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

(I was able to find the picture, but not the article for some reason….)

The article focused on the attributes of the left brain (analytical) versus the right brain (intuitive, holistic) and why we will and must focus more on “right brain skills.”  The fear of outsourcing jobs to other countries was running very high, and the authors’ maintained that in order to maintain economic prowess we will have to better foster the right brain.  It’s easy to outsource methodic tasks.  It’s hard to outsource the creation of a brilliant new idea.

This article led me to take a more conscious interest in creativity. Furthermore, I’m very excited by the prospects of creativity.

One thing I’ve learned since paying more attention to creativity: We have no idea what it really is.  But, we know it when we see it.

When we encounter something creative, it seems to come from another planet.  “Who came up with this?” , “I would’ve never thought of that”, “Brilliant!”, “Beautiful”, “Well that’s stupid,”–these are all reactions to creativity.

To provide some sort of definition, here’s the safe and broad definition from Sir Ken Robinson: the ability to generate new ideas of value. (Paradoxically, the best way to come up with valuable ideas seems to be to have many ideas.)

The definition has a critical point.  Creativity leads to value.

So why am I so interested in creativity?  And why should you be more than ever?

We are now starting to gain widespread access to powerful tools that allow us to transfer creativity into value and fully realize the potential of individual creativity.  We’re on the cusp of a new era of creation**.  This is why I’m constantly going on about open source hardware, open data, open government, open source software, DIY Bio, and new fabrication tools.

The Creatives are here and now they’ve got the tools they need to learn almost anything and, soon enough, make almost anything.  The Creatives can now more quickly and easily get into a position that allows them to create, which is both exciting and dangerous.

-Kevin
3.22.2010

**When we use the term “creation” and “create”, it’s a little pretentious and potentially very off base.  We don’t truly create (read: “make something out of nothing”).  We innovate (“combine things in new ways”) and construct (“put things together”).  The cognitive of ability we refer to as creativity is largely rooted in the ability to make distant and unlikely connections between concepts.  Consequently, I think it’s important to keep our humility and bear in mind that true “creation” is something left only to the gods and higher powers.

Image by CyboRoZ via Flickr

Imagine you’re stuck on an island.  Just you, a few others, and the wilderness of the island.

You’re primary source of food is fish. You catch the fish by sticking them with a sharpened stick.  It takes a long time to catch fish this way.  You miss a lot.  It’s tough to hit them hard enough.

You have a few minutes a day that don’t have to be focused on getting food and water.  During this time, you look for rocks that you could use to make a pointed tip.  Eventually, you achieve this.  You then are able to find the right plants to attach it to your “fishing spear.”  Catching fish is a little more efficient now.

You now have more time to experiment with the plant fibers you discovered in search for a way to create the fishing spear.  Eventually, you learn to make a net.  Catching fish can now be done by anyone.  You’re now able to pass the fishing task off to someone that is less capable.

You can now spend your time surveying the island.  You find rocks that can be made sharper.  You discover deer on the island.  You learn how to kill the deer.  You have a new source of food and materials.  You’re now able to make canoes, which are much faster than wooden rafts.  You can now travel faster and go farther.

~

This is an example of the compounding returns of knowledge.

We observe it now, more often than ever.  Technology is created that enables non-specialists to perform a needed task on a larger scale (like the fishing net in the example.)  Technology also allows us to discover new technology.  We see this in fabrication, software, and soon, in brain-scanning preparation.

We also have empirical proof that it exists.  Ray Kurzweil has collected some incredibly interesting data on the exponential acceleration of technology. (You can find videos of Ray talking about this phenomena on Ted Talks.)

However, we tend to forget this phenomenon on the level of the individual level.  When we learn and gain new skills, we gain resources.  And resources can lead to more resources.  People think about this more in terms of monetary investing.  But it’s true elsewhere.

So what does this mean for us?

If you spend a little more time working, and study just a little harder each day, you’ll find yourself much further along.

-Kevin
2.25.2010

This post is very important to me. It is the 2nd part of a set of posts that began with Our Sphere of Influence. A Sphere of Influence is our realm where we matter most.  Check out the post for further discussion.  These posts hinge on the concept. Do provide your input by commenting.

Technology gives us new capabilities.  Consequently, technology has an important side effect: it makes our Sphere of Influence more accessible to us.  And when a group of people gain access to their Sphere of Influence, communities form.

I don’t think people have thought of it this way, but this is the framework for most community-driven movements:  a group of people focused on their Sphere of Influence that connect with each other.

The initial motivator for getting involved in a community may vary (they may not even be aware of the community), but people recognize their Sphere of Influence within a community of people when they begin to be acknowledged for their work.  This recognition pushes them forward as they realize the importance of their work and realize their work matters.

In the open-source software movement, programmers needed better ways to use a computer, a piece of technology that was highly enabling for them.  They also wanted to have greater control over their tools, to make the tools better, and to learn.  The community pushes this forward as they recognize and appreciate each others work.  They know their work matters and they benefit from the work of others.

The Wikipedian community spends huge amounts of time contributing to Wikipedia.   They may begin by wanting to contribute to the project.  They’re pushed forward when they see the impact/appreciation of their work through recognition and gaining higher command of their realm within Wikipedia.

Technology has another side effect: it makes new Spheres of Influence available. New technologies eventually lead to social changes that cause new communities to form.  A given function becomes democratized and community-driven.

With rapid prototyping technologies becoming affordable, a much greater number of people can take part in designing and fabricating physical things: an open-source hardware community is forming.

The same is also happening with biology research.  There’s a Do-It-Yourself biology community forming completely outside of academia.

Gov 2.0 represents the true democratization of government.  Citizens don’t take part in government by voting for someone. They just implement functions themselves using government resources.

When new Spheres of Influence become available, we’re able to choose one that better suits us.   Entire industries and social constructs are being completely disrupted by technologies that allow  people to do it themselves.  Communities of people form that are willing to do it for free because it’s what they like to do, and its where they feel they matter most.  It’s tough for businesses to compete with, unless they daringly change their business models or create new ones.

But, it’s not impossible for businesses to cope.  The open-source software companies did it….

In the following posts, I’ll talk more about the application of these concepts.

Your comments are important and will help me refine these thoughts as I continue to write about them.  Give me your thoughts by emailing me at KVogelsang11@gmail.com or leaving a comment.

-Kevin
2.8.2010

A tool doesn’t just make implementing a solution easier or possible: the tool defines the solution.

You want to write.  You are given a choice as to what paper you are able to write on.  You can write on post-it notes that you carry in your pocket, a small notebook you can carry in your bag, or a large hard-bound notebook that resides on your desk.  How will this effect how often you write?  How much you write?  What kind of things you write?

It comes down to our perceived costs.  These perceived costs are defined by the tool. If a tool makes one solution easier than the other, you’ll gravitate to the ostensibly easier solution.  It has a lower cost, it takes less energy, to implement that solution.  And thus, the product of our work and desires is affected.

If you only write on post-it notes that you carry in your pocket, you’ll likely end up writing down quotes, limericks, and little thoughts.  If you have a big piece of writing paper on your desk, you’ll write big things, but only when you’re deeply inspired.

And if you want to write, but are never deeply inspired, you’re better off starting with post-it notes in your pocket.  Thus, the tool not only dictates the solution, but whether there is an outcome at all.

It also dictates our behavior.

The implications of this thought run far and wide.  But you and I should probably let it stew for a little while first.  But if you have thoughts on those implications, you should probably write them down in the comments, before you forget.  Unless of course you have some post-it notes in your pocket.  Those work too.

Kevin
1.25.2010

Just a few notes on the article:

• To clarify, what I went through is a failed team, and a failed team isn’t necessarily a failed company.  Our team worked very hard and I really enjoyed being around my teammates, but, as with any relationship, sometimes things don’t work out.  And as I’ve said, the team is everything.
• To keep it short, I cut out a lot of good stories.  This is a shame.  But, with a little help from my audience here, I’m sure you’ll get them all eventually.
• Katelyn Deimel helped me edit it.  She also took the picture a while back that was used in the post.  Thanks, Kate!
• I still believe in the concept we were working on, and I’ll see to it that it gets carried out.

-Kevin
11.18.2009

The Digital Space, I use the term frequently.  The Digital Space also gets a whole category on the VogelWorks blog.  I have yet to define the phrase, effectively ostracizing it to a land of murky phrases like “Web 2.0″ .

The Digital Space, as I use it, is simply a broad term referring to an amalgamation of digital technologies, and more importantly, how we interact with these digital technologies.

The Digital Space encompasses technologies and innovations within computation, data transfer, and data-enabled devices. The most direct examples being your computer, the internet, and mobile phones.

Beyond technological innovation, The Digital Space includes social innovation surrounding the adoption of digital technologies.  The technology necessary for blogging was widespread by the mid 90′s.  However, tools catering to the act of blogging, and the social behavior of blogging hadn’t yet fully developed.  You could say the same for most of the “Web 2.0″ developments such as social networks and Twitter.  These have largely come from a co-evolution of both the tools and social adoption of digital technologies.

The Digital Space is a moving target and is changing rapidly, so making the term crystal clear is an ongoing challenge.  However, the key understanding is that there are two sides to the coin: the technology and the interaction with the technology.

Technology is increasingly integrated into our lives.  The Digital Space was once more of an accessory, like a hat that we might put on from time to time.  Now, it’s so pervasive, it’s more like the air we breathe.  We’ve created a digital atmosphere that we rely on to navigate our lives.  And soon, as we continue to breathe in this digital atmosphere, the Digital Space will be closer to tissue, a part of our flesh and bone.

While it may sound like something of science fiction, it’s not.  And it’s important to think about how The Digital Space will continue to strikingly effect our lives.

Kevin
9.14.2009

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