Learning is Change

Question 299 of 365: What needs to be said out loud?

I love you. I’m sorry. You’re fired.

Pretty much everything else can be done with innuendo and body language. Those three things and every story and explanation that requires on of them, must be said out loud. They must be spoken and heard. There is no room for verbal tiptoeing or hyperbole. They need to be stated, in no uncertain terms.

I didn’t say enough of any of those three things when I was growing up. I didn’t tell my friends that I loved them. I didn’t say I was sorry when I lied or screwed up. And, I most certainly did not fire nearly enough of my ideas, friends or time-wasting experiences.

I daily fire things that aren’t important enough now. I hear that I am loved by my children and wife every Morning and Night (and usually once or twice in the middle of the day, too). I apologize for royally tanking or not staying on top of or not working with or being overzealous much of my time. And I am better for it. By saying these words out loud as often as I do, I know that I have actually made connections that are worth something. Each one of these statements requires an investment to have been made. Loving is an ongoing relationship, apologies are a reassessment of the relationship, and firing is an end to the relationship.

The only thing that is missing is the beginning of one. But relationship starts are almost always about a movement: A handshake, an eye roll, a sideways glance or even a cold shoulder. These are the kinds of things we need innuendo for. It is once we get past that, though, that we need words. To put it another way, beginnings are easy. Everything else needs work.

Question 298 of 365: What is secrecy with a smile?

There are many secrets that would make no one happy to hear. They are things that are hidden for a reason. They are the things that we hold onto because we are afraid of what might happen if we didn’t. We are focused on their secrecy because any subtle sign that we are holding back would be met with retribution or distrust. We hold them close because we must.

And then there are other secrets that show themselves at the slightest suggestion of their presence. They are secrets that curl our mouths into smiles by just thinking about them. And we let them. We tell one another that they are secrets, but we are bursting at the seams waiting to tell one another what is inside.

I saw one of those secrets today. Just in the right corner of someone else’s mouth, not letting it open and not letting it fully shut.

Somehow that secret transferred to my mouth too. Now, I am half smiling, half knowing what comes next. I have a secret and it is making me smile.

Question 297 of 365: How are we keeping the pulse?

I once waited at home all day waiting for a friend of mine to call. He said that he would, and I believed it was my duty to make sure that I was there to pick up when he inevitably did. I watched TV and played on the computer. I fondled the phone and made multiple calls of my own without response. I went through the emotions of rejection to anger. I regretted that I didn’t set up more concrete plans when we saw each other at school. I just wanted him to pick up the phone and dial my number so that we could hang out like we had the previous 10 weekends. Why was this one so different, and why wasn’t he calling? At about 9:00 pm that night, I called and he picked up. He was surprised that I had been waiting. He was surprised that I hadn’t just found something else to do. He was a little sorry about not calling, but he really didn’t see the problem in it. He wasn’t the one who had wasted an entire day by the phone. And he was right about that.

On that day, I realized that I had no way to take the pulse of my friends. I had no way to figure out what they were thinking or where they were going. I couldn’t search for it and certainly I couldn’t see on a FourSquare map the places that they had checked in. I know that the reality of landlines and unreliable brother answering systems made this so, but I don’t think that was really it. I couldn’t take the pulse because I didn’t know what it felt like. I couldn’t feel the pressure rise and fall. I couldn’t see the fluctuations in what mattered and didn’t. Perhaps most of all, I didn’t know that it was good to raise the pulse rate from time to time to make sure everything stayed healthy.

I have gotten better at this, though.

We exist in a world of perpetual search. The status updates that seem to emanate from the air define us and create more content than the world has ever known. The sheer volume of ideas being generated about even the most minute topics is flabbergasting. And we haven’t learned from much of our formerly terrible tools for keeping track of what is going on.

We create Google Alerts and subscribe to RSS feeds. We follow one another on twitter and friend each other on facebook. But we have no way to archive and we have no way to see patterns. Keeping the pulse isn’t just about knowing what is going on now, it is knowing where we are in a cycle and whether what is going on now is important. We need to know when quiet is a good thing. We need to know when noise is terrible. Right now, though, it is as if we are waiting by the computer waiting for our friends and business associates to say the right things for us to take part in the conversation.

Taking the pulse is about determining what should come next. It is about acting to raise expectations and then fulfilling them. It is about exercising our communities to make sure that they are still there for us. And we do this badly.

The communities that exist about indie rock music are just as fractured as the ones about tupperware. The individual places that we inhabit don’t come together in any way we can make sense of. Now, we do not need an aggregator of aggregators just to prove that we have the capacity to keep track of everything. We need to be able to develop the spaces that give us the most concrete information about the conversations we care about. We need to become collectors and people who put together puzzles. There is no stream of data that is worth less than another stream, so we should stop treating Twitter as better than HTML pages. We need to stop acting as if knowing where someone is is more important than the stuff they are doing there. All of the context matters, and we need to be able to take it all in and then parse it all for significance. In other words, we need to be able to make meaning, of all of it.

Let’s make a backup of all of our conversations.

Let’s make the answering machine that actually makes answers.

Question 296 of 365: Are we backing the wrong horse?

Example of a Blackjack game. The top half of t...
Image via Wikipedia

I do not, in general, gamble with my wallet. I have been to a casino once, and it wasn’t what I would consider all that entertaining. I played a few slots and sat down for a few rounds of Blackjack, but the thrill of a big win just wasn’t that prevalent or enticing. It was a little bit like attending a movie. I payed 20 bucks to get in and it was worth about 2 hours of fun. Even with my somewhat limited understanding, I knew that any time that I placed a bet, I should consider the odds and made sure that I had at least some chance of winning.

I’m not sure that we are doing that now. I’m not sure that we are placing bets that have any chance of winning, or at least that the odds are so infinitesimally small that only the enormous payout keeps us interested.

We are backing the horse of collaboration and openness.

We are backing the horse of hyperlinks instead of heirarchy.

We are backing the horse of the individual rather than the institution.

We are backing the horse of social inclusion rather than social isolation.

We are backing the horse of co-creation instead of ownership.

And we have only seen it work in fits and starts. We have seen backlashes. We have seen movements against each one of those precepts. And yet, still we bet. We bet with our every action that it will be better than working against what we believe. We bet in these ideals despite the entirety of human history going against them. We bet on these new phenomena because they make sense to us in a world where very little does, but there is no groundswell. There is no overwhelming mass of people that are pursuing these in political, economic or social environments except to co-opt them and make the payout that much less for any real change.

Are we backing the wrong horse? Is there any chance that all of this is just a bottomless pit of effort, money and words? And, are we becoming addicted to the idea of hitting it big if we just try enough times?

Perhaps we are just playing a huge game of blackjack with the world. If we get 21, we move forward. If any other combination of cards falls before us, we lose big. I’m not sure I like our odds.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Question 295 of 365: What does this X mark?

The spot that everyone else has overlooked. The spot that is hidden
away and underdeveloped. The spot that could be the epicenter of
something big, a quake of unimaginable impact.

I am placing the X. I am sending the message. I am putting up the
legend on the map.

North is this way.

And with a cold and firm grip on the stick I have whittled down to an
exacting point, I am scrawling the X for all to see.

This. This is where I choose to stand.

Posted via email from The Throughput

Question 294 of 365: What is flexibility?

Sometimes I wish I were the managing editor of a major news publication. Sometimes I wish I had the ability to put certain stories on the front page. I would balance the rich world news coverage with homespun stories of heartbreak. I would focus on what matters and build my readership by capturing imaginations. I would only let the best writing in. I would put together an America’s best non-fiction collection every day. And I would send a message that nothing was off limits. I would include things that caught my fancy and make sure that every lead was well vetted. Sometimes I wish that I chose what the news would be that day. 

But, mostly I don’t. 

Mostly,  my flexibility isn’t in deciding what is fit to print.

It is in fitting everything that I can into my little life and seeing if anything comes out the other side. My flexibility is in cramming all that I can find into the smallest spaces of time and seeing if collapse is imminent. I’m not eliminating the fluff; I am embracing it. 

While I know that an editors job is never done and every issue comes down to the wire. Their obsession is in pruning and getting the best from everyone. Even if this is an idyllic view, it is one that I hold up in the hopes that one day it may be mine.

I do not prune. I grow like a weed. 

I am producing and creating and collecting and reframing, all in the hopes that something will result. There is no guarantee that an issue will come out or that there will be more readers and observers and cheerers on. It is a futile exercise in sheer volume. There will be things that rise above and resonate simply because of the fantastic dregs that they sit upon. 

I cannot rest upon my laurels because I can’t afford it.

The flexibility I seek really is choosing what to be passionate about and then only doing that. Not some peripheral version of that. It is in committing time and resources to the things that focus my energy rather than scatter it. To things that energize instead of drain. 

I’m in the market for momentum, for progression, for choice. 

I’m looking for the kind of flexibility that ushers me daily into orchestrating my own fate.     

 

Tech Mentor PD #libertypd

Purpose: To engage all teachers with tools and pedagogy to improve workflow, student literacy/achievement and connected learning. We will create an ongoing teacher community focused on resource sharing, collaborative projects, and reflection. More concretely, by the end of the day the teachers will be able to post and reply within Edmodo, Co-create and edit within Google Docs for specific lessons, use audio, video and cell phones to engage students and manage workflow.

Quick Downloads:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Question 293 of 365: Where does documentation get us?

Arnie notes
Image via Wikipedia

I take notes.

I can’t help but listen to others and write down what it is that they have said. I can’t help but summarize and ask questions. I think that margins are for drawings and diagrams. I think that everything requires context, and I am the one to provide it. I share these notes, freely and openly with anyone who cares to take part. I do not believe in a single pad of paper that stays in my possession. I believe in the screenshot and the annotation. I work with front and back channels, streaming information back and forth to provide both with my own perspective on what is possible. I take these notes without thought. I give attribution and I put quotes around what needs them. I do not put words in anyone’s mouth nor do I exclude voices from my notes.

I document with time stamps and version histories. I link and revise. I do not save as. Everything is live. Always. It stays in the cloud as I change it. I do not pull it down and then reset expectations of where it should live. I embed and I publish. I disseminate and never retract. I build upon rather than starting from scratch. The blank piece of paper is never really blank to me. It always has a preface, a foreword that I can look back at. Everything is prologue for something else.

And this documentation lets me stand on something real. It isn’t a vanity exercise. It isn’t something that I use to lord over others, to make them think about what it is that they have done. I live an annotated life, and I know from where all of those annotations came. I can reconstruct what is missing from the spaces that I frequent. I can support when someone leaves. I can cushion the blow of new information. The things I use talk to one another. There are no silos of information or unconnected dots. I do not wait for the planets to align to start working. I project when that will happen and work toward having everything ready for that reality.

My notes set me free.

They make me bulletproof. They make action items tangible. They turn being uninformed into being ignorant. Not availing yourself of their collected knowledge is tantamount to hearing half of the story and asking for the same meeting every day. Moving forward is a function of seeing the velocity of notes. Being able to project into the future is a function of being able to see all of the data. My notes are the data points that I live by. They are the story. They are the conversation.

My documentation never leaves me. It is always at my fingertips. Let me search for you. Let me know what it is you want to know. I will find it out. I will see where it took place and what everyone was saying at the time. And if I can’t find it then it probably didn’t happen. Our memories are faulty. We need notes to build a case. We need notes to know where we stand. We need notes to help us with collecting the artifacts of our life. We need to outsource our brain so that we don’t have to rely on our brains to make judgements without supporting evidence. Our brains aren’t very good at that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Question 292 of 365: When can we speak freely?

US Military protocol is almost entirely unappealing to me. The hierarchical structure and the chain of command really don’t adhere to my ideals of hyperlinked networks and free communication. The idea of classified documents or need to know information is counterintuitive in an era of Open ID and Web Search. And yet, there is one thing that continues to intrigue me: The simple custom and protocol of asking to speak freely when in the presence of superior.

This is such a valuable tool and it has almost no corollary in civilian life. Perhaps it is because we lack the rigid chain of command or code of conduct, but our expectation is that we can speak freely. In fact, we regularly go on about our opinions for most of the meetings and conversations we have with one another. We don’t hold our tongues or seek the guidance of others before we speak.

And it is this fact that we lack a line in the sand beyond which we cannot speak that we are perhaps even more bound in our speech. Because we do not know our place and time to contribute, we end up subconsciously filtering what we say along to coincide with all of the platforms and expectations already in place within our institutions. For example, if I am being overtly collaborative and sharing a Google document with others, I have to consider each domain and email address I am inputting. Even if I am sharing it as a link, others see where I created it from and what the context for that creation was.

We are tied to our context in a way that both does not require us to ask permission to take part and does not grant us permission to say the things we would if we weren’t an extension of our company or school district. We are the outstretched hands of our entities and we can’t escape that. Our meetings would be more collegial if we could ask one another for permission to step out of our own roles and speak as individuals.

Even if we are relaxed and social, even if we don’t have to worry about insubordination, and even if we aren’t working on the types of sensitive information that military officials claim, we need a system for asking one another to be unaffiliated, to be human with one another. Opinions are not all equal unless we can ask for them without bias and agenda.

Perhaps we just need a signal, a sign on the door or a label in digital spaces: “Free Speaking going on in here. Be people, first and foremost and last of all.”

Or, perhaps we need to designate a specific time and space for free speech, where everyone agrees to the rules of abandoning hierarchy and institutional pretense.

I have great respect for the leveling that happens in Twitter and on Blogs, but I still think that we are tied to and weighed down by our public identities in those places. We need a way to say “Permission to speak freely ” with one another and have that mean something. We need to be able to define the lines that we assume aren’t there because we are on the civilian side and then we need to give them up sometimes. We need to identify the limitations of our personas and put them aside when they get in the way. Only in that space and time will we truly be able to share everything and collaborate on what matters most: changing things for the better, no matter where you are starting from or who you supervise.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Question 291 of 365: What is the new Eugenics?

"Eugenics is the self-direction of human ...
Image via Wikipedia

I once had a conversation with a man I didn’t know during which he extolled the virtues of Eugenics and the idea of a master race. Because I was 13 at the time, this line of thinking was absolutely new to me. With my rudimentary understanding of how good and bad genetic traits were passed on, I considered what this man had to say. I continued this conversation for about 45 minutes, probing him to continue his persuasive exposition. I was using a new software program called Freetel back in 1996 and everything seemed to be lining up. I had connected with this man from across the United States based upon similar interests in computers. By the time I was done with the audio and text chat,  my father was home from work. I spoke with him about the encounter and he was shocked (to say the least) about some of the claims that this man was making. He helped me to put a context to some of the ideas I was hearing. He gave me a history lesson, genetics lesson, and sociology less all rolled into one 15 minute speech about what I had gotten myself into. Still the man’s words had hit me in a place that got me questioning what I really believed about the nature of people. He got to me first and then my father had to reframe it. It wasn’t the other way around. I wasn’t already on the lookout for people who were trying to convert young children to the Aryan cause. I was just looking to talk to someone in the very early stages of VOIP.

Eugenics is one of those ideas that, at least on the surface, is perfectly plausible. If we have more and more healthy people mating with one another, better genetics and better people will result. This theory has been redressed in so many different outfits that it seems new to every generation that takes up the cause. From family planning to the creation of new religions, the idea that we can make the future better just by treating humans more like farm animals is so neat and tidy. And it is appealing for those who aren’t interested in telling the whole story. Somehow, it conveniently leaves out any human connection or the need for flaws in genetic pools to create disease resistance. Still it persists, even if under the surface in every discussion of societal class or race. And most people don’t have a father standing right next to them after they experience it for the first time to tell the rest of the story.

The newest version of this Eugenics conversation, though, is much more abrasive than the one I had with the man in 1996. The new Eugenics isn’t the engineering of human beings in test tubes or in the bedroom. It is the manipulation of what it means to be a person online. It is clear to me that the conversation about what should go online to represent us is being engineered to include only the best traits. We are convincing one another, as an entire society, that the only things worthy of our names and identities are the things that speak well of our past. We are supposed to put up successes and artifacts of our lives that show the generation of new people that don’t really exist.

We are supposed to tweet out what makes for a positive viewpoint and we are supposed to post pictures that are sanitized for alcoholic beverages. We are supposed to tell the stories that reveal a certain benevolence that is only possible online. In family blogs and on Facebook walls we are unethically editing who we are into these aspirational beings. We chastise one another for allowing too much information to leak out. We unfriend and unfollow those with unsavory bits to share or when swear words are too prevalent. We aren’t striving for truth in our conversations, we are striving for digital Eugenics. We are striving to let our perfected versions of ourselves reproduce online, having perfect little babies of ideas and projects. We let our offspring be devoid of the humanity that created them and then we stand back and wonder why they don’t hold up to scrutiny.

When a PR facade creates a document rather than a person, there isn’t truth in it. It is just an extension of that facade. When we can only “like” things and never “dislike” them, we are setting ourselves up for a level of dishonesty that can only be created in the pursuit of Nazi-like perfection.

I’m not advocating for the great underbelly of the internet to rise up and consume the good stories going on. I simply wish to question our purpose. Is our purpose to be ourselves in a new space or is it to be better than who we can ever hope to be in our current space. If it is the former, then let’s be honest about that. If it is the latter, then the man who I spoke with over FreeTel was much more honest about  his intentions than we are currently. There is something to be said for that. At least in that case, I had the option of my father talking some sense into me. If we are trying to do Digital Eugenics, no one will be able to give us a greater context because after a while we won’t know anything else.

Enhanced by Zemanta