sábado, junio 30, 2012

Talks | TEDx Damon Horowitz calls for a "moral operating system"


 
At TEDxSiliconValley, Damon Horowitz reviews the enormous new powers that technology gives us: to know more -- and more about each other -- than ever before. Drawing the audience into a philosophical discussion, Horowitz invites us to pay new attention to the basic philosophy -- the ethical principles -- behind the burst of invention remaking our world. Where's the moral operating system that allows us to make sense of it?

Damon Horowitz explores what is possible at the boundaries of technology and the humanities.

martes, junio 19, 2012

How to use your freedom to choose in Linkedin

The post Knowledge leaders: ye shall know them by their achievements, whose summary says “Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization,” shows the byproduct of how I used my freedom to choose as a discussion leader in two Linkedin groups. Next is an explanation of how I am trying to help other Linkedin discussion leaders that become aware of being prisoners of Cartesian managers can use their freedom to choose to “find meaning in their suffering and dignity in their prison existence.”

In the international bestseller “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” Steven R. Covey tells the story of Victor Frankl, who “… began to become aware of what he later called ‘the last of the human freedoms’ – the freedom his Nazi captors could not take away. They could control his entire environment, they could do what they wanted to his body, but Victor Frankl himself was a self-aware being who could look as an observer at his very involvement. His basic identity was intact. He could decide himself how all of this was going to affect him. Between what happened to him, or the stimulus, and his response to it, was his freedom or power to choose that response.”

Covey adds that “[t]hrough a series of such disciplines – mental, emotional, and moral, principally using memory and imagination – he exercised his small, embryonic freedom until it grew larger and larger, until he had more freedom that his Nazi captors. They had more liberty, more options to choose from their environment; but he had more freedom, more internal power to exercise his options. He became an inspiration to those around him, even to some of the guards. He helped others find meaning in their suffering and dignity in their prison existence.”

Now Linkedin members will see how most Cartesian group managers keep those members that try to become discussion leaders in prison. In the preface of the second edition of his book “The New Economics,” the late W. Edwards Deming wrote “This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.”

Although members that have been in Cartesian prisons since school years have not develop their imagination, a discussion leader should emulate Victor Frankl until he has more freedom that his Cartesian captors.

lunes, junio 18, 2012

Knowledge leaders: ye shall know them by their achievements

Summary: Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization. Note: a Spanish version of this article can be found here.

I propose leapfrogging to the opportunities of the emerging systemic civilization. Believing that impossible with just knowledge workers, I suggest developing knowledge leaders.

Contrary to 'knowledge worker,' I understand that the concept 'knowledge leader' has no place in the hierarchical authority of a person or a small steering group. The root cause of this limitation is the great influence of the Cartesian paradigm. Such leapfrog will avoid bankruptcy to organizations that will add enough value.

System leadership stems from the inefficiency of hierarchical authority in an interdependent world that has come close to their limits in important variables. Instead of a single type of leader, for example, in the book "The Dance of Change," Doubleday, 1999, Peter Senge and his colleagues envisioned three types of leaders: local line leaders, executive leaders, and network leaders.

Learned along the way, the story told here is a lesson of the important role that local and network knowledge leaders can play. I understand that this lesson applies to any organization.

The experience happened in several discussion groups devoted to specific themes, in which, as expected, my participation has been misunderstood by managers who expect their Cartesian groups to be closed, while I wanted to get the value added by the interdependence between groups. Managers exercised their hierarchical authority when they thought that a discussion or comment was deviating from the scope of the group.

For example, participating in 5 groups with the same discussion on a proposal for a systemic code of ethics, a manager interrupted repeatedly stopping the local and network learning that was emerging. Trying to transfer the discussion to a group he said was the best, the manager asked the other manager new Cartesian rules of discussion.

Trying to learn from the future, I started another discussion in many groups. Wondering if it was possible for a regular member might emerge via systemic 'scientific' contributions as a community leader of the group. I interpret this 'discussion leader' would be a local leader; while I also interpret I was trying to take on the role of the network leader between groups. This is the lesson perfected that responds to the new rules:

In a non systemic way only the internal value exists at a point which is discussed in which supposedly is the best group. This is where the analysis is king. It's about learning from the past.

In a systemic way, however, additional value can be obtained from the interaction between discussion groups on the same point so as to increase the internal values. The total value added is obtained from the dynamics between groups, which is difficult to anticipate. This is where the synthesis is the queen. It also is learning from the emerging future.

In the discussion of the code of ethics emergent learning came from the interaction of three groups. In fact, the best contributions on the code emerged from the group of the opposing manager, rather than the obvious group he suggested.
Notice that the update to From better places… to the emerging civilization, with Daniel Gulati’s post Be Proud of Your Accomplishments, Not Your Affiliations, is a signal of the systemic civilization to knowledge leaders which "ye shall know them by their fruits.”

viernes, junio 08, 2012

From better places… to the emerging civilization

First update. Can this qualify under "It’s A Time For Disobedience: MIT Media Lab Will Pay $250,000 To Support It?" This is about "The new prize for disobedience, funded by LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, wants to reward creative nonviolent protest by activists or government officials who stop illegal acts." I have more examples to offer to anyone interested in nominating me for a new type of award: a prize for disobedience.

While some of the links in the initial post don´t work anymore, here I have what has organically emerged, for example, under the post A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence 14 Dec 2014.
First update of February 2, 2015.

Second update: 5 min. video. Is systemic corruption a problem of civil obedience? 24 Jun 2015

Third update: How much does Greece matter to the 99.9%? 25 Jun 2015

Fourth update: What about a high leverage European referendum that avoids the Greece's crisis go to waste? 27 Jun 2015

Fifth update: Will the Eurozone continue in its Doom Loop unless the Troika is killed? 28 Jun 2015

Sixth update.  A Systemic Declaration of Interdependence model for COP21. 29 Nov 2015
Seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems. 8 Jul 2016

Eigth update. See how the Industrial Civilization 'Groupthink' is hiding the Big Ideas emerging from The Wealth of Globalization.  9 Dec 2016

Ninth update. Great System of Profound Knowledge ideas for the management theory of the Wealth of Globalization. 16 Dec 2016

Tenth update. Can the solution to Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s Revolution 3.5 on Big Government be on The Wealth of Globalization? 18 Dec 2016

Eleventh update. A letter to Ken Silverstein in response to his timely article  Is American Enterprise More Powerful Than The President Of The United States?” 1 Dec 2016

Twelfth update. Proposal and complement of a third scenario for the IV CAF-LSE CONFERENCE in London January 13, 2017. 11 Jan 2017
Thirteenth update.  There is nothing so powerful as The Wealth of Globalization whose time has come. 16 Jan 2017

Fourteenth update. All processes of global restructuring under the Washington Consensus resulted in legalized corruption.  21 Jan 2017

Fifteen update. Is Donald Trump a disruptive transitional not transformational figure, as Katrina vanden Heuvel suggested? 22 Jan 2017

Sixteenth update. Do President Trump’s initial actions trying to fulfill campaign commitment approximate the First Degree of Clarity?  6 Feb 2017

Seventeenth update. For French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters: please claim for the bright globalization.  7 Feb 2017

Eighteenth update.  French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters need a new 'common sense' to help emerge the bright globalization. 8 Feb 2017
Nineteenth update. Can French, German, Dutch Global Debout voters help us avoid world war by choosing bright globalization?  10 Feb 2017

Twentieth update. Our response to Yanis Varoufakis: Grexit 'never went away' is that the EU is a Titanic under #DarkGlobalization.  11 Feb 017

Twenty-first update. As we’re all developing countries now, it is time to leapfrog to the systemic civilization. 25 Feb 2017

Twenty-second update. Synthesis: this is the proof why society needs to create the systemic civilization.  18 Mar 2017.

From better places… to the emerging civilization

Summary: as the world run by Cartesians (as defined here) is under huge systemic problems, the rest of the world needs to unite themselves into Peircians (also defined here) to enable the systemic civilization to emerge. A Spanish version of this article without hyperlinks is available here.

I recently experienced first hand the term "from better places I have been thrown out…" but instead of being sad, I was glad to learn so much in a sacrifice for others. In a hectic process of discussion in the Design Thinking Group , which is supposed to be the ideal means to solve wicked or systemic problems that affect billions of people, it became clear why the promises of that movement have not arrived.

To arrive, you need leaders to change the René Descartes Cartesian paradigm legacy to another more linked to reality. That was how the Cartesian administrator demonstrated her lack of leadership when she decided to expel me. Then the Cartesian administrator of the IEEE Smart Grid Group , took advantage of that fact to expel me for my insistence on a systemic code of ethics, the repeated request that the status quo respond to criticism made about the development of such smart grids and other larger issues so that the IEEE can fulfill the promise to advance technology for humanity. Update June 11, 2012 - please read Daniel Gulati's blog post Be Proud of Your Accomplishments, Not Your Affiliations

Also under the numbing effect of the Cartesian paradigm, a friend asked me alarmed, did you sent a message to many people where you say you were kicked out of two groups? I said yes because I learned to recognize the emerging civilization Carlos Fuentes anticipated before he died.

I noted that Carlos Fuentes said that for young people in the world there are many shortages and inadequacies ... in the world young people are demonstrating for a different civilization ... he could not define ... that was the result of the inability of many governments to meet those needs. Many of these young people are mistaken blaming the system for their problems, when guilt is precisely the lack of leadership to implement the system. So I suggest that the emerging civilization is systemic.

It is clearly shown that neither the consensus nor the opinion of the majority, consisting in believing that which is agreeable to reason, are reliable methods of fixing belief, because they don’t contrast with the reality experienced. For example, we are tired of promises and broken promises.

I identified the consensus and the opinion of the majority are driven by the obsolete Cartesian paradigm and linked them to what W. Edwards Deming proposed that demonstrates the tyranny of the prevailing style of management that prevents timely leadership not only here but almost everywhere in the world. To resolve the situation, Deming proposed a change to what he called the system of profound knowledge.

How to implement the system of profound knowledge? The answer is a change to the paradigm proposed by the great philosopher of the United States of America, Charles Sanders Peirce, who showed that the only method that comes close to reality, is the scientific or experimental that integrates truth, beauty and goodness, which were separated by the Cartesian paradigm.

The issue that divides people into practical and theoretical is a result of the Cartesian paradigm that is dissolved in the Peircian paradigm by being replaced with the fixation of beliefs with an action oriented scientific attitude. Instead of frustration, all I see are missed opportunities for organizations and society in general. This is an example of what systemic leadership, based on the Peircian paradigm, should help us face the dictatorship of the prevailing style of management.

From better places I have been thrown out... and I hope they call me from even better places.

domingo, junio 03, 2012

abducing - forget abDucTing it’s really ugly

Summary: While asking to investigate if one or two Linkedin group managers are guilty of hijacking discussions and arbitrarily removing members from their groups, I am asking to be reinstated without any delay in the IEEE Smart Grid and the Design Thinking groups of Linkedin and to order that Linkedin’s system use their backups to have each group show the discussions I iniciated and all the comments I have ever posted.

abducing – a very simple, appropriate, and beautiful expression, that complements deducing and inducing, has emerged today as Design Thinking in one word. I just learned the hard the way the value of diplomacy. One misunderstanding with a single word might be abducted by some interested parties, with hidden agendas unknown by many members of their communities, to benefit themselves from the community. Such is the inquiry I am after with the scientific experiment, in the Peircian sense, Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader.

Emulating my hero Uno Lamm’s ideals on innovation and truth, I apparently exceeded my effort in the Design Thinking Group community of Linkedin in the defense of abDucTing as Design thinking in one word? The reason behind my persistence is documented in the post A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War, in which, I am happy to add now that, as Mark Klein pointed out last Friday, “a group of individuals can form a common opinion and redirect their own statements in mob fashion,” for example, maybe via the group manager hijacking the discussion, “thus forcing an individual or other group to participate by oligarch rule.”

While the very disrepectful comment made by Loyd (see item 4) can still be seen in the discussion thread at this moment, Mark’s comment was deleted by the group manager, Paula Thorton, at the time she deleted all of my discussions and comments ever. I hope that if she is found guilty of hijacking, all of my comments will be reinstated by Linkedin in the Design Thinking Group and also in the IEEE Smart Grid Group, where the most important part of the interchanges of my proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics were also deleted.

But before addressing the potential case for hijacking done by one, the other, or both group managers, I first need to accept that abDucTing has taken a meaning that's very difficult to erase, especially in the short term. As I said in the first sentence of this post, the new word is abducing. Looking at my old Webster's American Dictionary, College Edition, of 1997, instead of feeling down as I was thrown out of Linkedin group for the third time, I went back to look at deduction and induction, as related to abduction and what a great surprise I had: the first two are unrelated to logic. Instead, we should have been looking for deduce and induce. As there is no definition for abduce, I am very happy to propose it to the world as an entirely new word that will have a great diplomatic value.

Does that end the Peircian - Cartesian war? I guess no! The second battle is this inquiry is whether or not there is a case for group hijacking.  Still convinced that Loyd was wrong, I got arbitrarily removed, no only of the Design Thinking Group, but also of the IEEE Smart Grid Group, whose manager I called Cartesian after he sent me the following message:

Lee Stogner, PMP has sent you a message.

Date: 6/02/2012
Subject: Removal from the IEEE Smart Grid Group

Jose,

After numerous complaints from members of the IEEE Smart Grid Group, I have removed you from the member list.

Good luck with your postings on other groups.

Thanks,

Lee Stogner
Moderator, IEEE Smart Grid Group

Were the members that complained part of a mob that included Lee to hijack the discussion? I guess they were just waiting for me to make a mistake, like posting the comment about the Peircian-Cartesian war? Lee and Paula had the opportunity to arrange a mob of the two groups, because I had carbon copied Lee of all my “private” discussions with Paula. The day before, I received the following comment:
Jose,

Your mission is too important to be lost on just one Linkedin group. I encourage you to start your own group. Please try to setup your group over the next week and then I will promote your new group to the Smart Grid group as a final favor for supporting these discussions. Then we need to get back to the technology of Smart Grid only.

Thanks,
Lee Stogner
To anyone unaware of the hidden agendas, my response rejecting the separate group would have seen as antisocial, when it was really philosophical. I guess that this was my response (I understand Linkedin has a flaw that doesn’t give you back your own comments or at least I don’t know how to do it):

@Lee – thanks for the proposal. I am glad that the IEEE Smart Grid Group seem to have begin to understand the importance of what I have been trying to accomplish for the IEEE and for society. As you can see below, the creation of a new group instead of helping face the systemic problems, it will at best neutralize the effort.

Under the Cartesian paradigm, in which the mechanical separation of a whole into its parts, your proposition would seems appropriate and understandable. However, to face wicked or systemic problems, like those required to be addressed to modernize the global electric power industry as a whole, the effective and careful selection of the subsystems and their interrelations – the system of systems architecture - is where most of the leverage of value creation comes from.

In systems architecting, the interfaces between subsystems are where the value is added or destroyed. By keeping arbitrarily the existing subsystems of the restructured power industry, to organize a system of systems, value destruction in some of those interfaces are almost guaranteed. In addition to the value destruction on the transmission and distribution interface, that I documented, such is most likely also  the case of what has been the afterthought named as customer engagement.

Plato said in the fourth century B.C. that “The beginning is the most important part of the work.” I have documented that there was an architecting flaw at the outset of the restructuring process, which enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992. At the beginning of this century that flaw could have been addressed, but as I also have documented it was bypassed. I guess it was simply lack of leadership.

Instead of separating the truth, the beauty and the good, as the obsolete Cartesian paradigm suggests, Peirce scientific or experimental method consider them as part of a whole. One way to explain that idea with respect to the smart grid is by quoting Donald Norman who said that "... technology is the easy part to change. The difficult aspects are social, organizational, and cultural."

Just like before, I am not just running this discussion in this group, but in several parallel groups. As you may recall, when you suggested that I move my discussions to the IEEE SSIT Group, they proposed new posting rules. In the remainder of this post, you will my objections to the rules, which sort of repeat the above arguments:

In a non-systemic way, there is important value on a point being discussed in one main group which can be sure is the best group. This is where analysis is king. It is about learning from the past.

However, in a systemic way, there is good value to be obtained also from the interaction between groups discussing the same point. The actual value is obtained from intergroup dynamics, which is difficult to anticipate. This is where synthesis is the queen. It is also learning about the emergent future.

In the Code of Ethics discussion, insightful emergent value came from the interaction of three groups. In fact, the real problems on the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics are in the IEEE Smart Grid Groups, not in the very obvious IEEE SSIT Group.

The great American philosopher Charles Sander Peirce said something like this: ideas need to be discussed because there is no one truth about the enterprise. Instead, there are many partial truths. To try to get to the truth we need to collaborate with others, because we are limited and need that social learning.
Best regards,

José Antonio
Lee’s decision, whom I repeat had carbon copies all the background messages I sent Paula, was so fast that I didn’t even had time to complete repeating the message I posted on the IEEE Smart Grid Group to update all the groups that had the discussion Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader. I went back to those groups to tell readers that the links didn’t work because I had been also removed from the IEEE Smart Grid Group. Only in the other four IEEE Linkedin Groups I added the questions: Does that club truly represent the long term interest of active IEEE members of Advancing Technology for Humanity? How can that be tested?”

sábado, junio 02, 2012

A Battle of the Peircian - Cartesian War


The scientific experiment, in Peircian sense, "Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader, that started the war against the Cartesians, has now a rich proof of the abuse committed by the Design Thinking manager, as the witness of our “private” discussions might confirm.

As I have been expelled out from the Design Thinking Group, the battle to have Charles Sanders Peirce recognized by the DT community seems to have been lost. The Cartesians, led by Paula Thorton, think they have won. However, nothing is father than the truth. Since it is still an open group, there is clear evidence at this moment that no discussions are left about Peirce and only one on Verganti.

Under the discussion, Summary of my interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt, you can see Bruce Renfrew’s last comment, deleted in the DT Group and repeated for convenience now:

Thirty percent of the contributions to this discussion originate from one man with an almost obsessive determination to stamp his definition of Design Thinking on the minds of the other contributors. It's clear he won't rest until his definition is acknowledged and adopted by the group, and the wider design community. (it's also clear, for various reasons, some aesthetic, some philosophical, that this is unlikely to happen).
What began as a kind of 'break-time' intellectual challenge, has now mutated into a rather disagreeable power struggle, recently accompanied by a side blog justification and chronicle of key exchanges in a spat between our man-on-a-mission and another who dared to challenge him.
There's no absence of humor in this discussion, but during his bludgeoning of us with his definition, our major contributor has failed, (or perhaps rather refuses) to recognize its existence. For contributors used to more courteous, lighthearted behavior in social medial forums, this is all rather tiresome.
This whole post can be considered as and my reply which I guess has important evidence for how managers unable to deal with non trivial issues should not be allowed to be community leaders.

@Bruce - when you write “What began as a kind of 'break-time' intellectual challenge, has now mutated into a rather disagreeable power struggle, recently accompanied by a side blog justification and chronicle of key exchanges in a spat between our man-on-a-mission and another who dared to challenge him,” I guess you missed my repetition of group manager in my last comments. This has been a power struggle all alone with Paula. I guess that was the main reason she wrote: “I'm entirely not sure why you'd want to. One word for this discussion: useless.”

This battle started with my post Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader, which I guess she deleted several days ago. I further guess that Lloyd and you were used. He was certainly not the master mind of the deletion.

As a matter of fact, the struggle from my side has been not personal and as you discovered it is mostly philosophical. I also guess Lloyd took it personal, while being used by Paula. However, as you can see, it’s a year old struggle with a group manager unfit for the job, that I restarted with my first comment that I also guess you didn't see. That comment started an unintended discussion, which then led to my second comment to a discussion that was deleted this morning as Paula expelled out me and any trace of the Peircian Philosophy.

As you can see in the section "Battles," in the blog post First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth," I try hard to emulate my hero Uno Lamm, as "'The “Renaissance Man' story adds that 'As befits a widely educated man who is observant, articulate and outspoken on a broad range of issues, Dr. Lamm has not failed to attract his own share of criticism. That this has not visibly irritated him over the years is probably due to the fact that he is concerned with issues, not personalities. His targets are imprecise thinking, questionable logic an uncritical acceptance of political propaganda. In the course of his running battle to promote orderly processes of thinking in a frequently disordered world, he has not hesitated to cross swords (or at least exchange typewriter fusillades) with a prime minister, a Nobel laureate, a best-selling critic of capitalism and a host of other who, he often feels, are debasing modern communications.” I guess Lloyd fit that description.

@Bruce – thank you for saying “(it's also clear, for various reasons, some aesthetic, some philosophical, that this is unlikely to happen).” As you now may see, abDucTing is only a byproduct of the larger Design Thinking, Cartesian versus Peirce, philosophical war.

I left the Design Thinking Group for more than 10 months, when I discovered that the umpire Paula didn’t play a fair game as she took as personal my rebbutals. Although you didn’t see a response after my first post, because you didn’t hit the link (now unavailable) to go to the discussion "A Proposal to Define the Limits of Design Thinking" you can at least see the last three posts of that discussion:

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio • Thank you Paula. Those are very good points. I will try to see if my proposal still stands.

According to the Webster's American Dictionary, “determinism” is "a doctrine that all events have sufficient causes.” A boundary or limit may not be reached in every DT intervention, because the DT events are not deterministic. They depend on many circumstances, including those that you mentioned. Hence, abductive reasoning does not need to be a sufficient mechanism which is enough to guarantee a result.
I guess the fallacy that you mentioned was superseded by Roberto Verganti with his Design-Driven Innovation and also by Roger Martin’s article “Logical leaps into the future." I quote Roger saying that: “Apple has managed to leave open the possibility of abductive logic and has limited use of deductive and inductive logic to the areas for which it is actually useful. This has resulted in Apple becoming organizationally adept at inventing the future.”

Two minor details on "Top Influencers This Week," that doesn't seem to be working properly. You don't have a photo and I was included yesterday, but not today.

Paula Thornton • Jose: Note specifically "has limited use of deductive and inductive logic". It doesn't say that they've abandoned it. Again, it's a matter of balance and no one is suggesting what the balance should be. I guess a better term here would be equilibrium -- where sometimes the equilibrium might need to be somewhat 'out of balance' to allow for creative dissonance (noise).

[I've never figured out how Top Influencers works -- but surely you're not suggesting that I have any control over it? It's all automated by LinkedIn -- ask them.]

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio • Paula: By writing "If there is no abductive reasoning, in the reasoning mix, there is not Design Thinking" I meant not to abandon deduction and induction either. Roger's quote is way out of balance in the reasoning mix.

[I am not suggesting you have control, but that you are in charge of the group. There was a third minor detail that I could see. This conversation is not shown on Latest Discussions. Of the first two minor details, my photo is on. They could be just a bugs or maybe BIG BROTHER. ].

viernes, junio 01, 2012

Summary of my interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt

This is my summary of the interchanges with Lloyd Philpótt (to see the whole context you need to read comments one by one in   http://lnkd.in/ce9jP6  ):

1. Lloyd gave me his design perspective on why he didn’t like abducting, when he wrote:

With jounalists using "....child was abducted today ...."

Thank you very much, I want nothing to do with any context of that connotation associated with my profession of serving others by design, regardless of how it may possibly be loved by José or any branding spinners. As an senior man who was abused by a teacher in my childhood, please get over that word, keep it in a drawer of logic thought and move on to words that already have positive meanings.
There's a word that in its origin just means black, but I do not use it because of the connotation of its past use to hurt a whole race, and so it would hurt my friends if I just thought the dictionary was the only reference to life.

José, write a book about the word abducting.. You can campaign for its truth. It will sell because the world knows its present meaning to be a tragedy of our children. While you're abducting about the book, try abducting about how to stop abductions of children.

2. This is what I normally do in social media to respond aggressive comments like his: I search for information; in Linkedin I first look for profiles. In the current discussion, I found “coffee” for Mark; "the science of design; the design of science," for Bruce; and Designarc for Michael Smythe . 

As can be seen, Lloyd, who seem to used to giving order, even told me what to do. His hint for me to search for the truth was what moved me to go to his Linkedin profile, because he still didn’t convince me. In fact, my firmed believe is that as the complement of deduction and induction, abduction must be a winner for the whole Design Thinking discipline. Every school kid will need to learn about adductive reasoning, because it’s now much more important than deductive and inductive reasoning. In that process, today’s magazine connotation is bound to eventually shift to a really beautiful everyday word, unless there’s a paid attack to it and the profession.

3. Looking for the truth, this was what I found and the questions I asked:

@Lloyd: I searched the http://www.coroflot.com/ website looking for the kinds of jobs they have:

For design, I found 1072 job listings. To my surprise, for “design thinking,” I found only 25 jobs listings out of 1072. For deduct, induct, and abduct, no jobs were listed. Finally I searched for reasoning and got 5 different job listing in http://www.coroflot.com/public/jobs_search_results.asp?keywords=reasoning

* • Creating project deliverables that clearly and persuasively communicate the IXD strategy and the reasoning behind it.
* • Excellent communication, reasoning, organizatinal, and team skills are also required
* • You will be expected to present and formulate compelling design reasoning that exceeds client expectations
* • You must challenge conventional thought, but support your challenges with sound reasoning and evidence.
* • REASONING ABILITY: Must show good judgment and logic. Also, must be able to competently handle potentially controversial issues and situations.

After all the comments in this whole thread, I guess that reasoning means abductive reasoning, in “the reasoning behind it,” in “excellent… reasoning,” in “reasoning that exceeds client expectations,” in “sound reasoning,” and in “reasoning ability… to show good judgment and logic.” But, there must be something wrong with the other 1,067 jobs listed that don’t call for any reasoning. What’s going on? What did I mised? Is coroflot going to let the competition atract away the candidates which excel in abductive reasoning?

4. The next step Lloyd took was to write the following highly disrespectful comment that the group manager, that deleted the Still Active Discussion, didn’t looked at:

One thing I noticed about all our bulls as I grew up feeding them on the farm in the heart of Tennessee, they continued to shit for all their lives, and I continued cleaning out the barn, spreading it on the pasture to fertilize the fields. But it was only after my introduction to Bauhaus/Ulm educated German design professors that I learned what BS is. Still, I'm thankful for their teaching and exposing me to Max Bill, Bruce Archer and Die Gestalt.
Sometimes we have to endure dung to get our fields to become fertile.

5. Instead of fighting back, my humble response was very polite:

@Lloyd: I am still not sure if you are capitulating or not, to favor of “abductive reasoning” jobs in this community. In any case, I love that you mentioned "Bauhaus,” because it reminded me of Newton’s physics, which is still applied successfully in some non systemic engineering situations.

I said that because Einstein proved Newton’s theory didn’t work under his theory of relativity. Even though "Bauhaus” is based on Cartesian theory, I don’t doubt it might still be applied successfully in some non systemic design applications. However, it’s for sure that "Bauhaus,” is unable to apply to wicked – systemic - problems, such as the one this community is facing. To unity this community, we need to start adopting (a really beautiful word that sounds very close to abDucTing) Peirce’s abductive reasoning.

Descartes attributed all human knowledge to the intellectual mind. For him, mathematics became a general method… the complete history of the Design development in the 20th century was characterized by this way of "Cartesian” thinking. Especially what we understand by the "functionalistic approach” was derived from this philosophical background. This [Cartesian} approach was first established in the German "Bauhaus“, from 1919-1925 at Weimar, later (from 1926-1932) at Dessau and finally until 1933 at Berlin.

6. The next part of the story came as a response of “Today's key highlight: Still Active Discussion was deleted - please see the comment that I guess was the object of the deletion that start with "@Lloyd: I searched the http://www.coroflot.com/ website looking for the kinds of jobs they have,” which was responded by Lloyd with “So José, you are an abductor?”

7. As nothing was being done by the group manager, my comment was:

@Lloyd - I am not an abductor, but the senior abDucTer that searched the http://www.coroflot.com/ website looking for the kinds of jobs they have... with only 5 out of 1072 jobs listed asking for reasoning skills, whatever that means. Whether you admit it or not in public, I am sure that it is very useful information for coroflot.

I now wonder if you asked to have that Still Active Discussion deleted in yesterday email by using the method of authority. As an abDucTer I use Peirce's method instead, which is where I suggest a united abDucTing community has the greatest opportunities to make the difference and become established. I also wonder if, with only 25 out of 1072 jobs that call for DT skills, you actually represent the “Bauhaus” status quo that has DT in a hole?

8. This was Lloyd’s last comment:

Abductor/Abducter, I don't want to be called either.
The world wide journalists have already forged the context of either word.
Page exist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductor
Page does not exist
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=abducter&title=Special%3ASearch

José, I don't know who the senior is to whom you refer or the "Still Active Discussion deleted in yesterday " point you wonder about, but it is not me, and you are so out of civility in your posts that I flagged your last post as inappropriate.

I have not read any other post that agree with much of anything you say despite your references. Your Coroflot/reasoning search only shows that HR people did not use it in their criteria. Could it be that in the industrial design profession, we have every reason to expect that any graduate of ID has such ability, like also to be able to read, and you can't seem to get grasp the other comments made, so I am leaving this discussion to the other people who are respectful not to hijack the space, and I suggest you do likewise.

9. And next is was the first part of my response to Lloyd. The rest starts with “Jim Isaac, the owner of the Linkedin group of the IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology has responded the discussion ‘Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader…’" To see the remainder of Jim’s comment, please go to in   http://lnkd.in/ce9jP6 ..

@Lloyd. Thank you for admitting to all of us that you used your authority to flag out my comment. However, behind your decision there is an authority that decides if you are right or not to delete all the comments of an Still Active Discussions. My post was only telling about evidence I found on Internet and I didn't considered them as facts, instead I only asked questions about them to defend the need to follow Peirce's scientific method, which is based on abductions.

I am sorry to say that IQ is the best example of a Cartesian mindset, as it tells very little what skills an abDucTing professional must have. Please tell to HR people that they must upgrade themselves to learn about abDucTing professionals…

10. Notice please that Lloyd says “…I am leaving this discussion to the other people who are respectful not to hijack the space, and I suggest you do likewise.” I guess that’s why Mark wrote “There is one other issue that comes to mind - 'hijacking a discussion'. A discussion can be hijacked in three forms - said Mark; the 1st " I don't feel this has happened yet." The 2nd he said "This is border-line," but the 3rd  where "A group of individuals can form a common opinion and redirect their own statements in mob fashion, thus forcing an individual or other group to participate by oligarch rule. - This to me is the most outrageous due to sub-division of a group. this is also starting to happen." If go to the site, I guess you will see a mob.