Jeremie Averous | The Fourth Revolution Blog

Why is there a Golden Arches Theory of World Peace?

What is the Golden Arches peace theory? “No two countries with a McDonald’s have ever fought in a war. The only unambiguous Big Mac Attack took place in 1999, when NATO briefly bombed Yugoslavia” writes Steven Pinker in ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence In History And Its Causes‘.

This is an observation, but not a causal fact. What could explain this effect? “Broad historical changes have tilted financial incentives away from war and toward trade. Russett and Oneal found that it was not just the level of bilateral trade between the two nations in a pair that contributed to peace, but the dependence of each country on trade across the board: a country that is open to the global economy is less likely to find itself in a militarized dispute”

It thus seems that bringing countries or communities into the flow of world trade and increasing the dependency on exchange would be a great way to foster world peace. The dramatic increase in worldwide trade could be an explanation of the much more peaceful times we are enjoying since the end of WW2.

In the Collaborative Age, bringing people and communities into the worldwide exchange of ideas should also improve peace and understanding. We then need to be particularly wary of those communities that close themselves to the outside world.

How Sensor Devices Add Another Dimension to the Personal Data Sharing Conundrum

Since the start of the Collaborative Age most of us have been giving out personal data in exchange for free services (like Gmail or Facebook where it serves to generate “targeted” advertisement). It’s already a lot of personal data, but it might become much more soon: we are increasingly wearing personal sensors that generate a lot more intimate data (location, movement, biological data etc.) and the Internet of Things will generate still more data about our personal environment. Should we continue to share it in exchange for more and more (annoying) targeted advertisement with the risk to really see our intimacy compromised or should we put a stop to this trend? Or are we happy to continue to fund free services with our personal data?

It is a real debate that is unfolding under our eyes at the moment. Cory Doctorow who is clearly on the side of the defense of personal data, proposes in a recent column ‘What If People Were Sensors, Not Things to be Sensed?‘ to change the logic: let the world produce offers and let us choose and filter without giving out our data. Large internet conglomerates on the other hand, defend their interest to have our data (while pledging for confidentiality and anonymity). And when Microsoft when installing Windows 10 asks a lot of questions of what we accept about data sharing, it seems scary but well, at least they are asking for authorization… while others don’t!

It is a narrow edge that the internet giants are treading at the moment. Their business model is at stake. Give the consumer the impression that they know too much about their intimacy and they risk a backslash; allow too strict personal data laws to pass and their revenues will disappear. And at the end of this conundrum, the choice is ours, as it will shape the Collaborative Age to come.

Why You Need to Beware of Second-Hand Stress

Second-hand stress has become a commonly recognized issue in the workplace and life in general (with an interesting parallel with second-hand smoke). Many papers are written on the subject even in the Harvard Business Review (‘Make Yourself Immune to Secondhand Stress‘).

Emotional contagion in the workplace results in the dissemination of stress in the office: “if someone in your visual field is anxious and highly expressive — either verbally or non-verbally — there’s a high likelihood you’ll experience those emotions as well, negatively impacting your brain’s performance“. The HBR paper even goes as far that one can be influenced by sight, sounds and even smell!

The recommendation to fight second-hand stress is simple. It involves quite some self-awareness, and building defenses (counter-acting stress episodes with compensating thoughts and situations, and defending oneself against the spread by resolutely taking some distance from the events at hand).

Be aware about the negative effects of second-hand stress! Build your defense system and minimize the impact of any residual second-hand stress on yourself. Remember, in most cases it’s not worth it!

Why are we working the more the higher in the organization? The work-time paradox

Today, the higher people are in organizations, and the higher paid they are, the more they are expected to work. That is very much the opposite of the situation one century ago: it was rather the lower classes that had to work long hours to gain a meager living while the upper classes took advantage of a life of leisure. And in the meantime, productivity gains should have rather diminished the average work time, while automation should have reduced human effort.

overworked — Overworked in the bureaucracy?

Why this paradox? Is it representative of a societal shift? Where will it stop (when one hears for example about young interns in banks dying from overwork !?)?

The New-Yorker published an interesting column on this topic ‘You Really Don’t Need To Work So Much‘ following some recent controversies about work conditions in Collaborative Age companies such as Amazon.

The column I find does not give convincing explanations of the paradox. Some arguments are probably valid (such as ‘If you’re busy you seem important’ and the fact that the modern large organization does create a lot of occupation that diminishes dramatically the efficiency, not to mention the effectiveness). One can think also about the fact that the current organizational structures are not designed to tackle the increasing complexity of the world, and this creates huge work to try to catch up the increasing gap. And yes, it is probably possible to be as effective and putting less hours at work, removing some bureaucracy.

It seems to me that the fact that the higher one is in an organization, the more he/she has to work is a remnant of the pyramidal organization of the industrial age. This should disappear progressively with the Collaborative Age. However the increase of inequality counteracts this movement as many people have to work more to earn what they expect. And freelance people end up working more than employees in general, because they also need to do marketing and administration tasks they can’t easily delegate.

Please comment if you have a good explanation for this paradox and your views on its evolution!

How We Increasingly Discover the Importance of the Vagus Nerve

I am struck to see in more and more papers and articles mention of the “vagus nerve“, a lesser known nervous system that runs parallel to the best known spinal system and concentrates on linking our internal organs to the brain.

This comes in parallel to an increasing awareness of the importance of “gut feelings” in decision-making. Gut feelings are mainly transmitted by the vagus nerve system. See for example this article: ‘Science says your “gut feeling” isn’t a metaphor‘ (which even goes to link our guts’ microbial condition to our brain capabilities).

In general it appears that a lot of deep emotional reactions are triggered or conveyed by the vagus nerve and that it plays an essential role in our overall behavior. This of course goes against some theories about the role of certain other nerves and brain parts. We still have a lot to learn on our bodies!

Why You Need to Get Better at the Skill of Asking Dumb Questions

Dumb questions can be very effective. And asking pointed dumb question is an art that I try to perfect.

I am not alone. “An important tenet of action learning is to create a structure and environment in which people are encouraged to ask what they might think of as “dumb” questions. Often it is the “dumb” question that is really the great “fresh” question that ultimately solves the problem and perhaps saves the company” writes Michael Marquardt in the book ‘Optimizing the Power of Action Learning‘.

Of course, it is harder to ask dumb questions on a topic that you know very well so unfortunately I realize that I get much less effective the more I know about something. That’s why it is always useful in a facilitated session to have someone there that does not know too much about the subject at hand and can ask the effective dumb question.

Are you also working on this essential skill?

How to Benefit of Reality Distortion Fields While Avoiding Total Disconnect

Reality Distortion Fields are essential for visionary leaders like Steve Jobs, but they can also be dangerous if too strong – reality often catches up rather quickly when ignored for too long. This is in particular the case for distortions of time (the most common maybe).

There is thus a fine balance to be maintained so as to allow visionary jump forward while at the same time, retaining sufficient connection with reality.

It is very possible to keep a moderate reality distortion field, which most people do even if unaware, and sufficient realism too. The issue is when the distortion strength becomes significant.

It is then easier to have this balance maintained by a team rather by a single individual. The visionary leader with his distorted vision of reality must then be paired with a down-to-earth realistic counterpart, and sufficient trust must exist between those individuals, which must rely on mutual respect. Sometimes leaders themselves must try to maintain this balance, but this often leads to unease and sometimes to accidents.

Strong reality distortion fields are essential for creativity and for leaps forward. They need to be managed and counterbalanced for a healthy progression.

When Will We Have Health Warnings on Social Networks?

Social networks create significant disruption in our lives. Some people get addicted and they indirectly generate accidents when people can’t help looking at their friend’s latest posts while driving or walking…

So, when will we have health warnings on social networks like on cigarettes?

Joke apart, this may happen sooner than you think!

How Creators and Artists still Thrive in the Collaborative Age

With the Fourth Revolution came the collapse of creative industries such as the music industry, the publishing industry etc. It is relevant to ask what became of the artists and creators. Were they also destroyed by the tsunami? In an excellent piece ‘The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t‘, the New York Times Magazine gives a clear answer: no, actually the artists are rather thriving. It is the industry around them that crumbled.

Focus the value on the artist, not the industry around him

The entire business model of creativity has been put on its head. The collapse was incredible: “The global music industry peaked just before Napster’s debut, during the heyday of CD sales, when it reaped what would amount today to almost $60 billion in revenue. Now the industry worldwide reports roughly $15 billion in revenue from recorded music, a financial Armageddon even if you consider that CDs are much more expensive to produce and distribute than digital tracks.”

Obviously, recordings don’t sell so well any more and their value has decreased. To compensate, live shows are an increasing part of the value creation, and their price has increased tremendously (“In 1999, when Britney Spears ruled the airwaves, the music business took in around $10 billion in live-music revenue internationally; in 2014, live music generated almost $30 billion in revenue“). And, in general, there are more professional musicians now than before, which shows that one way or the other, they get a share of the remaining value.

I definitely concur with the conclusion of the article: “I suspect the profound change lies at the boundaries of professionalism. It has never been easier to start making money from creative work, for your passion to undertake that critical leap from pure hobby to part-time income source. […] From the consumer’s perspective, blurring the boundaries has an obvious benefit: It widens the pool of potential talent. But it also has an important social merit. Widening the pool means that more people are earning income by doing what they love.”

Overall the Collaborative Age encourages expression and creates value and income for creators. The border between full-time and part-time professional is just blurring like in many other occupations.

Why Inspiration is only for Amateurs

“Inspiration is for amateurs — the rest of us just show up and get to work” writes painter Chuck Close. I think it is actually a great quote about creativity, and against naivety.

The people that are the most creative are those that devote themselves to a creative discipline, which simply involves a lot of work. And this discipline is also the only remedy known against Resistance, which will try to impede you of being creative and break new ground.

Chuck Close continues: “And the belief that things will grow out of the activity itself and that you will — through work — bump into other possibilities and kick open other doors that you would never have dreamt of if you were just sitting around looking for a great ‘art idea.”

Because connections will only be created if you invest yourself in the work. They won’t happen by themselves.

Read the full Chuck Close interview in ‘Chuck Close on Creativity, Work Ethic, and Problem-Solving vs. Problem-Creating‘, a great paper on many things related to creativity.

How Social Ratings Determine Our Choices

In a well-known but scary experiment on the music market, Duncan Watts and a team of Princeton researchers showed in 2006 that the popularity of songs was only very partially related to their appeal and quality – most of it is influenced by our peers’ rating.

In this experiment, people were either able to see or not the ratings from others. This created very significant differences in behavior. When rating was present, there was a big “luck premium”: whoever had some good ratings first would emerge as the uncontested winner at the end.

Hence, funny articles such as ‘Is Justin Timberlake a Product of Cumulative Advantage?‘. As mentioned in this paper, “The reason is that when people tend to like what other people like, differences in popularity are subject to what is called “cumulative advantage,” or the “rich get richer” effect. This means that if one object happens to be slightly more popular than another at just the right point, it will tend to become more popular still. As a result, even tiny, random fluctuations can blow up, generating potentially enormous long-run differences among even indistinguishable competitors — a phenomenon that is similar in some ways to the famous “butterfly effect” from chaos theory.” We come back to one of the main characteristics of the Collaborative Age.

There is no way to predict the popularity of your creation. But early support and excellent ratings from your tribe might be a good place to start!

Why Leaders Need to Be Authentic

“Becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself. It is precisely that simple, and it is also that difficult” – Warren Bennis.

I am increasingly convinced that authenticity is required to be successful in all our creative endeavors – and this includes leadership. It is quite strange because showing restraint and self-control is rather what has been inculcated to us. However, authenticity and the associated emotional messages are essential to move people, and to create change.

Depending on our education and the circumstances, it can be tough to authentic, and it needs to be dosed right and be timely. Still I have found that every time I was authentic and connected to my feelings, something happened that hastened progress.

Become yourself and be authentic. It is the secret of great leaders.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30