In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about human nature and the meaning of “the human journey” and this information challenges the institutions that we have created based on many of these assumptions – our educational institutions, our business practices and our Governing Institutions. So could our new coalition Government with its brief beyond traditional Party Dogma be a seed for the start of such a revolution in our thinking?
On 05.17.10, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
In this RSA video, Jeremy Rifkin looks at what he calls the emerging “Empathic Civilisation”. He says that in the last ten years there have been many developments in Evolutionary Biology, Neuro-Cognitive Science, Child Development and many other forms of research that are beginning to challenge some of the long-held assumptions we have about [...]
On 07.16.09, In Know-What/Why, by Barry Mapp
Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find [...]
Thinking the human brain was designed to do
Do you ever stop to think about your thinking? It seems to me that there are at least three levels of thinking that the human brain can do that enhances our capacity to design ‘newness’. To actually solve issues where the current level of thinking fails to find long-term effective solutions.
“We cannot solve the problems of today with the same level of thinking that created the problems in the first place”
Albert Einstein (He said words to this effect many times over his lifetime)
What did Einstein mean by this? Well I guess using my terminology from the previous few blogs on this topic he did not mean crowing cockerel thinking, nor flat world thinking, not even earth around the sun thinking. Neither of these three ways of thinking would cut the mustard for Einstein.
So lets look at three further levels of thinking that would ‘cut the mustard’
Here are the three levels of thinking that our human brain was wired to do, ways of thinking that clearly differentiate us from the abilities of reptiles and other mammals.
(1) “Out from my Existing World” Thinking
This is thinking where the thinker takes a (one dimensional) step out from their current set of beliefs (or paradigm) about how the world (and everything in it) works. So rather than staying ‘imprisoned’ within the assumptions, beliefs, and theories of the existing system (my current world) to take a step outside/above and look from a different viewpoint or perspective. This level of thinking is sometimes described as ‘out of the box’ or ‘lateral’ thinking
(2) Multiple Perspectives Thinking (MPT)
MPT occurs when you can suspend you existing assumptions and start to scan ‘reality’ from multiple perspectives or ‘viewing points’. For example when you are in dispute with someone you can look to hold three different perspectives in your head and view the situation from each. What is your thinking on this issue, what are the likely thoughts the other person has, and what would a third person who no axe to grind think about this situation. By viewing this issue from three perspectives gives insights not possible from just one. Anyone acquainted with W. Edward Deming’s ‘System of Profound Knowledge’ will appreciate that Deming created a tool that let’s us view any issue through the lens of four different perspectives. When we do this we get a good sense of the unintended consequences that we might ‘cause’ by simply taking a ‘one perspective’ viewpoint.
This type of thinking is greatly enhanced when we are in multilogue. Here we listen and share information in a particular way and sitting with people who hold widely differing perspectives. Everyone in the room suspends their existing assumptions and then as the multilogue progresses they seek to hold the totality of thoughts and ideas in their heads. And then (and only then) from a state of nothingness (shown by absolute silence) there begins to emerge through the vehicle of the group, new thoughts and ideas. In a society that is not used to sitting in the silence, multilogue is tricky to achieve (Many of us seem to be threatened by it)
However there are however tools and techniques that will allow us to achieve this type of thinking whilst working on our own and Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge is one such tool.
(3) Meta-Thinking
This is our ability to think about thinking. To be able to think and to challenge our own thinking and the thinking of others. It appears that we are the only life-form on this planet to be able to ‘meta-think’ and it is this one ability that has made us so successful. All the great major breakthroughs in human advancement have come about through this ability. We cannot achieve any of the other five levels of thinking without having this ability. Yet what are we most likely to do when we have a problem? Think-about-our-thinking or sit and watch a reality TV programme?
It is sad to know that the three levels of thinking described here (each of which lift our abilities above that of reptiles and mammals) are so rarely used to focus and seek solutions to the challenges we have today. Einstein would not be happy. If you live in the midlands and you want to jump-start your thinking and creative ability I have some upcoming workshops on these topics in Birmingham and Worcestershire
Coming Next: Black and White thinking – the curse of our society
On 07.10.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by Barry Mapp
On Science and Scientists, Climate change and the Public – who is thinking clearly?
Just seen the results of this survey from Reuters. Of course we always need to take surveys with a pinch of salt, but I find the results of this particular survey (http://unhub.com/9Vmx) very interesting, particular about current opinions on Climate Change. The [...]
On Science and Scientists, Climate change and the Public – who is thinking clearly?
Just seen the results of this survey from Reuters. Of course we always need to take surveys with a pinch of salt, but I find the results of this particular survey (http://unhub.com/9Vmx) very interesting, particular about current opinions on Climate Change. The problems with surveys is they only leave us with more questions than provide any answers because they never seem to follow up and ask the really interesting things.
First a summary of the survey results with respect to the ’science’ of climate change:
The survey says that “while 84 percent of scientists say the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, less than half of the public agrees with that”.
There are two things of interest to tease out from this. Firstly the ‘public’ view.
Is it that the ‘public’ are in denial of the ’science’ or is it that actually they don’t believe in the models that the scientists are using? Now it would be good to survey that. My money is on the fact that most of the public simply don’t believe the models. If so that would be very interesting as well to know why.
The second thing of interest is the viewpoint of the scientists. This survey showed that 16% of the scientists surveyed did not believe the ’science’. From what you read in the media I would have thought that it was fewer than 5% of scientists who did not agree with the interpretation of the ’science’. Again it would be most interesting to know more about the scientists who are the ‘non-believers’
So this survey would have been far more useful if we could have found out something about those ‘public’ that don’t believe the ’science’ of climate change (or rather the way most scientists are interpreting the data). Are they all people who just want to go on decimating rain forests etc? Are they actually people (like myself) who want to stop burning fossil fuels and decimating the planet, but have no confidence in the models that scientists are using to predict the global effects?
And the 16% of scientists that don’t believe the (interpretation of the) ’science’? Are they all in the pocket of the energy companies? Or are they merely scientists who are concerned that the data is contradictory or selectively taken and the models are inadequate to make predictions?
On 07.01.09, In Know-What/Why, Non Political Party, by admin
A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need [...]
A view on politicians - ”A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.
A view on Politics- ”Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.” ~ Oscar Ameringer
This Blog: On the need for something different in Politics
We need something new and something completely different in Politics. Believing that tinkering with what we have will lead to something much better is madness. The current political system regardless of the ‘Party’ elected to power has consistently failed to do the job for which it was elected.
Why is Government Failing?
This could be due to several things. Firstly that ‘Government’ thinks it can control things that it cannot (and therefore will always under-deliver); (2) the thinking and assumptions about the ‘problems’ are wrong or the methods by which Government seek to implement their policies simply don’t work; or (3) that the system itself is the problem (the system is the one that embraces what we currently accept – Political Parties in charge (rather than independent thinkers), whips to maintain Party discipline and ideology regardless of consequences; ideological thinking tempered often only by charged polarised debate (or in the UK- the slanging match) as the best vehicle to find the new solutions to existing problems or (4) the system fails because we the voters either lack the knowledge or the wherewithal to canvas effectively for something better. This latter viewpoint incidently espoused by James Garfield “Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Parliament. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.” So perhaps rather than the politicians canvassing for our vote we need to canvas them about what we expect from them (and it certainly isn’t all those things we seem to have been getting and seeing recently)
Could we dispense with Political Parties and still elect a Government?
This blog will look at all the possible aspects of why the current system is failing us. The blog will look at some of the things we could do differently. Indeed we will explore whether we can dispense with political “Parties” all together. Would it be possible to elect, manage and orchestrate a Parliament filled with independent members? What knowledge, mechanisms, processes would need to be in place to allow this scenario to not only happen but succeed in doing better than what we currently have? If we actually need Parties, can we construct a Non-Political Party to promote different ways of doing things? Is the idea of a Non-Politcal Party an Oxymoron? What’s an Oxymoron?
Can a Political Party Think the Unthinkable? Of course not! (not if it is truly ‘political’)
One thing seems clear. Our existing Political Parties will not be able to make the drastic changes in thinking that are required to take society into a 21st Century where things actually improve rather than keep getting worse. Therefore there is a strong need for some new energy and ideas to come into Politics and ultimately there must be a real choice at the Ballot Box where individuals can place their vote with that person or Party that is singing from a different song-sheet. Most political parties would do most things the same in office; the differences are merely in the detail or in the method.
Coming Next: How all the current main political Parties are actually 95% all the same and What is Politics anyway?