~synthesis~

head games

Are you open to trying something new? Are you open to learning something new? Are you open to a new idea, or to overturning a closely-held belief? Before change is possible, a society must be able to say "yes" to these questions, otherwise enacting change is like pushing a rope uphill.

I attended the Games for Learning day of the Games for Change Festival at NYU last week. Brilliant people spoke on the role of games in learning, approaches to assessing efficacy, and how to build great learning games. It was hosted by Ken Perlin and Jan Plass, who are the co-directors of the Games for Learning Institute. There is a lot happening, I learned a ton, and was privileged to meet and hang out with some very cool people.

One facet that wasn't a focus at the Festival is how to ingrain games more deeply within mainstream education. This is a tough, tough challenge, one that will take some careful thought, mostly because the deck is so stacked against change in education.

I recently had lunch with a ~29 year old mother of a 5-year old boy (both were born and raised in the Seattle area). She believes strongly in the authoritarian approach to education, where the teacher is in front, the students listen quietly, write down what the teacher says, do their homework and pass their tests. This is what she wants for her son. I wonder how much of the population she represents?

I've also been talking to a friend about intellectual divides; she sent me two links that shouldn't have surprised me, but did. First, Charles Pearce's treatise on the a segment of America that disdains "smart" - one payoff quote comes from Pastor Ray Mummert of Dover, Pennsylvania, a leader in Intelligent Design community: "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." That says it all, doesn't it?

But there's more! The second link is to a survey in National Geographic measuring the relative belief in evolution in Western Countries. Just 14% of Americans believe that evolution is "definitely true"; over the last 20 years, uncertainty about evolution has grown from 7% to 20%; and now fully 1/3 of Americans (more than 110 million people) outright reject evolution. Less than 50% of Americans can provide even a basic explanation of DNA. This ranks America #31 out of 32.

These stories illustrate something of the current state of education in America, how science is regarded, and how deeply-held the idea of "old school" and "traditional" education might be in this country.

I have no data to back this up, but my guess is that the people more likely to believe in creationism are also likely to support "traditional" education approaches. I'm also guessing that a direct "innovation" message will NOT resonate with this audience or help affect change.

How then is something as "radical" as the use of games in learning going to achieve broad use across the American public school system?

Socio-politically, there are two ways to achieve (relatively) rapid, widespread change - brute force (e.g. 9-11/terrorism and security; or H1N1 and the obsession with hand-sanitizer), and guile (e.g. the $billions America spends fruitlessly on dieting).

How is this guile? Most diet-related advertising says something like: "try our new quick, easy and safe approach to losing tonnage without sacrificing the foods you love." The people who buy the product or service keep buying and buying and buying, always seeking that quick, easy fix. The $$ spent on trying to get thin keep increasing despite the fact that the number of obese people in the country is also increasing. People are relentlessly gullible.

Call it guile or preying on stupidity - either way, the lose-weight industry is literally and figuratively making a killing.

I believe that transforming education will require the same mercenary, exploitative approach that the weight-reduction industry has perfected. If we want to see pervasive change, we have to create a marketing groundswell that preys on the gullibility and quick, easy fix-obsessed nature of Americans. The message has to come from a united front - the Department of Education, (some) universities, and foundations, all of whom must be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I would also focus my "magic pill" on lower grades - say Kindergarten through Grade 3, prioritizing core skills like literacy, numeracy and the sciences. Parents tend to get less involved in school as their kids get older; to make them an effective change agent, they must be at their most passionate, most susceptible to external influence, and most able to influence their school board/district.

Once you have achieved success in the lower grades, you train these same parents to expect and demand innovation as their children grow. If all goes well, you do the same thing with the next generation of K-3 parents, because by then, whatever we're changed will now be the new "old school."

To teach in a changing world, we must ourselves be ever-open to change; today it's games, tomorrow - who knows.

benevolence

I finally saw The Hurt Locker - it is a powerful film, one that among other things, gives you a visceral sense of life in Iraq for the American (and other) soldiers, and of course for the Iraqi citizens. What an awful reality to be faced with.

America invaded Iraq first to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and then to liberate her people from a tyrant. Was Saddam Hussein a tyrant? Yes. Did he harm his citizens? Yes. But all in all, how did the people of Iraq live before America invaded and how do they live now? I know something of life in Iraq (and other parts of the Middle East) before the last war, and if "Hurt Locker" is any indicator of their life today, then Iraqis are absolutely worse off now. The saddest part is that their future looks even bleaker. Democracy is NOT working in Iraq or for that matter in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Iran, or...

If you've read this blog before, you know I'm a laissez-faire pacifist who is a strong believer in the democratic ideal. This post is not a war protest, perhaps opposite - it's a bit weird to even write this.

America, and to a lesser degree allies like Britain, believe that they should evangelize (and enact) democratic self-determination for everyone in all countries around the world. This doctrine is based on the premise that democracies are more likely to be good trading partners, and less likely to be enemies, and that it is the path of righteousness.

Despite this path, you have to look no farther than America to see that she has more laws governing behavior, more money and resource spent on policing the law, and more people in jail than any other country in the world. For example, in the US, every year there are 88.7 million cases in state courts and more than 1.1 million cases in federal courts; which means for a population of 300 million, more than one in four people go to court every year! This not only a lot of rules, it's a lot of rules being policed, broken, and prosecuted.

Britain has a massive CCTV surveillance system, and America may have an even more comprehensive surveillance system, but I presume various national security statutes prevent their true nature from being disclosed. Again - a massive investment in watching people on the assumption that rules are being broken.

Despite being the home of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, these two democracies have a palpable mistrust of their people, and their governments are creating new rules every day, increasingly investing in citizen oversight and control.

So... how is this different from the totalitarian states we're trying to bring into the fold of democracy? How democratic is Iraq today? How democratic are the states of Arizona or Texas today?

Is this type of "control" a societal reality no matter the form of government? Are we all naturally such rule-breakers that structure and order are needed to keep us in line?

Is democracy the best form of government? Surely people so prone to "straying" shouldn't be entrusted with electing their own leaders? Surely so mistrusted a population requires a much more "assertive" governance model?

Think about "successful" countries, ones where progress is happening, education, healthcare and economic standards are improving, and where there is more optimism than pessimism. According to Geopolitical Monitor, the ten biggest non-BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) countries "on the rise" are Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Poland, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Iran, Argentina and Thailand. There is a mix of government models here, but in reality, most are more authoritarian than anything else.

Could it be that people need (and even prefer) to be governed with a "firm hand"? Could it be that people are not happy until they're explicitly told what to do? Could it be that many people seek the authority of organized religion when they perceive their government to be too lenient or loose? Could it be that all we really need are enlightened despots?

When people are granted freedom, the first thing they do is figure out how to take advantage of it; governments create laws to prevent "bad behavior"; people find more loopholes, and the cycle repeats.

I'm not saying I want to give up my freedom and my right to choose, to speak, to believe, indeed to pursue happiness. I'm simply noting that whenever we have it, our tendency is to abuse it, and then complain (or lobby) when it is taken away. What if we just resigned ourselves to the fact that we were not meant to be free, and what we really need is a ruler who already has everything and a small enough or well-fed enough ego to do the right thing by us?

Is it best for us to live in a benign state of oppression? Would we be happier? Or is happiness perennially fighting "the man"?

revelations

I found this fascinating animation of the history of religion across the globe (click "Play" below). Hinduism began 5,000 years ago, followed by Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity and then Islam, which came into being in 570AD.

Some observations:

1. Five major religions cover the globe, the youngest of which is fifteen centuries old.
2. Despite all "modern" claims of "Internet time," etc., no new religions have spawned or spread for quite a while.
3. The two most populous and fastest-growing nations on the planet essentially have their own religions, but neither of their religions is bent on "evangelical expansion."
4. The smallest (by population and geography) is Judaism, and the largest is Christianity.

Historically, the spread of religion occurred through conquest and evangelism/missionary work. During this time, some of the religions competed (and combated) with each other to win followers, but at some point it seems a detente of sorts was achieved, creating a relatively steady state. (This is not to say that peace broke out, but that the geographic distribution has remained largely the same.)

In 888 (a fortuitous year!), block printing was invented; movable (clay) type arrived in 1041; and then Gutenberg came along in the 1440s. By the end of that century (1499), an estimated 15 million (mostly religious) books had been printed. The most famous of these of course is the Gutenberg Bible, which among other religious texts (like the Koran), helped promote and proliferate Christianity and Islam through the centuries that followed.

Four hundred years later, communication changed - beginning with the telegraph, followed 30 years later by the telephone, and eventually with wireless telephony and the Internet. Despite this increase in publishing capacity and reach, the big five have remained relatively static. Until now. I believe the next decade will see the rise of an altogether new type of religion, one more connected to the e-world.

Atheism is not a religion (by definition); they would say that their "faith" is science and logic, and that they are not evangelical. Today most Atheists are individuals without affiliation; but with the likes of Richard Dawkins, I believe a movement is forming, and its leaders (will) wish to establish a widespread sociopolitical force with structure, membership, meeting venues, corporate sponsorship, etc.

They could choose a political approach. While compelling, I don't believe the ROI is interesting - too much work for relatively little gain. I think they will instead choose the non-political tack, and like the big 5, use the strength and size of their base as clout to affect social and political change. Does this make them a "religion"? I think so - here's a paragraph from Wikipedia's article on religion (I've highlighted in blue the text that I believe applies to Atheism the religion):

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

New religions have historically formed in "space," gaining traction among those who had not yet encountered religion. Today fundamentalists in Christianity (American religious right, Tea Party, etc.) and Islam (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) are a polarizing force; there is enough concern about this in the minds of their moderates (and especially the younger generations), that Atheism could be a viable alternative. Differences on issues like personal freedom, selective accountability, abortion, gay rights, women's rights, the use of violence, etc. just might be enough to tip the balance in favor of "defection."

The ideal for Atheism is morality and integrity founded on science and logic. Atheists will shirk terms like "believer" - instead I imagine them using a tag line like: "We don't believe; we are." But they will also struggle with the same issues that beset other religions or large organizations - how to create an effective and deserving leadership hierarchy, how to impose or enforce rules, and how to deliver value. Traditional religions deliver value in the form of answers to these three questions:

1. Why am I here?
2. What happens when I die?
3. Whom do I blame (corollary - who will absolve me?)?

Atheism does not view these questions the same way, so a new approach to value-creation will be needed, one that centers on the attributes above - morality, integrity, science and logic, but also one that gives those that are seeking an alternative a place to belong, where they can feel at home. If the leaders of Atheism can find this, I believe the next decade will host a new religion, and one that achieved critical mass by filling a void that the other five didn't realize was there.

intellectual divides

Have you encountered the phrase "digital divide"? I imagine more than once. What does it mean to you? Is it expanding, contracting or the same as it was? What's on either side, and how do you know where you are? If you do only do email on a PC, are you on one side (which side?); if you only use SMS where are you? It's not clear cut anymore, and it also depends on your point of view.

eSchool News published A look at the technology culture divide recently, the author made a bizarre assumption - that the "have" side of the digital divide is static. According to this, the "digital divide" came into the mainstream in the mid-1990s via speeches by then President Bill Clinton and Vice President (and self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet) Al Gore.

Do you think someone who was on the "digital" side of the divide in 1996 is still on that side today? At that time, being "digital" would have meant owning a computer with access to the Internet (via a modem connected to a land line). Say that was me, and that I'm still using the same or similar equipment today; how do I compare (my PC + internet access, living in Seattle) to three 15 year old brothers I met recently in Angola who have smart phones with data plans but don't really use PCs? Is it clear who has the advantage?

Now take a look at this article also in eSchool News about the excessive proliferation of hardware in learning. This author suggests it's not about more hardware (I agree), but that we need the right software packages (he enumerates four requirements); once we have these, no more change is needed, and our now "futurized" school system can happily live in this new steady state.

Education is not about social networks, mastery of existing assessments, or basic reading; it is about preparing every child to discover and become their greatest selves, and to prepare every child to survive (and hopefully thrive) in whatever future lies ahead. All we know about the future is that it will come; to create a static system that is based on today's state of the art (just because we can't grasp a more advanced or changed future) is naive at best, and assured to NOT prepare children for their future.

These authors are like Al Gore when he proclaimed Internet paternity - they're trying to lay claim to ideas that they don't fully grasp, and making absolute that which is always changing. As Seth points out, it's very easy to be manipulated - all you need to do is string together the right kitsch phrases, and prey on people's fears or avarice. It's a sure-fire way to win followers and influence people, but it is devoid of integrity.

Rather than railing about the digital divide, we need to bemoan the intellectual divide that has made adults in our society gullible enough to believe this kind of propaganda.

For those who wish we could go back a generation to the time when our education system was wonderful, and when we graduated the best and the brightest on this planet, I would point out the following: more adults in America are illiterate vs. the top 20 economies on Earth. More than half of Americans adults are unable to identify the precise location of Washington DC or New York or Los Angeles on a blank map (forget naming the capital of Canada or pointing to its location). More Americans bought mortgages beyond their means, believe they can healthily lose weight via diet pills, and believe the Earth is flat than any other nation in the OECD top 20.

I'm exaggerating to make a point, but it's important to realize that many of the people making decisions about our children's education are both victims of their own (potentially weak) education, and susceptible to the random and ill-informed rhetoric of others. Rather than trusting education to people whose only qualification is electability (by these same ill-informed crowds), shouldn't we put it in the hands of the best and brightest and most successful among us?

It's time to get our collective heads in the game...

madiba

I saw Invictus again on my flight home yesterday. In the film, President Mandela is called "Madiba" by the people of his tribe; I equate its meaning to something like sensei + wise man + father, or sensei:). "Invictus" (below) was a companion to Mandela during his 27 years in jail. The spirit of this poem (Latin for "unconquered"), combined with his belief in all the people of South Africa, helped make Madiba Madiba.

Most boards and recruiters don't seem to believe a Madiba is needed for success; in most organizations - public, private, or government, the leaders I've observed are much more pragmatic. Their focus is on specific, measurable, and externally-acknowledged outcomes. These are important, and certainly one outward measure of an organization's performance, but if you think this is the only thing, then your true and long-term success is at risk.

Mandela inherited an incredibly complex country - one with angry (but victorious) black people and nervous white people; one where the economy was in the tank; and one where crime and violence were rampant. In the commercial world, this might be akin to management/union acrimony + a recently-merged company (perhaps former competitors) + impending lay-offs + a very competitive marketplace with shrinking margins. Of course Madiba needed to focus on the economy, on crime, and on justice, just as the companies need to focus on their metrics - you have to keep the boat afloat.

But Mandela approached his presidency in a particular way - symbols meant something, honor meant something, and the people (all the people) meant something. Sure there were measurable outcomes, but they weren't meaningful if they weren't underlied by the symbols.

This reminds me of a recent experience: someone I know is in the job market; in the opening section of her resume, she introduced herself beginning with the word "passionate." Her mentor urged her to remove it, saying - "'Passion'? Really? Is that what you want to lead with? Employers will dismiss you outright. Instead write about the quantified and documented things you have done, and the skills you bring to the table. That's what matters."

Sigh...

Of course skills and experience are important, but they're just table stakes. They might allow you to play the game, and perhaps even win on occasion, but to achieve real, sustained, and enduring success, you need heart; you must feel it in your stomach, you must care, and you must have profound passion for your "cause." I would hire one person with genuine passion vs. ten with skills - ask any true leader (government, commercial, or sport) and see what they say.

Just as a great corporation is first the people and then the product, Mandela needed to do more - he needed to galvanize a country - bring together violently opposed people to form one country, one people. He needed to instill the shared spirit, intent, and integrity that is South Africa in every South African.

Mandela knew that metrics alone weren't going to renew South Africa; he knew that speeches alone would not unite the country; he knew that foreign investment alone wasn't going to stop violence. He needed his people (all his people) to be ONE in the cause of their country, and he needed a symbol through which to do this - in his case it was the 1995 Rugby World Cup. He needed to create, as Seth put it, True Fans of South Africa among her citizens.

If there is no "WHY" in your organization or community, you are at risk; the "what" or the "how" will only take you so far. He understood this instinctively, and he also understood that the worst thing in the world was for him to use his electoral victory as a black man to create a new separateness with a reverse apartheid. That's why he honored the Springboks and their colors (something deeply tied to the whites) vs. getting a new name with new colors. And that's why he needed to turn the blacks around, and have them, along with the whites, all become true Springbok fans.

Madiba's stubbornness in fighting his fellow blacks on this was critical. For organizations (political or otherwise), their leaders MUST have this kind of wisdom, this kind of strength, and this kind of resolve. As he said in the film, whilst arguing with his advisers, "This country is hungry for greatness [and this is how I will help them achieve it]."

Shosholoza

sex and selling

Among other things, The Art of War teaches us that we must understand our opponent - know their situation, their motivations, and their strengths and weaknesses. Aikido teaches us to then transform that energy into mutually-positive outcomes.

Recent conversations with parents tell me they're still at a loss about broaching sex with their kids.

Most children have sex way before adults believe they do; they like it as they like other things they're told they shouldn't (alcohol, downloading unlicensed content, staying out late, etc.). It got me to thinking - rather than take the fear and forbidden fruit approach to sex, why not take advantage of what's already there?

Here's my sex speech:

I know sex is something you're going to want to try, and if you're anything like I was, once you start, you'll want to get it as often as you can. There are three things you need to know that'll help you get as much as you possibly can:

1. You can't have body parts falling off - there are a ton of sexually-transmitted diseases, and if you catch one, not only will it hurt, but you might never get laid again.
2. Pregnancy is a sex-stopper. Once you are or get someone pregnant, sex stops - period. You don't want any part of this.
3. The best sex is with someone who wants it just as much as you do. If your partner says 'No' - that's it - stop; and you have to make sure your partner will stop if you say 'No.' If you ignore this, you might go to jail where you'll get way the wrong kind of sex.

What do you do? Always, always talk about sexual history and diseases - you gotta know you're both free of disease; condoms do help, but the conversation is just as important, and your partner will like you more for it [If it's a boy, say: girls will really respect and like you for bringing this up, and it will help you get more sex]. Condoms will also help pregnancy, so it's a two-fer.

Let's review - first - you've gotta talk history; second - condoms; third - 'no' means stop.

You know they're going to do it anyway, I'd rather it be safe, protected, consensual sex than the alternative.

This is a bit of a departure for this blog, or is it? While more personal, this is basic marketing. A old friend Nick Stodin once said the key to successful selling is the organizing principle - if you package something correctly, people will buy it - no selling required. His example:

• Take a bunch of vegetables, chop them up and throw them in a pile in the back yard. What do you have? Compost. What do you do with it? Turn it over, wait for it to rot.
• Take a bunch of vegetables, chop them up and drop them on your kitchen floor. What do you have? A mess. What do you do with it? Clean it up.
• Take a bunch of vegetables, chop them up and put them into a wooden bowl. What do you have? A salad. What do you do with it? Eat it.

The organizing principle is the bowl, or in the previous case, the path to prolific sex; the desired behavior is assured, no selling required.

all for one...

When something becomes too big, it is or is perceived to be domineering and dictatorial. America was formed in response to an overbearing Britain. To quote the Declaration of Independence: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Brilliant.

In writing the constitution, the framers were mindful of this, and built a structure intended to prevent a federal government from ever getting too big. They did this by separating power in two ways - federally with three "independent" branches (executive, legislative, judicial), and overall with federal, state and local governments (or more appropriately - federal and not federal).

But today these layers are so tightly connected that they can't really act independently - the state and local governments are so economically beholden to the Feds that there is no practical checks/balances capability (biting the hand that feeds gets toothless pretty quickly).

I favor a (benevolent) central model vs. a local/state/federal model. The American system is redundant, inefficient, and with a dearth of great (even good) leaders (but a surplus of great egos), suffering from bad management and egregious excess. In tough time, the more layers you have the less revenue each layer is able to collect; the less each layer is able to raise, and with bad management, the more the whole system (not to mention the citizens) are at risk.

Creating a central government would of course require a serious Constitutional amendment, but is closer than you might think. If this had been a slightly deeper and more protracted recession/depression (Detroit plans to literally shut down parts of the city because it's too expensive to service them (street lights, police patrols, trash pickup, etc.); elsewhere schools are closing, teachers laid off, hospitals are cutting back, state employees are furloughed, it's endless), I bet a dozen States would have declared bankruptcy and ceded control to a higher power, ultimately creating the United State of America (note the singular).

It's not just America - Greece, Spain and Portugal in the European Union are all struggling. The "Northern" Eurozone (Germany, France) and their taxpayers will bear the brunt of bailing them out, and while they agree the bailout should happen, there is also resentment. "Why are we always sending € billions to them?? All they ever do is go on strike and take vacations!" In the United States we have angst against Wall Street, the automobile manufacturers, and even consumers who can't manage their own debt; think of how New York and Texas will feel if they have to bail California out.

What happens if the United States or European Union fails? What then?

We need a different approach to government.

Most people don't like centralization, believing it results in bloat, bureaucracy, declining services to the citizenry, and worst of all, the risk of an unchecked power running roughshod.

I agree :-) -- BUT - I'm pretty sure we already have this in our current Federal/State/Local government model???

The Constitution delineated Federal responsibilities based on specific portfolios (foreign policy, treasury, military, etc.) combined with omission (what's left is state or local). This was fine when things were easily separable, and there was physically no way for a central government to reach and connect to every corner of the land. Neither is true today. Not only are there overlaps in purview, but the physical portfolios are so intertwined that changes in one have ripple effects on others, and most critically the citizens.

Is there a way to create a government system that achieves both the efficiency and equitability of centralization with the effectiveness, local empathy, balance and accountability of de-central? I wrote about federalizing education, where the Feds were responsible for "the what" and the schools (local leadership) "the how." Extrapolating this to the larger context:

The What - Centralized Laws, Mandate and Funding. This body will set:

1. Rights - create the fundamental laws and principles that should govern the land
2. Vision - define success, identify the "customer," the desired outcome, and how it will be measured, and most critically, have a long-term perspective
3. Funding - raise money and provide financing; $$ per outcome, penalties for non-performance, bonuses for exceptional performance
4. Oversight - policy and remediation; clear process to track performance, and manage poor performance
5. Synchronization - look across programs to create leverage, economies of scale, manage interoperability

6. People-focused - they serve at the pleasure of the citizenry

The How - Decentralized Service Delivery. These bodies will be:

1. Focused - suited to one task (middle school, building bridges, public transportation, hospitals, etc.)
2. Public or Private - could either be government owned with federal employees or private
3. Local, regional or central - organizational structure and span based on need (TSA = central, road builders specializing in cold weather = regional, school = local or regional or national)
4. Outcome-driven - compelled to deliver per the metrics and oversight above
5. Creative - not constrained by "tried and true;" free-market approach to problems and opportunities
6. Customer-centered- their customer is the central government, whose customer is the citizenry

Is it this simple? No - but I think simplicity + decoupling funding and oversight from execution is how a government should be run.