are natural powerful innovators who can create anything and everything we need. Time to change the obsolete attitudes and mental models holding us back.

LEARN TO LEARN to become Better at Getting Better.