The creative "process"

Adriana spotted this (via Ugly Doggy) and it made me laugh (and want to cry, a little.)

And if you liked that, you'll forgive me for reminding you of this one:

Vulnerability

Richard Oliver spotted this from Mary Catherine Bateson:

Biologists used to talk about the fact that human beings are what is called neotenous, which is to say that we never grow up. Thank heaven for that! If you look at a baby chimp, it's almost identical to an infant human being, but it's smarter and it develops and learns faster. But at a certain point, the chimp grows up and becomes less responsive. The shape of the skull changes, and the adult chimp is less like a human being, although very smart in many ways, less willing to learn, less willing to develop trusting relationships. Human babies are born extraordinarily immature and dependent, and our whole system of adaptation and survival as a species depends on the fact that we are cared for intensively over a long period of time. It is because of this that we can have an adaptation based on so much learning and we've been able to move over the entire surface of the planet, learning new adaptations - inventing science and technology and things of that sort - instead of following built-in instinctive programs.

The boy Earls has talked about this neoteny business before, but this quote triggers a further thought. I'm like the notion that our vulnerability and sensitivity, and the interdependence that goes with them, is what marks us out as human beings - and what actually makes us strong.

Process: the hardcore version

Earl Mardle riffs on Clay Shirky, prompted by my earlier link. Earl is vindaloo to my korma. I think he may be right.

Nudge

Yesterday the RSA hosted Richard Thaler, co-author of Nudge.

I found Thaler very engaging, and I loved his theme: that we can support a lot of changes in society with quite minimal interventions. Often people don't need to be made to do things - they actually want to, we just need to make it easy.

The best example of a nudge from his book is the US state that struggled to get people to complete their tax returns. The usual cajoling, fees and incentives were relatively ineffective compared to the eventual solution. That was simply to publicise the number of people who had actually done their returns.

He also highlights the significance of default settings: if you say people have to opt-in to a pension scheme, their participation will be way lower than if you make it an opt-out scheme.

Thayer was followed onstage by Julian Le Grand of the LSE. He recounted how he tried out this defaults theory by proposing that we combat smoking by requiring smokers to obtain a permit to buy cigarettes. He appeared surprised that this didn't go down very well with Joe and Joanna Public. I suppose one man's nudge is another man's stick in the eye and knee in the groin.

For me, Nudge is a reminder that the world is complex and non-linear, and that obvious solutions don't always work. It's also a reminder of the benefits of a little humility. We should not be too surprised that our little schemes for world domination won't always work.

And on the subject of subtely, here is the inevitable Python clip.

User-generated enthusiasm

NESTA's forum on user-led innovation was rather stimulating. Rainycatz, sitting beside me, took copious notes on her Asus EEE and I've lazily waited for her to blog them before adding my two cents.

Steve Flowers of Brighton University presented some research funded by NESTA which points out that the government hasn't paid nearly enough attention to the value of user-led innovation. It's very good to see NESTA sticking its oar in on this issue. During the Q&A, Steve elaborated on how policy discussions are often dominated by rights-holders which only reinforces the innnate conservatism of policy-makers.

There were some excellent talks from several folks who are big on user-innovation: Sibelius, Swapitshop and Pete Lemon who runs a Nintendo Gaming Community.

What really hit me was the infectious enthusiasm of all three, especially Justin Baron of Sibelius. He used to be a music teacher and came across with exactly the kind of mildly eccentric passion you might expect of one. Definitely not your standard issue marketing director.

It struck me that these people had an abundant worldview, with innovations apparently coming out of their communities' ears. It felt very different from many conversations around innovation which seem characterised by furrowed brows, hang-wringing and a general sense of scarcity.

Panels, Q & As etc

John Dodds has done a post - 10 Marketing Lessons From Conferences - with some tips on how to avoid your next conference being boring. Lots of interesting ideas if you as you use them as food for thought rather than absolute truth.

I say this knowing that I can be pretty dogmatic about some meeting formats and I have to concede that a lot depends on context. A format that sucks air with one speaker and audience might work well with a different speaker/listeners.

Having said which, I definitely share John's view of the practice of taking audience questions in threes and its variations.

8) Disintermediate.
Discussion works best when one person speaks and another responds to them, so don't invoke the inefficient democratistion of taking groups of questions. The questions will be forgotten and/or unanswered and the whole process requires the unnecessary expansion of a chairman's role as intermediary. Speakers can hold their own conversations.

Absolutely, if you host one of these things, make your life easy by getting out of the way.

I'm not sure about this though:

The audience is there to listen to the speaker not the egocentric ramblings of questioners, so when you open up the conversation, insist that questions are limited to one sentence and start with an interrogative. Maximise the exposure of the speaker, minimise distractions.

Sure, some audience members use Q&A sessions to bore us with their accomplishments or plug their pet projects. But I'm wary of letting the bad eggs determine the rules for the rest of us. If we've had the courtesy to listen to a speaker for an extended period, I think it's rather insulting to be told we have to be brief. And I strongly dislike the notion that our response has to be in the form of a question - I find that a bit patronising and connected to old fashioned notions that the speaker is an expert imparting the truth and Q&A is merely an opportunity for us to learn from him. One of my favourite speakers has a nice piece of shtick where he invites all forms of response - "any questions, doubts, protests, sarcastic remarks, weird fantasies, you'd like to share?". OK that might invite an audience member to take advantage, but they'd quite likely do that anyway.

And on another level, if we think Q&A is so tricky that it can only run with landlady's rules, wouldn't it be better to cut straight to the coffee break so we can all have a nice chat and organise our own conversations? I realise that there is a "pressure to perform" in standard Q&A sessions that often makes people nervous and so longwinded, or encourages us to blurt out exaggerations rather than open up enquiry. For fans of complex systems, I think Q&A tends to squash "weak signal" feedback that works better in more informal conversation.

Of course, you skip the whole powerpoint thing and do an Open Space. But you knew I'd say that, didn't you?

Instant solutions

My friend Oli London's-most-sociable-entrepreneur" Barrett has been thinking about the widespread enthusiasm for instant solutions - very much evident in crazed proposals for dealing with knife crime here in the UK. With suitable irony, he offers us

The Medium Term Solution (MTS).

You heard it hear first, reader. Too well-thought-through to be dismissed as a ‘gimmick’, yet tangible enough to show results within months rather than years....

What we need is a fresh new way for Britain to identify, share, rate and replicate Stuff That Works. The ideas are out there, in the hands of individuals and organisations around the country. We can’t rely on the traditional media to share their stories so we’ve got to take action ourselves. A Twitter stream of social action success. Now who wouldn’t want to follow that?

I think Oli's picking up on the dilemma for those of us who are weary of gimmicks and also recognise the challenge of selling "reflection" to an audience high on stimulants. I very much like the idea of sharing stuff that works and also fear the pitfalls of only talking about success. Maybe the real need is for a constant spirit of social action enquiry?

Talking peace

Chris Corrigan points to this fascinating NY Times interview with a leading Norwegian peace negotiator. I particularly focussed on this comment about the notion of a war on terror.

“The way this has been framed, as an indefinite war that will last for decades, has impoverished our ability to understand the point of departure of the conflict and how we should deal with it,” Store said. “Engaging is not weakness, and by not talking the West has tended to give the upper hand to extremists on the other side.”