Unlearning 101: A syllabus

“Never let formal education get in the way of your learning.” – Mark Twain.

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn”. – Alvin Toffler

Unlearning is the toughest one of the tasks Toffler mentions. With unlearning you’re on your own. There aren’t any unlearning schools, no teachers, never mind unlearning courses at school. You face the tough challenge of not knowing what you need to unlearn or even how to unlearn.

Here’s a proposal for an unlearning syllabus:

1. History and philosophy of time
2. Plain English versions of Einstein’s relativity theories
3. Survey of physics (emphasis on “the arrow of time“)
4. Survey of quantum theories (emphasis on particle/wave duality)
5. Philosophy of change (source 1)
6. History and philosophy of “the self“
7. Nondualism
8. History and philosophy of “belief“
9. Philosophy of causality (including concepts like “the butterfly effect“)
10. philosophy of logical models (including micro-logic, and counterfactual reasoning)
11. Philosophy of truth (with an emphasis on the fragility of truth statements and validation statements)
12. Perspectivism and contextualism, incommensurability
13. Anthropology of non-Western cultures
14. Critical thinking
15. Problem solving skills
16. Systems thinking (with an acknowledgment of “systems” as a conceptual construction)
17. Application of your new insights to older, personal knowledge
18. Writing your own (different) take of all of the above

Rethink -  learning, and unlearning will follow.

“Thinking” within the popular business and innovation forum

I was writing a comment to one of Bruce Nussbaum’s blog postings on BusinessWeek online. My comment became longer than I anticipated and the tiny little comment box their website provides is just annoying. So, here’s my comment at large.

Bruce and Fred,

I am happy that we are even discussing design and thinking in the context of a business and innovation forum.

I also am very happy to see national publications and international design companies address concepts  that help us raise awareness of the seemingly infinite thinking processes we have available for use. I’d like to think that this is only the beginning of a much larger awareness towards more holistic thinking processes.

I am a designer and I think that design is a great addition to the business/innovation toolbox but it is not the end-all. There are a lot more thinking processes that may be combined with design to help us produce even more innovative ideas.

So, Bruce, on the business arena, lets keep talking about design but also lets continue to add new thinking processes beyond those classified as design.

Fred,
From the design side, I agree with the need for research. We should also keep in mind that research requires funding. Funding requires awareness. So, thank you for bringing it up into the conversation. Hopefully as more folks agree with your proposal researchers will find funding to expand the depth of the conversation.

It’s inevitable that we will need research but we should also acknowledge that the research approach would serve a different audience demographic (folks that care about the nuts and bolts).

Bruce is currently introducing new concepts to the popular business magazine audience. New concepts should  function as attention-grabbers that present ideas in a form that is simple and easy to understand. Hopefully the folks that are newly introduced into design and holistic thinking processes will eventually make their way into more sophisticated, research-based material. We have to start somewhere and yes, in the popular business forum I’d say we’re still just at the start of this awareness.

Fred, on the Cartesian mind vs. body split concept mentioned in your article….
The Cartesian split has had a tremendous influence in the shaping of our past, present and will continue to have an influence in the shaping of our future.

Whether I agree with this Cartesian split or not is not the challenge we face today – this is just my ‘position’ on the matter.

I would like to suggest that the challenges are:
- to be able to identify it
- to be able to understand its function within the context
- to relate all these findings with more holistic alternatives and hopefully make these alternatives more attractive

Simply turning our back on the Cartesian concept because it is not something we agree with would be an act of denial that would not help us solve the type of problems we face today.

But once again, I thank you for bringing it up within the business and innovation forum. I see it as another opportunity to raise awareness about the limits imposed by socialized thinking and the possible alternatives .

Adaptive Reasoning

I added “Adaptive Reasoning” to Wikipedia. Not really a new concept but it was missing from the resource. If you’re familiar with this term please add more material.

“Adaptive reasoning may refer to the adaption of thought processes, problem solving strategies, conceptual frameworks, in response and anticipation of the the changing nature of the problem being considered.”

I also added Adaptive reasoning to the List of Thought Processes.

Once again, I’d like to invite folks out there to contribute to the list of thought processes and to the Topic Outline of Thought pages. If you don’t know how to edit Wikipedia you can post the term here as a comment (please include your references) and I will add it to Wikipedia as time allows.

Metaphors and Our Understanding of the World

We use metaphors to help us communicate. Some metaphors help us communicate fairly basic ideas. Other metaphors* are more complex and they help us communicate groups of ideas. Here are a few examples of the second group:

The world as “machine“. An extension of physics and the concept of thermodynamics.

Society as “organism“. An extension of understandings in biology. This concept may have been strongly influential in the 17th century. Traces of this metaphor may be found in social theories, economic theories, and  may have been used as a model for the design of the American government and the American economic system.[1]

Other contemporary usage seems to be popular in systems theory, cybernetics, complexity theory, social network theory and many other areas of study.

The world as “a body“. This may be an extension of the “organism” model. Contemporary usage of this metaphor may be “ecological system as a body”. This is a popular metaphor in the current green movement.

The world as “energy“. This may once again be an extension of ideas from physics. More specifically, it may be a concept extended from the energy-matter relationship. In this case the world (understood as matter) is reduced to the understanding of energy. This metaphor may be found in branches of realist and materialist philosophies, science, cybernetics, and popular new age literature.

The world as physical relationships. The “theory of everything”[2] may be an example of this extension. Nobel Prize winning physicists, like Einstein spent years thinking how to explain the way that the world works through understandings in physics. (A good number of scientists are still at work on this.)

The world as a complex adaptive system. This is a macro-metaphor composed of metaphors in physics, and biology and other derivative theories.

All of these metaphors are interesting. They’re ideas full of engaging narratives that can keep a person engrossed for  life.  Today there is enough literature behind each one of these concepts to keep you reading for years – (maybe even for life).

While metaphors may be useful for understanding some aspects of the world we need to remember that they are only tools that help us understand the world – they are not how the world is in itself. Remaining skeptical of each one of these – even as we use them to understand the world may be an important habit as an exercise to keep an open mind.

Notes

[*] Macro-metaphors – “big metaphors” often composed of many other metaphors.

[1] Wikipedia: Social Organism,   See also: Superorganism. International Journal of Ethics “The Conception of Society as an Organism“.

[2 ] Wikipedia: Theory of Everything

[3] This is an orphan note. I am saving this one for a future blog posting. Goldsmith, Donald. E=Einstein

Recommended Reading

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Types of thinking and geometry problems

I am glad to see studies about the matching of types of thinking and types of problems. I saw this one yesterday:

“A new study in the journal Mind, Brain, and Education reveals that certain types of thinking are best suited to solving certain types of problems. Specifically, geometry problems are best solved by a combination of verbal and spatial strategies, but not shape-based imagery strategies.” [1]

To me, articles like these point towards a possible growing awareness that we have many thought processes available to us [2].This may remind us that we have a tremendous task in front of us – to learn how to best match each of these to the types of problems we face in life.

Of course geometry problems are a lot simpler than the interrelated, mixed-disciplinary problems we face in daily life – but we have to start somewhere.

Addendum: I initially wrote this last paragraph and edited out at the last minute. But now, I don’t think this posting is complete without it. I want to get in the habit of acknowledging risk factors along with ideas. One reason for that is to make sure that I have at least taken the time to consider the idea from another perspective. There are several risks that come along with studies like the one mentioned above. One of them is the risk of popularization of the idea that one problem solving method is always the best method. Another risk is the idea that as modalities and cognitive styles are mapped in a society, children (and individuals at large) may feel “strange” if they are not using the prevailing cognitive style to solve problems. An extreme case of this last situation may result in the emergence of yet another branch of “cognitive outcasts”.

Notes
[1] Karen L. Anderson et al. Performance on Middle School Geometry Problems With Geometry Clues Matched to Three Different Cognitive Styles. Mind, Brain, and Education, Volume 2 Issue 4, Pages 188 – 197 Published Online: 4 Nov 2008.

[2] We currently have listed around 200 thought processes in Wikipedia.

Related in this blog:

Types of thinking

88 Constellations for Wittgenstein

A friend sent me a link to 88 Contellations for Wittgestein an online interactive art project.

He thought I would like it. He was right.

A brief history of (ancient) systems thinking

Systems thinking is not new. I have been thinking about its ancient history and so far this is what I have gathered:

• 600 B.C. – philosophers used systems thinking to organize their thoughts (e.g. Lao Tze)
• 2,700 B.C. – Egyptians, like Imhotep, showed evidence that he was using systems thinking during his roles as architect, physician and engineer in Egypt.
• 4,000 B.C. – Cuneiform, a system of writing appears thanks to the need to keep track of multiple economic transactions.
• (date pending) – the beginnings of economic (value exchange systems). My assumption here is that value exchange systems were designed by systems thinkers.
• (90,000 B.C.) – the beginnings of organized belief systems. You can find traces of these belief systems going back as far as 90,000 B.C. [1].  Rather than being “designed” the earliest belief systems may have emerged at the individual level. People may have organized, and synthesized them into coherent systems.
• (date pending) – the emergence of spoken languages. We needed communication systems to organize ourselves and our societies. Spoken language is a designed system that has many semi-organized contributors. So, our spoken languages, the basic tools of all societies, may be an example of an ancient, living and breathing example of systems thinking.
• (date pending) – Meaning.  The emergence of symbolic meaning and symbolic communication. Meaning emerges within interactive systems of signs and symbols.[2]
• (date pending) – Culture. Culture is an interactive system between people. More specifically, it is a shared system for thought and behavior. It may be an emergent system that eventually gains organization between its member/participants. It may be the fertile ground in which meaning, languages, and communication systems grow.

Did systems thinking aid the emergence of civilization?

In some aspects we may be able to chart a parallel line between the emergence of human civilization and the emergence of systems thinking.

Why is systems thinking so rare in our society?

So, now the question is…if systems thinking is such an old way of thinking, and if systems thinking has played such a key role in the development of many tools of civilization for thousands of years, then why isn’t it more popular as a thinking method in our cultures? According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers only 3% of our population are systems thinkers. (see also [2.1])

I suspect one reason for this lack of adoption has something to do with a lack of value associated with it and a lack of recognition of the role it has played within our societies.

Acknowledging its historical presence and its contribution to civilization may help us recognize its value.

Addendum: 10-31-08

Most of us are systems thinkers?

Another way to think systems thinking is to focus on how system’s thinking has permeated most aspects of our civilized life to the point that we no longer realize that we’re using systems thinking. Instead, systems thinking has become like the air that we breathe, highly important but mostly invisible and undetectable by our socialized minds. [2.2]

So, in a way, most of us are participating in systems thinking. We participate in it by living our lives within systems designed by systems thinkers.

But there is a huge difference between doing something with awareness of our acts and doing something without awareness. One may lead us to the development of skills, the other may be like going through the motions (zombie, or robot-like behavior) [3].

Why learn about systems thinking? One reason may be to gain awareness of the systems we participate in. Yet another reason may be to gain the critical skills to understand how these systems function and how they affect us and others. If we are going to change and improve these systems then we need to first understand them.

[1] Encyclopedia Britannica Online Edition

[2] Wikipedia: “Semiotics”; “Symbolism”;

[2.1] Wyospace blog “Systems Thinking“

[2.2] Wikipedia: “Socialization”. Also recommended, David Foster Wallace’s Kenyon’s commencement address, May 21,2005.

[3] Another old concept. A related concept the allegory of the cave.

…………………………………………….

- Daniel Montano

………………………

Our country needs a not-for profit organization to evaluate sustainable products

We need a full-time non-profit organization to organize itself out there.

Here’s a quick brainstorm about what this not-for-profit organization could look like:

Vision: to promote sustainability as a recognized value in our cultures.

Mission: To develop an ecosystem where sustainability-focused businesses and organizations can network and be encouraged in their growth and viability.

Requirement: This not-for-profit organization shall be independent from: (1) government, (2) private industry, (3) any other individual or entity that attempts to influence the organization away from promoting the best products and services in the best interest of people and the environment.

The goals:

• to raise consumer awareness about sustainable products and services
• to establish a benchmark for sustainable products in every product and service line
• to promote the emergence of competition on the criteria of sustainability
• to promote new technologies and scientific innovations aligned with sustainability
• to educate organizations and businesses on the best sustainability practices in every industry
• to create a network of designers, producers, merchants and consumers that recognize the value provided by the sustainability evaluation
• to promote competition towards building more sustainable products and services
• to mentor and guide other not-for-profit organizations across the globe wanting to adopt a similar goals

Objectives for pre-launch phase:

• File for not-for-profit status
• Gather funds for pre-launch phase and the 1st post-launch phase
• Launch a multi-lingual website
• Establish an online sustainability library
• Plan and structure a quarterly forum for the promotion of sustainable products and services
• Establish a criteria for evaluating sustainability merits for major service and product lines
• Begin a sign-up sheet for the first evaluation forum
• Begin interviews and evaluations

Support base:

• Private industries wanting to have products and services evaluated shall pay a membership or an evaluation fee.
• Other donations

Initial staff – (pre-launch phase):

• Development consultant
• Communications manager
• Sustainability researcher and librarian
• General office assistant
• Volunteers

Related Links elsewhere on the Web

Wikipedia: Sustainable Design

Core77 – Sustainable design manifesto By Allan Chochinov

Centre for Design – Sustainable products and packaging

EPEAT – Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool

EPEAT – Sample evaluation criteria for electronics

IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

List of non-profit organizations focusing on ecological issues

…………………………………………….

-Daniel Montano

………………………

Nobel prize and multidisciplinary knowledge

The Royal Swedish Academy, the organization that awards the Nobel prize made a brief but important comment when awarding the Nobel Prize to Paul Krugman.

“…He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography…” [1]

In other words, they recognized the importance of crossing the silos of knowledge to construct new knowledge.

Complimentary knowledge processes
One one side we have disciplinary knowledge, on another we have efforts to integrate knowledge; together these tendencies mirror the process of divergent and convergent thinking.

In other words, both of these processes are important and complimentary.

Annotations
[1] National Public Radio: Columnist Krugman wins Nobel for economics

…………………………………………….

-Daniel Montano

………………………

From the quotes page

“For the first time in history it is now possible to take care of everybody at a higher standard of living than any have ever known. Only ten years ago the ‘more with less’ technology reached the point where this could be done. All humanity now has the option to become enduringly successful.”– R. Buckminster Fuller, 1980

“Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons.” - R. Buckminster Fuller

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

“The world we have created is a product of our thinking; it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” – Albert Einstein

…………………………………………….

-Daniel Montano

………………………