I apologise for the rather trite sub-heading but it was a bit of attention grabbing to promote the results of a recent conference called Let Markets Be Markets. It was published by the Roosevelt Institute and had one very impressive line of speakers.
One of the speakers was Simon Johnson of Baseline Scenario fame, a Blog that Learning from Dogs has followed since our inception.
Here’s 8 minutes of Simon pulling no punches.
If you want to read and watch other presentations, then Mike Konczal’s Blog Rortybomb is the place to go.
As this Blog has repeated from time to time, this present crisis is a long way from being over.
“Innovation” means different things to different people but, generally, it involves the application of novel ideas, products or processes for some purpose. But even if we can agree on “what” it is, do we understand “how” innovation happens?
Managing 'bright' ideas
There is a significant change taking place in the way that the process of innovation is understood. We can put this in the context of developments in the manageability of other areas of business activity in recent times. Read more of this Post
The greatest danger in scuba diving? You may be surprised!
I learned to scuba dive about 20 years ago. I was certified by NAUI (the National Association of Underwater Instructors) in Chicago, Illinois, and did my check-out dive in a quarry in Wisconsin. It was dreary and raining. The water was cold and the scenery sorely lacking: we dove down to the top of an abandoned school bus! I did just fine as long as I had air; strap a tank on me and I can dive for hours.
But take away the air, and make me go underwater, and I want to surface immediately. It was a huge accomplishment for me to complete my surface dive (where you go fairly deep with no air, just a snorkel, then surface and clear out your snorkel to continue breathing on the surface) although I bit through at least one snorkel before I was through! I blamed it on the cold but the truth is that I was very tense.
Scuba Diving can be fun!
I did a fair amount of diving before I had children and hung up my fins. I dove the Blue Hole, going down 120 feet and getting “narced” (nitrogen narcosis, where you feel “drunk” underwater). I did open water diving with hammerhead sharks off CoCos Island.
My buddy and I were swept away in a current in the middle of the ocean, but so was the dive master and the rest of the dive team, so the boat followed us and we were just fine. I dove with sea turtles, manta rays, eels, and sea horses. I’ve done night diving, which was surprisingly noisy as the fish nipped the coral as they fed. I loved scuba diving. It was a magical, liberating, beautiful experience. But I never forgot how dangerous it was and that it could kill you if you weren’t careful and aware.
I tend to be fairly risk averse so I did a lot of nerdy research as I prepared for my first real diving trip. I wanted to know all I could about how to avoid a scuba diving accident. I learned something that I thought others might find very interesting: that diving as a threesome is the single most dangerous thing you can do when scuba diving! More dangerous than cave diving, ice diving, open water diving, or diving alone! (If my memory serves me right, this result is based on Canadian data on scuba diving accidents, injuries, and deaths. )
It seems hard to believe at first but I think I’ve got it figured out. For one, it happens fairly often. I’ve seen it on many diving trips: someone comes alone or their buddy can’t dive, so they join up with a buddy team. Dive instructors suggest that people join up in threes rather than dive alone. Or the dive instructor joins a pair.
Two, I think people feel safer in a bigger group. Three, I think that when you are diving alone, or cave or ice diving, you are very aware of the risks and take extra precautions to avoid the dangers. But diving in threes doesn’t “seem” risky, so everyone relaxes. And people tend not to clearly lay out ahead of time who is watching whom at the bottom of the ocean where seconds can make the difference between life and death. And that is likely where the danger lives: with a buddy system, there is no question about who is responsible for whom. I am watching out for my buddy, and he is watching out for me. Period. But when diving in threes, the pairing gets muddled. Are you watching out for two people? Are they watching out for you, or for each other? And inevitably someone gets overlooked. And accidents happen.
So, if you ever take up scuba diving, have a blast! But don’t ever dive in threes!
In the latest development in his campaign to show how dramatically the Tories have changed, David Cameron has published the party’s first-ever official list of openly gay MPs.
The Conservatives say they have 20 openly gay candidates standing in the Election. Of those, 11 told party chiefs they were ‘happy’ to be named in the first authorised list of gay Conservative candidates.
David Cameron
Homosexuality is no longer – thankfully – a crime. It has always existed and no doubt always will. It is therefore – logically – a normal feature of human society. Isn’t it time to accept it as such and stop flaunting it constantly in the media? Can we not keep private those parts of our lives which are private? Do heterosexuals go around flaunting their heterosexuality?
Why on earth does a potential government-forming party feel obliged to publish lists of people’s sexuality? Why do I suddenly feel as if I am bizarre in thinking that one’s sexuality should be something private? Personally I haven’t got the faintest interest in other people’s sexual inclinations. Like religion, it should be personal and not eternally flaunted in the media.
And it is all illogical. Either homosexuality is normal or it isn’t. If it is (as it is), then why the constant need to bang on about it, as for example in the Tory party? What on earth has it got to do with running the country? Are the Tories supposed to be better-qualified to run the country the more homosexuals they have? Is there a point at which having TOO MANY becomes a negative point? Would they then start to proclaim how many heterosexuals they had? On a personal level, I keep my sexuality to myself. It is nothing to do with you and certainly not with running the country.
It is analagous to sex in the media. It is overdone. The endless superficial titillation and flaunting of sexuality is demeaning of the Human Spirit. Sex is – or should be – a private matter. It’s better that way. It is more mature that way, but the media – and now the political parties – sink to the lowest denominator instead of focusing on what really matters.
Please, please give us some politicians with common-sense.
Learning from Dogs muses the new book from Yves Smith
ECONned, by Yves Smith
In Econned, Yves Smith, founder of Naked Capitalism, argues that the economy was doing just fine in the regulated environment up to the 1970s. Then began the work of the Chicago economists who challenged Keynesian economics and touted the benefits of deregulation which eventually led to the financial crisis we have today.
Yves argument is internally consistent and well researched, but ignores some factors that I think would change the conclusions drawn from her work.
Yves Smith, author and founder of Naked Capitalism
First, Yves notes that the primary reason that economists are not useful to the real world is that economic research presumes equilibrium. Smith misses the point here, but it is understandable. It took me years of study and contemplation to fully appreciate that an equilibrium simply gives economists a point of reference, a common base, from which to study shocks and movements. In and of itself, equilibrium is not interesting or important. But movements to and from equilibrium are of real interest because they enable us to study and try to predict how individuals will react to incentives and changes in market conditions.
Second, we have to put the contributions of the Chicago economists of the 1970s into context. Up until that time, the only real school of thought in macroeconomics was based on Keynes, who presumed that markets fail and that the government must play an active and large role – primarily through government spending and taxes — for the economy to perform well. Keynes’ work was a reaction to the Great Depression.
Friedman’s monetarism also sought to explain the Great Depression, but focused on the role of monetary policy on the economy. This work showed that the missteps of the Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the depth and length of the Great Depression, and that long-term accommodative monetary policy causes inflation. This body of work did not stress deregulation, although it did lean more heavily on enabling private market solutions than on replacing them with government solutions. Neither theory is complete; Keynes focused on the short run (“In the long run, we are all dead” is a rather famous Keynes quip) and Monetarism focused on the long run.
There was a second large body of work that came out of the University of Chicago during the late 1960s and 1970s. This research documented the tremendous costs of regulation. I know this literature personally and believe that its conclusions are very sound: it shows that any effective regulation limits either the quantity or price of a good or service away from what it would have been without the regulation. In fact, in my view, it was the passage of regulations requiring certain lending behavior that set off the series of events that led to the crisis, which is the exact opposite argument from what Ms. Smith makes.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan“. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A…
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
How often does a great conference on an emerging subject attract local, national and global participants to a quiet corner of the UK? Not often, I suspect.
Nevertheless last Friday, 2010 February 26, it happened again at LikeMinds 2010! The first time it happened was in 2009 on October 16th. Back in February 2009, two people met having got to know each other using Twitter, the popular social media tool/service. Scott Gould is a Devon-based web and experience designer. Trey Pennington is an American social media and business consultant. They met in Exeter and set the date for a half-day event which became LikeMinds 09. A local conference centre was the venue. People came from far and wide to became part of the inaugural gathering. Afterwards, they knew that they’d started something and felt the need to repeat it.
This time, just over four months later. More came to LikeMinds 2010, in the same relatively small venue. The same loyal bunch of social media specialists came back and brought more with them. There was more buzz and activity. This time, it lasted a full day and was followed by a business-oriented summit event at a prestigious location.
It was good to be there. It was good to meet new people. It was good to get a real sense of what is going on in human social communication. And all of this in my local city of Exeter, Devon, England.
There is more to come on this conference! But to give you a flavour, here is the talk by Chris Brogan … after I’d had lunch with him!
And, I am sure, more LikeMinds conferences to come.
There are many people who might represent the subject of entrepreneurship. It is likely that a calm analysis of the candidates would select someone with a broad range of characteristics which had been identified as generally accepted as typical. But this would be to fly in the face of the nature of entrepreneurship itself!
How can the sense of the personal distortion of reality required to see a different path be communicated by someone identified as a “typical” entrepreneur?
With that in mind, the following video captures such a motivational performance that any selection process that might have been used has been abandoned in selecting Jason Calacanis, the controversial and abrasive founder of multiple “dot com” ventures, mainly in the broad area of web publishing.
Say what you like about his activities during his various ventures, and who knows whether it is as unprepared as it appears to be, his performance in this video is pure gold in the annals of motivational presentations for entrepreneurs. He starts slowly, sets the scene, describes his story and steadily builds momentum and intensity. As the stakes increase, so does the passion. Balanced by a substantial level of self-analysis, this is a gripping personal story. If you are interested in entrepreneurship, set aside the next half hour or so, sit back and enjoy this:
While many factors arise in describing entrepreneurs, the one issue that comes up time and again is the simple choice between two different paths. He captured that!
Even in the midst of great pain, we must think through our choices
The last week has been really mad. I have been working in different companies and organisations and having to be part of redundancies, power struggles and people rebuilding their lives.
For example, I was in a company that had just let its second lot of people go in as many months. It’s gone past losing ‘dead wood’ and now people with valuable skills needed for recovery are going. I’ve noticed previously that good, employable people with key skills start to get concerned and will often take voluntary redundancy rather than hanging around to see how things pan out.
End of job!
It’s the shocking way that it’s done as well that’s unbelievable. No warning, just a phone call to attend a meeting, no hint as to what the meeting is about, then an envelope slid across the table and then a rapid escort off site. All done and dusted in 5 minutes.
Having been through this myself some years ago, it’s not something you forget in a hurry. Lots of feelings of rejection and feeling unvalued and unwanted are what I remember. Perhaps its part of being bought up in a job-for-life culture and then having that illusion shattered.
Working with people in this situation is literally quite shocking and traumatic because it clearly affects them and their lives and the lives of their families, and it affects me because the work we started comes to an abrupt end usually with little or no warning, and so does a source of income to be brutally honest. I don’t even have chance to say good-bye in many cases.
Every Thursday I become a trainee psychotherapist and work with people who mostly struggle to hold down any sort of job. The reasons for this are generally because of upbringings that are awful beyond description. The shock and trauma that is in the air when working with these people is amazing, and so scary for them that the idea of being present in the room with me and is virtually impossible.
So that brings us to managing in a world where lots of mad and non-integrous things happen. I believe that mindfulness can provide a key to these situations; being present for another does more than any instruction manual!
Being present means we make ourselves available at many levels to someone who is suffering. By avoiding the subtle invitation to join someone in their shock and trauma but by being there for them, to the best of our ability and listening to them at depth, we can provide an environment where real reflection can take place. Then options may be chosen which are not born of panic and reaction but come from reflection and response.
I believe that this approach gets us out of the ‘noise machine in our heads‘ (that is forever churning and worrying, in my case) that we have no control over, and creates space for more subtle things to come through the quiet and calm.
Most people I’ve met in my engineering work like to assume that they think their way out of tight situations but I’m not convinced that this process is actually effective. I have heard and practised many times the activity of ‘sleeping on something’ and then being able to decide on a course of action the following morning with relative ease. My psychotherapy clients can’t think their way out the awfulness because thinking about things has got them into a spiral
Albert Einstein
process which is highly addictive, predictable and virtually impossible to break without the intervention of a higher level of awareness. I think it was Einstein who said something like, “you can’t use the same intelligence that created a problem to solve it“! In other words, a different approach or level must be used.
I believe that this different approach or level can be used to solve most problems we have. By bringing a different level of awareness to a challenge, whether it is redundancy or some other sort of deeper problem always gives different results and provides more options. It’s just that initially it needs to be facilitated, until we can do it under our own steam. I am heartened that even in the depths of a recession that there are still companies out there that support this approach and the work I do.
By Jon Lavin [This article from the BBC is worth reading in conjunction with Jon’s excellent Post. Jon may be contacted via learningfromdogs (at) gmail (dot) com]
Learning from Dogs 