Category: creativity

How Fundamental Scientific and Technological Programs are Now Run in a Competitive Manner by Private Companies

Following up on our previous post ‘How Private Initiatives to Reach the Graal of Nuclear Fusion Show a Tipping Point in the Financing of Fundamental Science‘ that expanded on TAE technologies (a US West Coast startup close to Stanford), another similar start-up – this time on the US East Coast close to the MIT – Commonwealth Fusion Systems, has also recently raised dozen million dollars for the same goal, using a different technology (see here the Wikipedia entry on Commonwealth Fusion Systems).

Commonwealth Fusion Systems Tokamak system

In the same year where the US is gone back to space thanks to private companies such as Space X, with an alliance of high technology and design, this really raises the question of the future role of governments in running fundamental scientific experiments and high technology programs by themselves. The aspect which I want to expand here is actual execution of advanced science and technology leveraging on competition.

Both the new space programme and the new fusion efforts appear to share the same principle of competition (Space X, Boeing and other ventures competing for the NASA contract, several companies competing for fusion) . Where in the past large science experiments were run in monopoly fashion (NASA space program, or ITER in fusion), the new world of abundance of private funding (and increased scarcity of public funding) allows to run these high-risk programs with several teams in competition. This is probably an excellent thing to reach the goal quicker and with better quality: a spirit of competition, the emergence of a variety of ideas and solutions, everything that innovative programs should seek (and have sought, as in the famous parallel development of uranium-based and plutonium-based solutions during the Manhattan nuclear project).

I believe this is a fundamental shift in how science is getting done, and not sufficiently noticed. Monolithic state research organisations need to get into this new world of competitive fundamental research, fostering initiatives instead of trying to capture them and run them by themselves.

Share

How We Need to Learn More Than Ever, but that’s Not The Same as Getting Formal Education

In this post ‘But what could you learn instead?’, Seth Godin reminds us that now is the time to accelerate our learning to face a disrupted world – but that at the same time, learning is not necessarily correlated with formal education.

“Learning takes effort, and it’s hard to find the effort when the world is in flux, when we’re feeling uncertain and when we’re being inundated with bad news. But that’s the moment when learning is more important than ever.”

But learning is quite different to formal education which was developed during the industrial age and is actually a way to ensure conformity and the capability to do hard work.

“This shift [from education to true learning] is difficult to commit to, because unlike education, learning demands change. Learning makes us incompetent just before it enables us to grasp mastery. Learning opens our eyes and changes the way we see, communicate and act.”

Let us remind us always that never have we faced more the need to learn, but that there are myriads of ways to learn and change which are not just formal education.

Share

How Structure is Needed to Create a Safe Space for Disruptive Growth

I like this post by Charlene Li ‘Disruption Learnings from Self-Publishing a Book and Going to Burning Man‘, and in particular the part about the need for structure to achieve real disruption. Charlene Li is an experienced consultant specialized in disruption.

“One of the most interesting things I learned in my research for my book, “The Disruption Mindset,” is that disruptive organizations are incredibly well structured and ordered. When you don’t have to worry about how to get things done, then you can focus on achieving extraordinary, disruptive growth. You need to feel safe to take on risk, to be both vulnerable and confident in your ability to try and either succeed/fail. “

I find this insight very strong, as it shows that structure is actually needed for large scale change. People need to be able to focus on disruption and the rest needs to work perfectly, not losing time and effort. Messy organisations are not as likely to pull through a disruptive transformation than minimally organised ones.

“The takeaway is that you need to create just enough structure in your organization or community for people to feel safe space taking the first step out of their comfort zone. Your role as a leader is to ensure that this space remains steady for them, that it doesn’t wobble when they push off hard against it to take off on their disruption journey.”

The message is clear then: if you want to create a disruption, make sure you got the basics covered and organised, and create sufficient structure (and not too much) to enable proper focus on the change.

Share

How We Will Increasingly Interact With Artificial Humans

The artificial human is on the rise, each with its own look and personality. No need to seek permission to use someone’s image anymore, the faces and personalities you’ll interact with don’t exist in the real world. And not only as pictures, soon in video as well, with the full range of emotions.

None of these exist in the real world

One aspect of it is brilliantly exposed in Seth Godin’s post ‘the End of Someone‘: endorsements have now no value. “In 2019, and perhaps forever, we’re now at a new level, one where the polish of photography or video is no longer any clue at all about the provenance of what we’re encountering. I don’t think we have any clue about how disruptive this shift is going to be“. Influencers wa may follow today sometimes don’t even exist (see our post ‘How Virtual Creatures Invade Our Connections and our World‘).

Like we, physical people, may today have several personalities in the virtual world, we’ll get increasingly mixed with purely virtual personalities. And it will become increasingly harder to distinguish one from the other. Fact-checking and source-checking is becoming an essential life and survival skill… as well certains skills to connect with AI-driven virtual humans, and maybe keeping the ability to connect face-to-face with real humans from time to time!

Welcome to the world of the virtual humankind. And a new increase in population, with the advent of a virtual set of humans!

Share

How We Seem to Be Getting Collectively Sadder and Angrier

This post has really caught my attention: ‘Pop Songs are Getting Sadder and Angrier‘. It includes some graphs measuring average positiveness and negativeness of songs over time that show that songs get on average slower and gloomier.

Billie Eilish, revelation of the year with a rather gloomy repertoire

And it is true that the latest emerging artists seem to have on average a repertoire that is quite more depressed and gloomy than before. It would seem to be a deep trend that would seem to be going on since at least the 1960s.

If we suppose that it is a reflection of our overall societal mood, it’s rather not a good sign on the overall positiveness of our society at least in the western English-speaking world.

What is your feeling about the surrounding negativeness?

Share

Why We Need to Work on Unfashionable Problems

I am getting fed up by the hype around fashionable ‘Artificial Intelligence’. Everything should be Artificially Intelligent nowadays (ref my previous post ‘How Automation Should Not Be Marketed as Intelligent‘). Thus I very much like this post of Paul Graham on ‘Fashionable Problems‘. His point is that too many people work on the latest fashionable technology or problem, and too little on other important aspects.

“Even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they’ve all worked on similar things. Even the smartest, most imaginative people are surprisingly conservative when deciding what to work on. People who would never dream of being fashionable in any other way get sucked into working on fashionable problems.”

On this other hand this consideration also shows that there are great opportunities in working on other things than the latest fashion (although of course it may be much more difficult to get funded). And this is what I like to consider: non-conventional people that follow their interest irrespective of the latest fashion. Paul Graham reminds us actually that “The best protection against getting drawn into working on the same things as everyone else may be to genuinely love what you’re doing. Then you’ll continue to work on it even if you make the same mistake as other people and think that it’s too marginal to matter.”

Thus, do not worry too much about the latest fashion on tech. There are so many other areas where progress would be profitable for humankind. Don’t let yourself be deterred. Find what you’re passionate about and go for it!

Share

How Heresy May be the Symptom of Innovation

Paul Graham‘s post on ‘Novelty and Heresy‘ is worth reading. as it reminds us that “If you discover something new, there’s a significant chance you’ll be accused of some form of heresy“.

“One common way for a good idea to be non-obvious is for it to be hidden in the shadow of some mistaken assumption that people are very attached to“. This leads to being treated as an heretic.

The point may be to figure out what is that assumption that people are very much attached to. I also tend to believe that this kind of discovery, while it is a risk, is also an opportunity as it opens an understanding of the world that won’t be shared by many people until it will become mainstream – and thus may become a competitive advantage.

Paul Graham suggests to look for heresies to identify truly new ideas. Taboos are possible sources of great innovation or at least a starting point to put in question commonly held assumptions.

And since truths have a half-life, what’s true today may not be true in a few decades therefore heresy today may be mainstream in a few decades too!

Share

How We Should Start Before We Are Ready

Have a glimpse at this clever post by Austin Kleon ‘Start before you think you’re ready‘. Of course that post is about writing but that can apply to any creative field.

He starts by a quote from Stephen Arrigan: “I think that when it comes to writing books, you have to start before you are ready, because you will always feel like you are never ready. I find that as you write the book, the road ahead becomes clearer; before that, the road ahead is just a distraction“.

The point Austin Kleon makes is that it is often more comfortable and exciting doing research rather than writing. But then when writing the road becomes clearer as to what really needs to be researched, so we should not wait too much before starting to write.

I find that this applies to any creative field, including entrepreneurship. In creative fields, some research is good, too much research is procrastination because we don’t know what to look for before we start. Interesting lesson!

Share

How to Boost Your Creativity by Relating with Other Creative People

This excellent New York Times article ‘How to Be Creative‘ provides many hints to boost our creativity.

Some steps are discussed:

  • Give yourself permission to tap into your thoughts, dreams and imaginations
  • Feel confident
  • Foster creativity through parenting
  • allow yourself to be imperfect

The special recommendation about fostering creativity through parenting is though-provoking. It means to emulate children’s unbounded creativity of course. It also has an interesting component around fostering creativity by relating to other creative people.

And I think this is the key: being creative alone has limitations. Creativity in a group of creative people – if possible of diverse origins and creative orientations – is the way to be effectively creative, and create something real.

Share

How We Need to Overcome the Fear of Unfulfillment of our Lives

In this excellent short post ‘Scared of success?’ the Gapingvoid culture design group addressed the link between fear and achievement. We are fearful to start something new. And when we don’t then we wonder why, and it creates even more fear: to have forego our lives doing nothing worthwhile.

The straightforward issue is that “Out of fear may come comfort, but also out of fear often comes a sense of unfulfillment. You spend your whole life being scared, then wonder why you haven’t created anything“

And I find the next reverse issue even more interesting: “more poignantly, you spend whole life not creating anything, and then you wonder why you’re so scared all the time“

The fear of unfulfillment, of not having lived at the expected level, of not having impressed on the world our talents, whatever they are, may be one of the most fundamental human fears. Let’s not just face it passively, let’s go explore new things and be creative!

Share

How Private Initiatives to Reach the Graal of Nuclear Fusion Show a Tipping Point in the Financing of Fundamental Science

I was not aware of so many initiatives in parallel to seek to master the energy of nuclear fusion. Beyond the international collaboration around ITER in the south of France there are also large investments made in China and through a private company in California, TAE technologies (here a Wikipedia article on TAE technologies).

This last initiative is very interesting in its form: it is the only such endeavors that I know of that is entirely private and in the form of a start-up financed by venture capitalists and large corporations from the internet industry.

The fact that such fundamental science can be financed entirely by private funds is quite new. Of course it may have industrial applications some day, but previously the standard institutional setup was that fundamental science and associated large scientific instruments would be financed publicly, and that private funds would only take over once the science would be sufficiently advanced to get to practical applications in a reasonable time-frame and with a reasonable probability.

This exceptional example shows that private companies have very deep pockets to be able to fund such fundamental science (and that they dream of being able to exploit such technology in a monopolistic manner!). And also that the industrial age public research institutions will need to reconfigure in the Collaborative Age, since the border between fundamental and applied science is definitely shifting.

Share

How We Need to Overcome Our Societies’ Over-Protection Tendency

Following on our previous post ‘How Over-Protection of University Students Is Spreading and May Be Due to a Generational Issue‘ I feel the need to expand on the issue of over-protection in our societies and the need to be exposed from time to time to situations that hurt. How could we all have learnt to ride a bicycle without falling from time to time? How could our immune system grow and be effective without getting exposed regularly to microbes?

It all comes down to the fact that we are living organisms with the ability to repair and evolve. And that our evolution is the result of our will and experience.

The situation would be of course different with an object: when it is damaged or broken it can’t repair itself (yet at least). But for living organisms, what does not kill us makes us progress and evolve.

And avoiding confrontation with potentially disturbing situations diminishes greatly our adaptability and versatility. Adaptability is the prime advantage in natural evolution for humans. Therefore, avoiding exposure to potentially disturbing ideas and situations puts us at disadvantage in the long term.

I fear that is what may happen to the most developed countries. Take for example a Singaporean that has lived all its life in an exceptionally safe country: he or she will be frightened and will have difficulty to adapt to cities like Paris, New York or Houston which are reasonably safe cities, where you need however to be a bit vigilant (that’s an example I have been witness to!). Over-protection makes it difficult to adapt and there is a risk that people will tend to stay in their comfortable environment – until it gets wished away by some greater external forces.

Making sure we are exposed from time to time to tough situations, different opinions and ideas is healthy. And if it does not happen we need to force ourselves. Simple tip: travel more, and expose yourself to unfamiliar environments and cultures!

Share