How to Identify Clues That the Universe Points Us to a New Direction

One nugget from the book ‘What I Know for Sure‘ by Oprah Winfrey: “One of my greatest lessons has been to fully understand that what looks like a dark patch in the quest for success is the universe pointing you in a new direction . Anything can be a miracle , a blessing , an opportunity if you choose to see it that way.”

What I find interesting in this quote compared to the usual ‘the universe is pointing you to where you should go, just pay attention’, is the concept of the “what looks like a dark patch“. It is interesting because it highlights how the difficulties, or possibly the failure areas, can be also seen as signs that we need to change the way we do things or the way we look at things.

How often do we identify a difficulty and try to find a way around it. Maybe we should pause for a while and wonder whether this is not a clue to something we should do differently.

Share

How Virtual Characters and Deepfakes Are Becoming Mainstream

This interesting post ‘Deepfakes Are Becoming the Hot New Corporate Training Tool‘ shows how deepfakes start to become commonplace including as a corporate tool. In this example, it is used to allow simultaneous communication of a corporate messages in many different languages and cultures.

“This month, advertising giant WPP will send unusual corporate training videos to tens of thousands of employees worldwide. A presenter will speak in the recipient’s language and address them by name, while explaining some basic concepts in artificial intelligence. The videos themselves will be powerful demonstrations of what AI can do: The face, and the words it speaks, will be synthesized by software.”

Virtual presenters are used in this case, which are becoming increasingly frequent (refer for example to our posts ‘How Virtual Creatures Invade Our Connections and our World‘ and ‘How We Will Increasingly Interact With Artificial Humans‘). In this case, “the ability to personalize and localize video to many individuals makes for more compelling footage than the usual corporate fare“; and it is also cheaper and easier than mobilizing actual actors (another trade that is due for automation it seems!).

I have personally already used virtual voice-overs; using virtual people in videos is just another step and it is just around the corner. We need to get ready to face increasingly virtual interactions with people we will struggle to decide if real or virtual.

Share

How Automation Increases Pressure on Basic Production Positions

As part of the current debates about the impact of automation of our work environment, I found this post ‘How Hard Will the Robots Make Us Work (In warehouses, call centers, and other sectors, intelligent machines are managing humans, and they’re making work more stressful, grueling, and dangerous)’ quite interesting.

The point of the article is that in many instances, workers get monitored by algorithms that catch much more than a human manager would do in terms of fine grained performance and efficiency, and that it leads to far more pressure on workers. “These automated systems can detect inefficiencies that a human manager never would — a moment’s downtime between calls, a habit of lingering at the coffee machine after finishing a task, a new route that, if all goes perfectly, could get a few more packages delivered in a day. But for workers, what look like inefficiencies to an algorithm were their last reserves of respite and autonomy, and as these little breaks and minor freedoms get optimized out, their jobs are becoming more intense, stressful, and dangerous”

The article goes on to describe a number of grueling examples, but what has struck me is that most examples relate to production positions that are close to being automated, and based on hourly compensation. The only exception in the article is a software engineer whose productivity and presence is monitored at tight intervals, but apparently he is supposed to provide run-of-the-mill coding. The point is quite clear that for those production positions, automation is stressful because they are increasingly expected to be as good as robots – until they will be replaced. This however does not apply to more complex positions related to creativity and system architecture, where productivity can’t be measured the Industrial-Age way.

Still, this is a warning that for production positions that are close to being automated, the current development of AI and automated monitoring systems will create a stressful environment through closer supervision and this may be an area where regulation may need to intervene to protect workers.

Share

How to Overcome Bias in Project Estimates by Involving Generalists in Systemic Reviews

To finish our current series of posts on our exploration of the excellent book ‘Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World‘ by David Epstein, I noted how the concepts developed about generalist vs specialist also applied in the field of project definition. It takes generalists and a diverse set of viewpoints to test the adequacy of a project definition file and associated estimate.

“Bent Flyvbjerg, chair of Major Programme Management at Oxford University’s business school, has shown that around 90 percent of major infrastructure projects worldwide go over budget (by an average of 28 percent) in part because managers focus on the details of their project and become overly optimistic. Project managers can become like Kahneman’s curriculum-building team, which decided that thanks to its roster of experts it would certainly not encounter the same delays as did other groups. Flyvbjerg studied a project to build a tram system in Scotland, in which an outside consulting team actually went through an analogy process akin to what the private equity investors were instructed to do. They ignored specifics of the project at hand and focused on others with structural similarities. The consulting team saw that the project group had made a rigorous analysis using all of the details of the work to be done. And yet, using analogies to separate projects, the consulting team concluded that the cost projection of £ 320 million (more than $ 400 million) was probably a massive underestimate“

“This is a widespread phenomenon. If you’re asked to predict […], the more internal details you learn about any particular scenario […] the more likely you are to say that the scenario you are investigating will occur.”

This is why we observe again and again the immense benefits of having independent reviews of projects by people having a generalist overview and not emotionally involved with the project to get an objective feedback. While this is what we promote, the fact that this review is systemic and performed by generalists is also an essential part of the value delivered. I will highlight it more in the future.

Share

How Humans Will Crush Machines in Open-Ended Real World Problems

Following our previous posts (‘How Learning Approaches Must Be Different in Complexity: Upending the 10,000 h Rule‘) let’s continue our exploration of the excellent book ‘Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World‘ by David Epstein. Beyond putting in question traditional learning techniques, and more generally pointing out the limits of specialization, he makes the point that in an increasingly automated world, the generalists that have a broad integrating picture are the ones that will be in demand.

“The more a task shifts to an open world of big-picture strategy, the more humans have to add“. “The bigger the picture, the more unique the potential human contribution. Our greatest strength is the exact opposite of narrow specialization. It is the ability to integrate broadly.” Reference is made here to open-ended games or infinite games compared to closed or finite games that are won by specialists (refer to our post ‘How Important It Is to Distinguish Between Finite and Infinite Games‘)

Therefore, “in open ended real-world problems we’re still crushing the machines.” This distinction between simple and complex, open and closed problems is really essential in defining the approaches that are needed and the competencies required.

Human’s strength is the capability to decide in complex open-ended problems, and this is what we need now to put emphasis on in terms of education, career and recognition.

Share

How Learning Approaches Must Be Different in Complexity: Upending the 10,000 h Rule

Following on our previous post ‘How Generalists Are Necessary for the Collaborative Age‘, let’s continue some exploration of the excellent book ‘Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World‘ by David Epstein. One of the main topics in the book is to show that the famous 10,000 hours rule for mastering some area of knowledge is actually only applicable to certain types of activities that are bound by clear rules: chess, music, golf. It does not apply to mastering complexity or any activity that does not respond to those characteristics.

“The bestseller Talent Is Overrated used the Polgar sisters and Tiger Woods as proof that a head start in deliberate practice is the key to success in “virtually any activity that matters to you.” The powerful lesson is that anything in the world can be conquered in the same way. It relies on one very important, and very unspoken, assumption: that chess and golf are representative examples of all the activities that matter to you.”

The concept of the 10,000 h rule to master some practice is thus upended. Worst, “In 2009, Kahneman and Klein [found that] whether or not experience inevitably led to expertise, they agreed, depended entirely on the domain in question“. Sometimes even “In the most devilishly wicked learning environments, experience will reinforce the exact wrong lessons.”

Thus in the real complex world, actual learning must happen differently that repeating many times the same exercise in a predictable environment. It probably requires exposure to many different situations. Learning also cannot be expected to be continuous: it is probably discontinuous, with some ‘aha’ moments separated by slow maturing of new understanding.

Quite some thoughts that upend a lot of common knowledge. And still more thoughts that put into question traditional education.

Share

How Generalists Are Necessary for the Collaborative Age

I recommend highly the book ‘Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World‘ by David Epstein. It has provided quite a few interesting insights for me, which will be the subject of a few following posts.

For those that have been following this blog, I have expressed many times that the Collaborative Age calls for generalists, contrary to the specialists fostered by the Industrial Age (for example here and here). This book confirms this hint in a very convincing way and goes beyond to show that complex systems can only be dealt with by generalists. And that being a specialist can be quite dangerous in terms of decision-making beyond the bounds of specialization validity.

“Highly credentialed experts can become so narrow-minded that they actually get worse with experience, even while becoming more confident— a dangerous combination.”

And specialization can indeed lead to poor real-life outcomes. For example, “One revelation in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis was the degree of segregation within big banks. Legions of specialized groups optimizing risk for their own tiny pieces of the big picture created a catastrophic whole. To make matters worse, responses to the crisis betrayed a dizzying degree of specialization-induced perversity.”

This realization is pervading more and more organisations and society when it comes to choosing someone to lead a complex endeavor. The best candidates are generalists, or at least people who have been exposed to many things beyond their main area of interest. “the most common [path to excellence] was a sampling period, often lightly structured with some lessons and a breadth of instruments and activities, followed only later by a narrowing of focus, increased structure, and an explosion of practice volume.”

I have always been convinced, and I am more and more convinced, that the rounded individual exposed to largely varied experiences and fields of knowledge is the new type of leader we will be looking for in an increasingly complex Collective Age. And this is probably the biggest challenge of our learning and academic institutions today.

Share

How the Collaborative Age Value Is In The Platform

In this post ‘Why newspapers fail‘, Frederic Filloux mentions a few reasons. The one which has struck me is that they concentrated on the wrong thing: diffusion rather than aggregation and development of a platform, to reap the value of user data.

“The news industry took the opposite stance. Deprived of customers’ data, it found itself blind to what kind of online services the audience was craving. As a result, publishers left numerous markets wide open, like free classified and auctions taken by Craigslist and eBay (before Schibsted set in), large news aggregators and the entire system that flourished thanks to RSS feeds. It is actually funny to see many news outlets now engaged in costly acquisitions to get back the services they should have developed in the first place.”

Today the value lies in customer data, and those platforms and links in the chain that have access generate the most value. And this explains the value of social network companies and other platforms like Google. All other services are doomed to be dependent from the platform-gods.

If you want to create value today, you need eventually to produce a platform that will concentrate user data; the real source of value in this early Collaborative Age!

Share

How We Need to Continue Creating Even Without Recognition

This post by Seth Godin ‘Creation/recognition‘ reminds us of the sometimes huge time gap between creation and recognition.

“There’s often a significant lag between the creation of something useful and when the market recognizes it. That’s an opportunity for speculators and investors, who can buy before the recognition happens.” And this applies to all fields of creation, from start-up companies to artists to writers to experts in a specific field.

But, and that’s the main point here, “it’s an opportunity or a trap for creators, who might get disheartened about the lack of applause and upside immediately after they’ve created something.”

The point of course here is not to look outside for recognition, but focus on the art and the purpose to deliver our best. Notwithstanding a possible time lag, if we give our best and continue to improve recognition will come eventually. Let’s not be disheartened by a lack of response of the world to our creations. Our inner fire will not be satisfied anyway. Let’s strive on to change the world.

Share

How to Deal with Stress

Following our previous post on ‘How You Should Start By Being Cheerful‘, this post by Leo Babauta tackles a related topic: ‘A Guide to Letting Go of Stress‘.

Leo Babuta reminds us what is the real reason for our stress: “Things are out of control, not orderly, not simple, full of interruptions and unplanned events, health problems and accidents, and things never go as we planned or imagined. But this is the way the world is — the stress comes not because the world is messy and chaotic, but because we desire it to be different than it is.”

This is a very important statement, and one that we tend to forget. Stress is generated by the difference between reality and expectations. Since there are quite many things we can’t change in reality, we need to manage our expectations and ideals (the alternative, to alter reality to align with our expectations, is not a sustainable solution).

Therefore the recommended practice is to put together the conditions for self-awareness of this misalignment between reality and expectations, and let go of that difference (more details in the post). And then, “Even in moments of chaos, you can be free, and even appreciate the beauty of the chaos.”

Let’s remember that stress is indeed a misalignment between a messy reality and inner hopes and expectations, and that the solution is to realign both by letting go.

Share

How You Should Start By Being Cheerful

This excellent post by Gapingvoid makes an essential point about cheerfulness and success. Successful people are cheerful, but actually they were probably cheerful and optimistic quite before being successful.

The research at the origin of this HBR article ‘The Financial Upside of Being an Optimist‘ “found that when it comes to money, optimists are more likely to make smart moves and reap the benefits“. This translates into much more successful financial situations.

Now an important point here is that in this research optimism is not just naive. It is more rational optimism. “We define optimism as the expectation of good things to happen, and the belief that behavior matters, especially in the face of challenges. A rational optimist is able to see reality for what it is, while maintaining the belief that actions can improve the situation“

As the Gapingvoid post summarizes: “Simply put, our ability to stay cheerful and optimistic helps us go the extra mile.” Become cheerful, and stay cheerful and rationally optimistic!

Share

How You Should Always Give It At Least a Second Try

In Kevin Kelly’s ‘68 bits of unsolicited advice‘, one bit of wisdom about being turned down raised my interest: “Don’t take it personally when someone turns you down. Assume they are like you: busy, occupied, distracted. Try again later. It’s amazing how often a second try works“

This resonates indeed with my experience, and sometimes actually you’ll need to try again for a few more times than just a second one. And it is true that many people having experienced rejection will tend not even to give it a second change. Overcoming this feeling of rejection is an essential skill in society and is becoming even more important as we are all becoming more independent economic actors.

It is quite true that rejection is only a feeling and that many times, it is not just rejection, but that we tried to connect at an inadequate moment; and that this impression of indifference and rejection is just an artefact of other people being too busy to notice.

Next time you’ll feel rejected, brush it away and try a second time. And a third, fourth time if needed, at least until you get a clear reaction.

Share