Kevin Vogelsang

I think it’s completely wrong that people tell students that they should study one subject over another: “don’t do art,” “don’t do music,” “don’t try and do theoretical physics.”

There are many reasons why these statements can be detrimental. Here’s the main reason: You’re wrong. The world (especially their world) will be completely different in 5 years. Consequently, anything specific you tell them (like what subject to study) will be wrong. We can’t predict the future; we shouldn’t advise like we can.

Unfortunately, our education system does exactly this.

More on this, as well as how I think we should advise students, tomorrow.

-Kevin
5.23.2010

Posted from my iPhone, bitches!

I think about the Future a lot.  I enjoy it, but it’s something I just do.  I don’t seem to have much of a say in the matter.

When thinking about the Future, I do use structured approaches that are utilized in other forms of problem solving.  Here’s some structured approaches for  thinking about the future:

1. Thinking about constraints. What are the constraints that will influence the events that occur in the future?  For instance, are their aspects of human nature that will not change? This is a top down approach.  Constraints allow us to narrow the space of possible events. By making assumptions, and attempting to test those assumptions, you can learn a lot just from that exercise.
2. Data. Data extrapolation can be a helpful exercise.  However, I think looking at data is more valuable to see what has happened in the past and what is the current state of things.  By doing this, you can attempt to think and learn about where people were in the past, where they thought things were going, and where they actually went.  Data combined with a little history also allows you to understand how people make predictions, and the mistakes they make.  Ray Kurzweil’s work is a good example of data-driven futurology.
3. Causal Reasoning. (I use “causal” because reason is used in all of these).  If there’s a specific event that could happen, or is happening, by thinking through steps in the causal chain, we may come to certain conclusions that we would not have come to otherwise.

These are the structured approaches. Ideally, you make use of all these, and you are able to get a glimpse of convergence of the conclusions you come to through each.

There is also another method: intuition.  Humans possess abilities of pattern recognition that subconsciously lead us to ideas.  We are constantly making and testing predictions throughout the day, and we do it with no deep thought, or much of any thought at all (“If I order food now, it’ll be there by the time I get home”).  Of course, the information and patterns we gather through all other means and experiences play a role in our intuition, so if we’re serious, we should also analyze what types of scenarios our intuition is capable of predicting.

There’s another side to intuition: vision.  The Future is what the doers make it, and our vision will lead us to the Future.  This is why I capitalize “Future.”  It won’t turn out exactly how we thought, but vision will guide us.

As with all things, we should approach these with humility and understanding of the shortcomings and weakness of the human mind.

-Kevin
3.9.2009

Last Wednesday, the MIT Enterprise Forum hosted a talk by Ray Kurzweil that I was lucky enough to be able to attend (although, to my credit, it took a little cleverness to get into the talk).

In his talk, Ray discussed his theories and beliefs regarding the exponential increase in the power and price performance of technology.  The key point is that information technologies–such as computer processor speeds and the cost of DNA sequencing–don’t develop linearly, which is unintuitive and unnatural to the human brain when thinking about the future.

Ray and his ideas are very controversial, and he has many harsh critics.  However, nothing of value goes without criticisms and resistance.  Big ideas challenge people’s models of the world.

I had heard Ray talk about his theories several times before, although not in-person.  One thing that struck me was a sense of pragmatism characteristic of an entrepreneur that had solved real problems.  He was not someone who had sat in an ivory tower up in the clouds creating naive notions. He was also not defensive or dismissive of his critics opinions.  I’ve read descriptions that have claimed quite the opposite, even to go so far as to say that “Kurzweil has no sense of objective reality.”

The sense of pragmatism was perhaps better able to come across in this specific talk because Ray also spoke about more common issues such as building a team for a venture.

Ray’s combination of pragmatism, experience, and big ideas make him influential to me personally.   One quote from Ray that I’ll share, “You don’t want to start designing the solution when you have the problem. You want to have the solution ready when you have the problem.”

I’ve posted two links to videos that share more about Ray and his ideas.  Not all of Ray’s ideas are rooted in Data.  Some are more beliefs.  However, beliefs undoubtedly have their place in world, and Ray’s are among some of the most profoundly influential of our day.

TED Talk by Ray Kurzweil (~8 min)
The Singularity of Ray Kurzweil (~20 min)

Kevin
10.20.2009

The future of the web and other digital technologies are extremely fascinating with a number of exciting trends showing face (globalization, language translation, wireless data transfer, mobile innovation, quantum computing, etc.)   But, it’s not really just about the future of the Digital Space.  It’s the future of how humans will interact with each other and their environments.

thoughts on thinking about the future

The future is vast and unknowable, but I believe it is perceivable as packets of insight trickle in like the first rays of sunrise.  When thinking about the future, it is important to create a framework based on concepts we understand in order to begin thinking about the future in a methodical way.  Otherwise, it becomes difficult to reach overarching insight from the thought exercise due to the limitations imposed by our random creativities and personal experiences.

Put another way, you could say I prefer to begin with a top-down constraint that answers the questions, “What is unchanging and how will this influence us?” as opposed to starting with “what are the limited set of observances I see and where might these go?”  I do think it’s important to use both, particularly when talking about the perceivable future.

the framework

But let’s get to it.  I’d like to frame the future of the Digital Space within the context of our own evolution.  Why?  We are products of evolution, and consequently, the Digital Space is a product of our evolved needs and propensities.  To make this point clear, think of the internet in terms of basic needs it fulfills (what’s the statistic of time spent looking for porn online?).  As the Digital Space continues to develop, it will continue to meet more of these intrinsic human needs.  Again, it’s not just about the future of the Digital World.  It’s the future of how humans will interact with each other and their environments.

It’s important to be aware that this is a thought experiment that ideally leads to expanded insight.  To state the experimental question directly, “if we were to view the Digital Space as a product of our own evolution, what might this mean for its future?”

In the forthcoming posts in this series, I’ll focus on some of these evolved behaviors and propensities, talk about them in terms of “bottom-up” observations, and offer thoughts on where they could take us. I’m not completely sure where it’ll lead, although I know there is value in the approach.  Your own thoughts and input will help guide the journey.

Kevin Vogelsang
6.20.2009

original post