As the last few hours of voting for my proposal on Change This remain, I would like to thank everybody who took the trouble to vote. At my last look it was 110 votes putting me in third place for now. I'm not clear whether voting stops today or tomorrow, so if you are visiting today or tomorrow and haven't voted yet, it may be worth try.
The whole process has been fascinating and has sparked off a number of ideas I will be writing about later, but in the meantime, once again thanks to all you voters for your support.
I've just spent the past few days in deepest, rural France without TV, internet, newspapers and only a few minutes of the BBC World Service as it faded in and out of interference from another noisy, crackling station. It was a curiously refreshing experience being freed from the mixture of incredulity and incoherent rage that has marked so much of my recent encounters with the media as I desperately search for some sense among the Orwellian noise of so much that is presented to us. It make me wonder whether an austere diet of news consumption might be better for my mental health than the media gluttony I too often indulge in.
I first came across Bob Sutton at the same conference in Berlin where I encountered Ken Robinson, who I wrote about a few days ago. I was impressed by Bob Sutton's talk and still more impressed to find him an approachable, unpretentious man, who was happy to talk informally about his ideas after his talk was over. One of his recent themes has been as he puts it is:
I have been reminded of this many times in the thinking I have been doing about purposive drift over the years. For example it took me years to remember, that as an impressionable teenager, I had read and then 'forgotten' Jean Renoir's biography of his father and the many references to Renoir's "cork theory" of life, which bears a strong resemblance to many of "my" ideas about purposive drift:
Then there is the 'already done' phenomenon. You spend a lot of time developing what you think is an original idea, only to find that someone has already done it some years before, often with more elegance than you are capable of. I hit this one with Geoffrey Vickers.
I have been coming across references to his work for decades, but it was only a year or so ago that I came across some snippets of his work and realised that he had a very distinctive take on cybernetics, that were very close to my developing views. Still more recently that I managed to get hold of his "Freedom In a Rocking Boat" that contains gems, such as this one below:
The requirement that we take responsibility for our (inter)actions, including our own meanings and their making.
The requirement that we accept that there are possibilities beyond those we can imagine.
Therefore, the requirement that we may be surprised.
And that this surprise may lead to opportunities we did not imagine, enhancing our creativity by increasing the variety available to us. (We borrow from others.)
And the requirement that we keep an open mind.
And the requirement to keep an open eye for whatever opportunities may present themselves.
The requirement that we are generous (in our acceptance of the differences and surprises we receive through conversation in an unmanageable situation).
Therefore the requirement that we do not (unnecessarily) restrict possibilities, do not act as censors.
The requirement that we increase what is possible, and the choices that go with this.
Finally, the requirement that we accept error, and accept its occurrence as inevitable.
These are stated as requirements, but they are also opportunities and they give freedoms.
It is in these requirements that there lies a source for enhancing our creativity."
From Ranulph Glanville's "The Value of being Unmanageable: Variety and Creativity in CyberSpace"
There was a splendidly grown-up article by Matthew Parris in the Times the other day, that should be compulsory reading for all the pundits writing about terrorism. The bit I particularly enjoyed was where he was talking about those "joining up the dots" - a phenomenon that William Gibson described as apophenia:
I look at Orion and I do not see the Hunter, his belt or his sword. I see a group of unrelated stars. Whether, however, we discern Great Bears, ploughs, crabs, crosses or only chaos, this kind of star-gazing is harmless because we cannot by imagining shapes create the things we have imagined. More dangerous are the constellation-makers among our presidents, prime ministers and newspaper leader writers: it does lie within their power to breathe life into the monsters they think they see. If they keep shouting that we face a clash of civilisations, a war of the worlds, they may drive bigger numbers on both sides into the arms of the smaller numbers who do want to rally volunteers for a battle."
John Seely Brown tells a nice story about a lesson he learnt when he first joined Xerox. He gives this account of an interview with one their leading trouble-shooting maintenance engineers. It revolves around a discussion of how to identify an intermittent copying problem. The trouble-shooter tells Seely Brown about the laborious, bureaucratic process that Xerox lays down and then goads him into coming up with a better solution. The answer, it turns out, is to look in the nearest waste paper basket. Here is a short extract, but read the whole thing, a lesson worth learning:
I've just put up a proposal on Change This to write a manifesto supporting the notion of Purposive Drift. I need all the votes I can get, so if you would go to http://www.changethis.com/proposals/737 and click on Vote it would make this purposive drifter very happy.