Image via Wikipedia

We keep moving towards greater transparency in business, in government, even in our personal lives.  100% transparency–where anyone can know anything that is should be public (plus things that are implicitly public, such as when you go to the grocery store)–has some interesting effects.

First, it’s very powerful. It holds corporations and governments accountable to the public.

It’s dangerous–at least for a period of time.  WikiLeaks is an interesting example.  Leaking sensitive information may cause more harm than good in the short term (ex.  the positions of US forces in Afghanistan).  But in the longer term, 100% transparency could stop governments and corporations from doing things that require secrecy.

People act differently when they’re in front of people–which we sort of are with 100% transparency.  This may not be a good thing for us personally.  There are a number of potential reasons: being politicians more than individuals, added costs to partying with your friends if your future (or current) employers may know about it,  people becoming more boringly “tame”, being less likely to break the rules every once in a while (double-edged sword there.)

Just some thoughts.

-Kevin
8.12.2010

Right now, your brain has thoughts.  Your brain is aware of itself and what these thoughts are.  This is your consciousness.

Now, stop thinking about your consciousness as only what you’re thinking at this given moment.  Think of your consciousness as a singular thing–a flow of thoughts and self-awareness.

We can then go one more step: imagine your consciousness, this flow of conscious thought, running like water into a river of other people’s consciousness.  This river ultimately will flow into an ocean that includes all the thought of human history.

This is our “collective consciousness.” And all humans have an implicit desire to be connected to this collective consciousness.   (This is a more interesting way to model and think about the human desire for connectedness to other people as well).

I’m not so sure that everyone has a desire to tap into the full, uninhibited pool of the collective conscious.   I imagine some people would be uncomfortable with this. But, I do know we all have a desire for some part of this consciousness.  Facebook feeds, Twitter, Wikipedia, and blogs point to this desire. But to go further, the internet is an incredible reflection of this collective consciousness (and that is a topic for another day….).

What about people that find solace in solitary work? Many great thinkers were content to live in isolation where they could focus on their work.  Did they care about the collective consciousness? or were they so smart that they were making completely new things?  They absolutely did care, and perhaps thought about it more than anyone.  They wanted to know the thoughts of the masters.  They may have even wanted to command the collective conscious.  And in order to do that, they had to come to understand it.

Personally, the collective consciousness enthralls me.  And I can’t wait to see it continue to materialize.  If we implicity desire this, and we do, we’ll eventually make it.

-Kevin
8.3.2010

Back in 1993, my Grandpa did the same thing I’m doing; he took old media and converted it into the newer form of media–except he did it a little differently.  He took all his old film reels, spliced them together,  ran them on the projector, and recorded them on a video (VHS) camcorder. Now, I’m saving what he saved.

Here’s a few clips of my Grandparents and my dad and uncle during a day at the amusement park.  My dad is the older brother in the blue shirt.

It’s almost too picturesque– the hum of the film reel, waving at the camera, my uncle crying when mom gets on the big ride, little brother trying to imitate big brother, the boredom of waiting for the ride to start.

Yesterday, I bought a 500 gigabyte hard drive for a 100 bucks.  It’s less than the size of a wallet.  This hard drive is going to store all these videos, over 50 years of family memories.

Persistent memory and collective consciousness are powerful concepts within the human condition; we’re compelled to create connections that bridge time and minds.  Cultures have reached for these concepts through stories and traditions.  We continue reaching for such things in our digital life, and I’ll soon have an important piece of persistent memory in my pocket.

-Kevin
5.26.3010

p.s.  I have to wonder what things will be like when my grandchildren update this outdated form of digital media.

I think that about says it all. With a small device that fits in my pocket, I can be in touch with all the recorded knowledge of human civilization. I can also stay in touch with the people of the world.

Connectivity is beautiful.

-Kevin
4.11.2010

I had an interesting chat yesterday with a guy that thinks about the Web probably as much as I do (or more).  The subject of the conversation was Open vs. Closed systems, a very prevalent discussion right now.

On the Web, there seems to be different universes forming with different fundamental laws governing them.  The most prominent of these “universes” being Apple’s media ecosystem, the Twitter-verse, and Facebook.  People enter these universes and interact differently with the Web and other users.

Defining Open and Closed is a bit of a discussion in itself, but I’d describe Twitter as being completely Open.  The Twitter API is like electricity; Twitter powers any piece of software that is designed to use it. But, it provides such a fundamental functionality, it can power many things (just as electricity delivers energy).

Apple maintains a high level of control over their system through their vertical integration from hardware, software/media, to distribution. They have certain rules for what can be done on their devices.  You manage and obtain shows, music, and apps through iTunes.  This is a closed system.

The major question posed during this conversation was, “How do Open and Closed systems affect innovation”?

Here’s my answer after this conversation (thanks to Brad for framing it within the context of evolutionary processes):

Early in their formation, closed systems produce the most innovation and value. With a closed system, if the designer gets it right, clearly defined rules and uses allow people to immediately build within the system and harness it.  If the system really gets it right (and I think Apple did), it will be the optimal system at that point in time. Consequently, Apple’s universe exploded very quickly.

Early in the development of open systems, people aren’t really sure exactly what it really is for and what it can do. Twitter started as a micro-blogging system with an open API (other programs could interact with it), so you could post short messages like, “I’m eating soup.”  However eventually people started doing very interesting things with this system, people started to figure out what it really was, Twitter developed more capabilities, and people started better understanding the laws of the Twitter-verse and how to operate within this universe.  Then Twitter suddenly had a trove of openly available data.  This further enhanced the platform.  The platform (Twitter) and the users co-evolved.  It took a long time for this to come about.

Intelligent design of closed systems is much faster at producing growth, and optimal in the short term.  Thus, closed systems can really hit the nail on the head and deliver in a short burst.  However, they suffer long-term risk. Apple has to get things right since they impose constraints. They don’t leave it to others to find their way.

Open Systems don’t have constraints, and the agents within can pursue whatever they desire within a loose set of fundamental laws. Open systems evolve and take longer.  But in the long term, evolutionary processes are very powerful.  In the beginning things are a mess, but once people start to get it, and since people can pursue whatever they desire, the activity grows explosively. Consequently, innovation comes about by sheer brute force of having so much activity.  And when selective pressures come along, something will stand.  There is less long-term risk.

You could think of a closed system as an arrow. If it’s on the mark, it’s beautiful and elegant. But if it’s off target, it produces nothing.  You better have someone skilled shooting the arrow.

Open systems however are more like a shotgun, once the powder is ignited (think of an old gun that takes a long time to load), it fires, and hurls a mess of small projectiles at the target.  It’ll hit something.  Although it’s not nearly as pretty or elegant, almost anyone could hit the target to some degree.

Not a perfect analogy, but it’s the best I could do in a limited amount of time.  It’s difficult without having two similar systems (Apple and Twitter do different things).  Here’s one that could provide a model: Encylopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.  Once Wikipedia got going, it blew encyclopedias out of the water.

Thoughts? Clarifications for me?

-Kevin
5.7.2010

The internet has changed the world already.  However, there are plenty of new ways to better utilize this beautiful thing called the Web.

One area where the Web is still lacking is learning–specifically, what I’d call Knowledge Acquisition, when you really want to get a big chunk of deep knowledge on a topic.

If you’re new to a topic, and want to learn it at a deep level, where do you begin on the internet?  You’d likely go to Google and start poking around.  You’ll eventually stop in at the topic’s Wikipedia page.   Wikipedia will give you the basics and help you learn some of the terminology to better refine your search results.  You’ll then go back to Google and do some more searches.

In my experience, I get the following from this process: 1) SEO garbage 2) overviews that aren’t any better than the Wikipedia page 3) pages that are somewhat on the topic but are mainly just entertaining, and 4) I actually stumble across someone’s online presence that is a very good resource that I should spend some time with but I don’t know it.

Here’s a search on “Visual Design” that I think is representative.  On the 2nd page, you’ll find Edward Tufte’s web page.  Tufte is highly regarded when it comes to information presentation and design. If you took a glance at his web page, you certainly wouldn’t know it.  And I’d be surprised if you even took the time to look through his site.

1) The first problem with the internet and knowledge acquisition is that you have to make a serious investment in going through the material.  It’s not just a 400 word article we’re talking about here.  And do you want to commit to going through a substantial amount of material that could actually be junk?

2) Google is great at finding specific or popular pages.  But when it comes to deep learning, it seems to me Google isn’t very good by default.   Google’s ranking system is still largely based on links, and a site gets a large amount of links by having a lot of people link to it.  However, deeper knowledge is held within the small community surrounding the topic that may not come up very highly on Google, and either way, as an outsider you won’t be able to recognize this community even if they do. Figuring out who the community is surrounding that topic takes a long time.

I’ve found that the best way to learn about a topic is to go find someone you respect that is knowledgeable in the field.  Then, ask them to point you to materials and people to pay attention to.  You’ll then find your way through the community and figure out who the real thought leaders are.

This is far and away the best way to learn, but this process could be improved upon greatly.  It is also predicated upon having access to someone that is knowledgeable in the topic.  If you’re around a university, this may not be a problem.  If you’re in the middle of nowhere, it will take you a long time to find your way.

What do you think? Is doing knowledge acquisition on the internet difficult?

-Kevin
5.4.2010

Image via Wikipedia

The ideal form of governance is the absolute rule by what Plato referred to as the Philosopher King– an infinitely wise ruler that is capable of perceiving the world and making the best possible decision.  A state ruled by a Philosopher King is the most agile, efficient, and fair.

It’s also the most volatile.

If you’ve ever been a part of an organization, you know transitions in leadership are stressful and dangerous times.  There is no substitute for experience, but it’s always difficult to identify the correct combination of the right experience and the right frame of mind.  There is always risk that this isn’t the right person.  There is also a learning curve for every leader and consequent risk that they fuck up early on.

We’ve seen this volatility in the dictatorships history has seen.

Democracy shifts power to the people, away from one single ruler; all can play a role.  Democratic governments are more stable, less agile, slower, and tend towards average decision-making.

Governance is a huge part of any organization–particularly businesses.

~

Image via Wikipedia

People often complain about the maniacal control Steve Jobs has over it’s product ecosystem and company itself.  If Steve understands what Apple must do to deliver the best product and do the best work, this is optimal.  There might be headaches for developers, and I might have dropped calls, and Apple may have a weirdly secretive culture, but, if it delivers a product I want to use more than any other, that’s all that matters. If not, I can choose an alternative if I’d like.  (So long as the company doesn’t have monopoly power of course.)

However, Apple is taking on large amounts of long term risk by maintaining tight control over the ecosystem and by relying on the seeming absolute rule of Jobs and a culture of secrecy.  If they choose the wrong leader, if they get the user experience wrong for too long, if they fail to deliver, if secrecy gets in the way of a good workplace and communication, the constituents will rebel.

-Kevin
5.2.2010

Image via Wikipedia

In my post communicating the vision of Vogel Labs, I said I was going to leave the post up at the top of my blog for a week.

I’m going to have to rescind that statement; I’m back on the blogging grid. People will still find their way to that important post.  Twitter is a powerful tool for spreading the word to the right people.

I’ve been blogging every day for long enough that I felt muted by trying not to blog. Blogging has become a part of my voice, and it’s an extension of my consciousness.  Plus, the thoughts and ideas on my mind need their outlet, otherwise they rebel.

Especially if you’re a Creative, you need to blog. Start learning what’s important to you, start communicating your thoughts, and start championing them.

Today, more than ever, I believe in a world where great ideas will win.  Nothing is secret. And the democratization democratizing effects of technology lends itself to lend themselves to meritocracy–if people are willing to stomach the risks and potential embarrassment that is.   Your thoughts are only caged in by your ability to communicate them to the right people.  And for so-called idealists, this is important.  For Creatives, this is everything.

-Kevin
4.28.2010

Technological advancement leads to more widespread and inexpensive access to technology. Computers eventually made their way into our households and gave people access to new capabilities and tools.  The same thing is happening with fabrication technology, biology, hardware, and so on. Additionally, the interface with these technologies becomes better suited to our use (ex. we no longer have to program computers in assembly language.)

One of the most aspects of this (which we’re closing in on) to me is the implications for education.

The metric for a student is primarily grades; society emphasizes grades and tests scores more than anything for a student.  If anything, grades are a metric for a student’s ability or penchant for academic learning, as well as a metric for “doing as you’re told.”

This is all well and good (or not), but it’s only one scale for measurement.  In my biased opinion, it’s also not the most important scale.  In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that there is a huge disconnect between education’s measurement system and the “real world.”

What we need to emphasize to students is the importance of real skills.  However, this message will never get across as things are now; the metric and culture for comparison is the synthetic system of grades and test scores.

To prove the disconnect and problem: universities, particularly the top universities, don’t focus on grades and test scores.  It’s secondary; “well you did well enough in school, but what did you really do? what’s the evidence that you’re capable of producing real value? “  However, the measurement system for students causes the culture to not focus on building tangible value and skills.  Consequently, many students are very confused when it comes to building and presenting a solid application to admissions offices (I used to work in MIT’s admissions office, I spoke to a whole lot of them).  Universities are much closer to the “real world”, and thus have a better perspective on the scales for assessing an individual.

Due to the developments I’ve listed above, students are capable of doing real work.  They are able to gain access to technologies that allow them to learn and use real capabilities.  Scalable access enables the development of an educational culture that focuses on a student’s portfolio of work. Personally producing something of value is a totally different set of skills.

-Kevin
4.5.2010

People don’t seem to know how to recognize a great pair of shorts.  They don’t know what they’re missing out on, so I thought this would be my one chance to enlighten.

This post is a compilation of 10 years of formal basketball experience, 7 years of basketball, 7 years of soccer, and 3 years of Track & Field. I know my athletic wear.

Here’s the best pair of versatile, all-purpose shorts I’ve ever worn.  They were bought for me by Michael Fitzgerald as a gift for a fraternity tradition:

100% polyester. Double-layered. The fabric is also thicker than most mesh shorts.  Greatness comes from getting all the details right.

They have  a thick elastic waistband, and a thicker drawstring.  This keeps them from stretching out, and also makes it less likely that the drawstring breaks (which seems to happen all the time with most shorts.)

Her’s something that most people really miss out on.  The manufacturer’s are finally getting it right (at least Under Armour is):  they’re putting pockets on gym shorts.  This is huge.

And lastly, of course, they’ve got great style.

I regularly use these for running, lifting weights, basketball, and about anything else.  They truly are the ideal athletic shorts.

Next time you are buying gym shorts, keep these qualities in mind. It’ll change your whole sportswear experience.

I challenge and invite anyone to find a better pair of shorts, or point out what these are missing.

-Kevin
3.26.2010