Wisdom in diagnosis, then, involves not only deep knowledge about human biology and an understanding of the array of diseases that plague humankind but also knowledge and understanding about how the mind works in coming to conclusions. Discerning when these biases are operating in our minds is called metacognition, the ability to think about our thinking. The attribute of humility is embodied in the concept of metacognition; we recognize that our minds are imperfect, that there are limits to the validity of our assumptions, that we are subject to biases, and that therefore we must have the sharp sense to doubt our judgments and question whether we considered everything that should have been considered.

From “The Best Medicine” at In Character, by Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, M.D.

The essay focuses on the effects of cognitive bias in medical diagnoses (and why they’re bad). The practice of monitoring biases is important for any type of decision. It’s an essential aspect of open/conceptual’s “meta factors” discipline.

Designers and marketers (not to mention politicos and entertainers) have become adept at manipulating these biases in consumers and users, but I wonder how many are aware of how their own biases may affect the design process itself — or simply the question of which problem to solve…

Here is the book the launched the “heuristics & biases” paradigm and here is a list of cognitive biases that have probably influenced things you’re working on right now.

If you want some practice, try joining the discussion at Less Wrong for a few days.

Related posts:

1. Meta Factors

[Update: within minutes I decided to change the title to "Designing Ideas for Democracy" -- replacing "methodologies" with "ideas" -- which occurred to me after I thought about search results, then realized "ideas" is more appropriate anyways.]

This will be the provisional mission for Open/Conceptual.

As usual, “designing methodologies ideas for democracy” is something that spontaneously occurred to me after a a long period of germination. I didn’t sit down and decide “ok, I’m going to articulate the mission now,” but the connotations are nonetheless intentional and specific.

“Designing” deliberately refers to “design thinking” as practiced by the firms like IDEO and promoted by leading consultants and educators. This has been a part of Open/Conceptual’s foundational background since the start, if not earlier.

Design and design thinking, of course, have their own methodologies; roughly speaking (according to my own interpretation), they come down to a fusion of art, science, and commerce:

• Art: Aesthetics and emotions are essential; also, the process is open to spontaneous insights and inspirations.
• Science: It’s a social, reiterative process that assumes imperfection, fallibility, and continuous improvement through observation and experiments.
• Commerce: The ultimate test of merit is, “Are people willing to spend their time, attention, energy, and money on this?”

What’s missing is the Civic element…

While I don’t deny that design can improve (and has improved) things in civic and social domains, I think there are some important ways the civic sphere is inaccessible to current design methodologies — starting with the fact that design tends to be oriented around specific projects and objectives, while civics is endless; it lacks any ultimate & agreed-upon objective.

So that’s kind of where Open/Conceptual comes in: at the level of epistemology, or meta-methodology: the objective is to design an ultimate objective... keeping in mind that “design” infers that the process is reiterative — an endless succession of improving-but-still-imperfect results — i.e. we have to accept we won’t ever arrive at (or even articulate) “the” objective, but it’s the process of working it out that matters.

To put it another way, this is a philosophical enterprise: an attempt to do philosophy — not via weighty tomes full of impenetrable prose, but by modeling it into organizations and institutions that generate analogies and metaphors.

It’s kind of a microcosm for how we should try to conceive and organize the rest of our world. As I wrote last year:

Open Conceptual is where we end up by thinking creatively about everything — or at least that’s the objective. But the notion that creative thinking leads someplace is just a metaphor. We don’t really go anywhere: we grow: we cultivate creative mastery and freedom — which brings us back to the first meaning: Open Conceptual is the enterprise led foremost by creative thinking.

Exactly where it leads is impossible to know at this point, but generally, it’s the best way to go (I mean “grow”), because as long as we’re working this way, we continue to learn — we continue to stay informed and in practice so we’ll be competent and resourceful enough when genuine opportunities and challenges emerge.

No related posts.

Just sort of a brainstorm here, following up on some of my relatively more youthful attempts to outline what this is all about:

• Draft Enterprise Model
• The Practice of Theory

The other day I jotted down a few points — trying to distill the underlying mission of this amorphous enterprise. It has a few different aims. I’m doing this one first because it’s the most relevant and the easiest to explain.

Make decision-making processes more open and objective, specifically through digital media.

This means advocating and educating people to bring all of our discussions and arguments and negotiations online to make them more

• articulate
• defined
• accountable
• machine readable
• measurable
• transparent
• organized
• scalable
• searchable
• reverse-engineerable
• replicable
• repeatable
• testable
• correctable
• extensible
• replaceable
• dynamic
• self-organizing
• generative
• sustained
• effective
• adaptable

I’m sure there are a lot more characteristics we could add to that list. The gist is that the web gives us tools to make our political and moral and business discussions a lot more open and objective, like science.

One important mindset-change we’ll need to make is to remember that all of our institutions, policies, programs, and ideas are works in progress. Business leaders like Roger Martin and Tim Brown call this design thinking.

Instead of reacting to crises by panicking and throwing around blame (or conversely, getting defensive), we need to start looking at our failures and crises (and successes) as evidence — information for us to build on, like the kind observed in science — to demonstrate how our policies and practices are performing.

We shouldn’t be surprised by crises. We should be watching for them the way geneticists watch for mutations, or the way programmers watch for bugs.

More importantly, we need to learn the habit of hypothesizing and anticipating specific outcomes.

Whenever we “solve” a problem, or make any kind of decision, we shouldn’t just say, “There’s that problem solved” and forget about it. Solutions are actually beta models that need to be followed-up on and assessed. We need to actively watch the results to see how the solution is performing — and not be surprised or defensive when it performs poorly — and make adjustments accordingly.

So the decision-making process needs to involve just as much predicting as planning. Instead of simply saying, “we’ll implement A and then B, and finally C,” we should frame it as, “we’ll see how A performs; if x occurs then we’ll implement to B, if y occurs then we’ll implement B2… and if z occurs then we might have to go back and change A to A2…” etc.

That’s why decision-making needs to be fully documented and digitized and opened up: monitoring and assessing and adjusting to performance is a big, big process — far too big for any old-fashioned, top-down organization that existed before the web.

Fortunately there are plenty of skilled, passionate, and knowledgeable people around who would do that work voluntarily… not merely out of a sense of duty (though that may be part of it), but because it’s a fulfilling challenge — a way to feel relevant, responsible, and respectable — as well as being a great opportunity to learn and work with complementary people.

The reason people don’t do more of this kind of voluntary work now is the whole system conspires to discourage it. Even within an organization: projects are divided and tasks are cordoned-off to specific people; nobody wants to step on toes (or have their toes stepped on) so people stay silent about obvious problems and opportunities; people guard their own little areas of responsibility to ensure coworkers and up-and-comers don’t undermine them, or make their job redundant.

But in politics and civics, participation is already encouraged, right?

Sure, but mainly the kind that reinforces an established player’s authority. Too many volunteers are still expected to be deferent and grateful for being bestowed with the opportunity. And the people assigning tasks don’t know what exactly everyone has to offer; knowledge and energy are wasted.

The only person who knows what one is capable of, creatively, is oneself (albeit with a little mentoring and nudging-along). Further, we don’t know exactly how we’re best able to contribute, creatively, until we actually start interacting and learning within the task.

You can’t plan where all of the best contributions will come from. A large part of what motivates us to get involved is that it’s an opportunity to find out exactly what we can do…

This whole transformation is going to require not just learning new practices and attitudes; it’s going to require substantial sacrifices in the short-term (and “short-term” in my scale can stretch to span a generation). A lot of organizations and people will have to give up some of their authority, influence, and competitive advantage — which they maintain by keeping things closed-off and under wraps.

This movement is very bad news for anyone used to playing at politics and business like a card game in which the object is to get as much as you can while preventing your competitors from getting anything, whether that means market share, information, whatever.

That cut-throat style worked for a time but that time is coming to an end. The web is naturally tilting the table towards greater openness. The game is changing whether we like it or not. Competitive advantage is increasingly going to the most nimble and adaptive, not the most robust and fortified.

More importantly, changing the game is in everyone’s best interest in the long-term. Considering the magnitude of power at mankind’s disposal, and the potential for tremendous harm that can occur when that power is concentrated around too-few decision-makers, we need everyone to be involved in the process of making decisions, and we need it all to be accounted for.

To get an idea of what I mean by making it “accountable,” see Jeff Jarvis’s last post on metadata for news.

As these processes become more developed, as everyone becomes their own publicist, we’ll start to get a better sense of how journalists can benefit by uploading much of their work to people and organizations themselves. We’ll increasingly expect organizations and institutions (and anyone “important” — or anyone who aspires to be) to syndicate everything about themselves into information feeds.

(If you’re worried about honesty, I expect that as our cultural expectations evolve towards openness, attempts to hide or withhold information will become taboo to the point of ruining those who are caught. The risks will be too great — or at least that’s what we should aim for.)

Journalists will specialize more in selecting from that, editing, scrutinizing and checking it, adding commentary, and turning it into stories.

Meanwhile, politicians and businesses can benefit because much of their thinking and decision-making will be downloaded to journalists and on to the general public. For example, what’s the point of polling and running focus groups when you’re already getting both quantified and qualitative feedback in real-time?

I realize this picture is fairly idealistic at this point, but that’s why I titled it an aim. And don’t forget it’s still in beta. I’m still in the process of deciding and discovering exactly how these ideas might work…

Related posts:

1. The Best Disinfectant

The strange stunt pulled by some of London’s city councillors this week — calling for an economic summit while everyone else was already talking about the flurry of economic conferences in the area (e.g. Canada 3.0 and SWREC) — is a good opportunity to bring this LdnBeta initiative into a better light.

Paul Berton says “our ability to come together as a region and work as a team with institutions of higher learning and businesses to leverage our innovation, technology and knowledge-based economy… must start with the politicians.”

Not necessarily. I’m having trouble thinking of anything really good that started with politicians. (Think of the web itself, how it developed without top-down leadership.)

In a way, looking to politicians for leadership may actually be 180° from where we should be heading. Politicians have a role, of course, but just one of many — and as we move towards newer economic and civic models, theirs becomes more diminished (or at least less conventionally authoritative).

The true catalysts are whoever happens to have knowledge, skills, and passion suited to a particular problem or opportunity in a given time and place.

We add what value we can, according to what we have to offer. Then, building on that, still-newer opportunities emerge that are suited to other people, they add what they can, and it continues to cascade through various iterations, becoming a little more effective, vital, and sustainable as it progresses.

We have to stop waiting, stop asking. We all need to take an extra step from our comfort zones, towards the future (politicians included, so the zany letter was at least something)… or we’ll be the last ones there.

Related posts:

1. Creating via Hybrid Groups

This occurred to me last night when I was looking at some of the new Friend Connect gadgets. I wanted to try them but they don’t go along with what I do at brianfrank.ca very well. This site evolved from that.

I started thinking we need someplace to just try stuff. If it works, then great: we can replicate it on our own sites or even develop something more permanent, public, and professional. If it doesn’t work, then that’s ok too: without actually losing anything, we can cross-off a few ideas from the list and move forward to the next few –a little wiser and more experienced than we were before.

This whole idea is like that. It might turn out to be a complete dud. If that’s the case, then fine: on to the next thing.

We don’t know until we try. I’m a believer in the design philosophy, popularized by IDEO, of rapid prototyping:

Prototyping is problem solving. It’s a culture and a language. You can prototype just about anything—a new product or service,or a special promotion. What counts is moving the ball forward, achieving some part of your goal.

Not wasting time.

I’m curious about what can be done with things like WordPress MU and BuddyPress and whatever else is out there (or soon to come). It’s difficult to know until we try.

More importantly, something that worked (or didn’t work) a certain way for one community might turn out differently in London, in a different context, tweaked a little by incremental advances that happened since. 

It would be great to see #ldnbeta concept (or some other iteration) picked up and used to drive the conversation — not just here, but on people’s own blogs, on Twitter, face-to-face, everywhere  – exploring and advocating new opportunities for social media in London.  

Beyond that, it isn’t just about the web: more importantly it’s about what the web can do for civic and community life — offline. My own background is in political science, not IT. I wouldn’t be so energetic about this if I wasn’t convinced that democracy itself is evolving and projects like this are crucial. 

I’m thinking along the same lines as Don Tapscott, writing here on “Democracy 2.0“:

For far too long, we’ve been living in what I’ve called a broadcast democracy. Voters only count during election time. They have little or no influence in between elections, when the lawmakers and influencers are in charge and citizenry is inert. The “you vote, I rule” model was all that was possible, until recently.

What the system has lacked until now are mechanisms enabling government to benefit from the wisdom and insight that a nation can collectively offer — on an ongoing basis. I’m not proposing some kind of direct democracy, where citizens can vote every night on the evening news or Web sites. That would be tantamount to a digital mob.

What I am proposing is a way to allow citizens to contribute ideas to the decision-making process — to get them engaged in public life. When citizens become active, good things can happen. We all learn from each other. Initiatives get catalyzed. People become active in improving their communities, country and the world. This is long overdue. These days, the policy specialists and advisers on the public-sector payroll can barely keep pace with defining the problems, let alone craft the solutions. Government can’t begin to amass the in-house expertise to deal with the myriad challenges that arise. Governments need to create opportunities for sustained dialogue between voters and the elected.

But maybe we’ll leave that grand stuff off to the side for the first little while. We need more practice, we need more experience, we need better tools and platforms, we need more expertise, we need models and prototypes to build from. That’s what I hope to help push.

And remember, technological progress isn’t always good, which is precisely why we need to have an ongoing conversation about how it should or shouldn’t be used — an informed and open conversation.

To sum up, this isn’t the venue for complaining about road repairs and garbage collection. This is for exploring ways to make our blogs and the social media scene in London better… so when you complain about roads and garbage on your own blog it’ll be more effective.

If you see something cool somewhere and you want to try it, but don’t want to risk messing up your own blog — or maybe your blog isn’t the best place to try it (like mine isn’t right for a lot of things), or maybe you don’t know how to make it work (again, like me with almost anything) — leave a comment hear, or mention it in Twitter (#ldnbeta) or FriendFeed via the LdnBeta room and we’ll figure something out together.

Related posts:

1. Reiterating the Focus on Collaboration
2. Growing the Conversation
3. Developing Open Cities