martes, julio 03, 2012
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?
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.
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:
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.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.”
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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,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 Stogner
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?”@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
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.
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.
viernes, mayo 25, 2012
Who can be a LinkedIn’s community leader
Are Linkedin’s group owners, managers, facilitators, etc., in every case the only and real defacto leaders of their respective communities? Is it possible that a regular group member may emerge through systemic “scientific” contributions as their group community leader?
Those questions, which apply to all groups, are the result of leadership insights that are emerging in two complementary discussions in the Design Thinking (DT) Group of Linkedin. The discussions are: Design thinking in one word? and A Proposal to Define the Limits of Design Thinking. A comment from the second discussion shows the large management scope and potential implications covered:
DT or better yet the simple, but not simplistic, abDucTing is a systemic approach that emerged to replace the non systemic and obsolete scientific management. W. Edwards Deming identified scientific management with the tyranny of the prevailing style of management and to fill the void he proposed what he called the system of profound knowledge.
The abDucting process (the means) will fill that void by following what Tim Brown said about DT: "Although I would love to provide a simple, easy-to-follow recipe that would ensure that every project ends … successfully …, the nature of design thinking makes that impossible."
In other words, abDucTing is proposed to fill the void towards Deming’s system of profound knowledge. Probably as a result of Linkedin’s design flaws, I can now fully understand the meaning of the many fights others and I have experience with non systemic managers and owners of Linkedin groups. They were simply power fights over the system’s void.
I guess that in many situations group facilitators think they own the members of the community and that they have been defacto chosen as their leaders. Are they really the community leaders? Do they behave as community leaders? Or can other community leaders emerge from Linkedin groups under the present Linkedin system?
I don’t want to call for a debate, which concentrates itself in learning from the past. I want to use the abDucting process itself to call for a generative dialogue, to learn about the emerging governing structure of Linkedin or its competitors systems. That would be an invitation to dance, instead of an invitation to fight. However, it would be naïve to think this would go on without a fight. In those cases, concentrate on leadership – forget just dancing; fighting is also OK to let abDucTing emerge (a small bit of poetry).
Please contribute to a better Linkedin’s group government process. Please consider repeating what you post in your group under this blog post article of the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola. Thanks a lot.
martes, mayo 15, 2012
Saltemos a un sistema educativo que valora la cultura del conocimiento
Saltemos a un sistema educativo que valora la cultura del conocimiento es el segundo artículo de la columna "Liderazgo Sistémico" de acento.com.do. Dicho artículo está programado a ser publicado el sábado 19 de mayo del 2012. Dado que la Junta Central Electoral ha decidido tomar control de los servicios de comunicaciones desde esa misma fecha y como ya ese artículo está disponible, basta pulsar el título arriba para leer una versión original sin hiperenlaces. Para los que prefieren una versión con hiperenlaces, pueden seguir leyendo.
A grandes rasgos, la característica principal de la nota del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) La educación para la prosperidad requiere hacer camino al andar es la necesidad de dar un salto para poder aprender del futuro emergente con una actitud científica orientada a la acción. Esa nota se complementa con enseñanzas del sistema de conocimiento profundo, sugerido por el genio W. Edwards Deming en la segunda edición de su libro “La Nueva Economía: para la industria, el gobierno, la educación,” publicado poco antes de su muerte en 1994.
Tal actitud nace de las enseñanzas del gran filósofo de los Estados Unidos de América Charles Sanders Peirce, padre de la semiótica moderna, quien descubrió (hace más de un siglo) el razonamiento de la abducción que complementa la inducción y la deducción. En vez de seguir tratando de aprender solamente con razonamientos del pasado, necesitamos también emplear la abducción o lógica de la sorpresa para aprender del futuro emergente con su método científico orientado a la acción.
Por ejemplo, la nota del GMH sugiere que los planes del segundo congreso industrial y los de la campaña “4% del PIB ¿Para qué?” tratan de lograr grandes esfuerzos sin adecuarse al futuro emergente. Igual sugerencia le cabe al análisis de políticas educativas que la Asociación Nacional de Jóvenes Empresarios (ANJE) acaba de publicar.
Dicha nota aprovecha una entrevista al escritor y ex-ministro de trabajo de España, Manuel Pimentel, sobre su libro “Decálogo del Caminante.” Pimentel dijo que “… los caminantes tiene una noción más trascendente del camino; son capaces de verse desde fuera; plantean no solamente el cómo, sino sobre todo el para qué y el porqué.” Entiendo “que Machado podría decir que los caminantes son los que con su andar hacen las huellas del camino al desarrollo.” Creo que para Deming estos caminantes son los líderes del conocimiento profundo.
“¿Cómo nos va?” es el tituló del primer capítulo del libro, del que repito unas preguntas que pueden ayudarnos a encontrar espacio para equilibrar el sistema de gobierno. En su primer acápite, Deming pregunta: “… ¿un cambio de liderazgo garantizará una vida mejor?¿Qué pasa si los nuevos líderes no son mejores?¿De cuánto tiempo disponen los líderes para demostrar que han traído una vida mejor? Es evidente que en vez del consenso, una actitud científica orientada a la acción facilita responder esas preguntas con mayor certeza.
Deming pregunta y se responde a sí mismo: “¿Los grandes esfuerzos traerán la mejora? Desgraciadamente no. Los grandes esfuerzos y el trabajo duro, no guiados por nuevos conocimientos, no hacen más que ahondar el pozo en el que nos encontramos.” Al igual que en los tres ejemplos anteriores, por falta de generar nuevos conocimientos para desconectar el presupuesto del sector eléctrico, no valen mucho grandes esfuerzos ni el trabajo duro en el sector eléctrico.
Todos los candidatos prometen grandes esfuerzos para cumplir el aumento del presupuesto de educación al 4%. Respondiendo ¿Qué tenemos que hacer?, Deming dice que “… Este cambio exige conocimientos. En otras palabras, nuestro problema es educación y el desarrollo de una cultura que valore el aprendizaje… Para innovar y mejorar la educación harán falta líderes.”
Para salir del pozo profundo, necesitamos muchos líderes-caminantes y mucho menos políticos. Su trabajo será lograr “la transformación de su organización, con conocimiento, personalidad y poder de persuasión,” como dice Deming, para pasar de la tiranía del estilo prevaleciente de administración al sistema de conocimiento profundo. Superando el actual desequilibrio de lo político sobre lo profesional, transformaremos el sector educativo de un sistema que esta roto a un sistema eficaz.
sábado, mayo 12, 2012
Honrando a Duarte y a Hostos, nace la columna "Liderazgo Sistémico" en acento.com.do
"Estas tres señales distinguen al hombre superior: la virtud, que lo libra de la ansiedad; la sabiduría, que lo libra de la duda; y el valor, que lo libra del miedo..." Confucio (tomado de la columna del 12 de mayo, 2012, de Bienvenido Rojas en Diario Libre)
A un muy selecto grupo de dominican@s de buena voluntad.
Siéntete libre de reenviar este mensaje a tus contactos votantes varios días antes del 20 de mayo. Creo que entenderás que solamente con tu colaboración este podría ser el principio para tratar de cumplir con los mismos ideales que los hombres superiores, Juan Pablo Duarte y Eugenio María de Hostos, enarbolaron al inicio de la anterior revolución industrial, aunque ahora sería en los albores de la tercera revolución industrial. El comentario introductorio que coloqué debajo del primer artículo de la columna dice lo siguiente:
Con mucho entusiasmo, les doy la bienvenida al primer ejemplar de la Columna “Liderazgo Sistémico.” A la misma se integran dos ejemplares de opinión anteriores que cito como mi primer artículo y el artículo anterior. A continuación hago unas aclaraciones:
1) Una diferencia entre el liderazgo no sistémico y el sistémico puede explicarse aprovechando la sugerencia del fenecido genio W. Edward Deming, quien sugirió que estamos viviendo la tiranía del estilo prevaleciente de administración y propuso la necesidad de un proceso de transformación a lo que llamó el sistema de conocimiento profundo.
2) El Instituto de Ingenieros Eléctricos y Electrónicos (IEEE) es la asociación de profesionales más grande del mundo.
3) Sugiero que hagan una búsqueda en Internet con "Porqué Necesitas Invertir 90 Minutos para Conocer el Plan B Antes de Votar" o si prefieren hacerlo más rápido pueden copiar y pegar el enlace corto http://bit.ly/GMH206 [aquí simplemente le dan al hiperenlace] a su navegador. De una u otra forma llegarán a la página del Blog del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) para leer la introducción al Plan B y ver el video.
4) Siempre hay pelos que caen al sancocho. Hay otro "el" en "... para que el germine..." que tampoco pude detener. Léanlo por favor como "... para que germine..." Quien encuentre otro pelo déjemelo saber para seguir aprendiendo.
A un muy selecto grupo de dominican@s de buena voluntad.
Siéntete libre de reenviar este mensaje a tus contactos votantes varios días antes del 20 de mayo. Creo que entenderás que solamente con tu colaboración este podría ser el principio para tratar de cumplir con los mismos ideales que los hombres superiores, Juan Pablo Duarte y Eugenio María de Hostos, enarbolaron al inicio de la anterior revolución industrial, aunque ahora sería en los albores de la tercera revolución industrial. El comentario introductorio que coloqué debajo del primer artículo de la columna dice lo siguiente:
Con mucho entusiasmo, les doy la bienvenida al primer ejemplar de la Columna “Liderazgo Sistémico.” A la misma se integran dos ejemplares de opinión anteriores que cito como mi primer artículo y el artículo anterior. A continuación hago unas aclaraciones:
1) Una diferencia entre el liderazgo no sistémico y el sistémico puede explicarse aprovechando la sugerencia del fenecido genio W. Edward Deming, quien sugirió que estamos viviendo la tiranía del estilo prevaleciente de administración y propuso la necesidad de un proceso de transformación a lo que llamó el sistema de conocimiento profundo.
2) El Instituto de Ingenieros Eléctricos y Electrónicos (IEEE) es la asociación de profesionales más grande del mundo.
3) Sugiero que hagan una búsqueda en Internet con "Porqué Necesitas Invertir 90 Minutos para Conocer el Plan B Antes de Votar" o si prefieren hacerlo más rápido pueden copiar y pegar el enlace corto http://bit.ly/GMH206 [aquí simplemente le dan al hiperenlace] a su navegador. De una u otra forma llegarán a la página del Blog del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) para leer la introducción al Plan B y ver el video.
4) Siempre hay pelos que caen al sancocho. Hay otro "el" en "... para que el germine..." que tampoco pude detener. Léanlo por favor como "... para que germine..." Quien encuentre otro pelo déjemelo saber para seguir aprendiendo.
viernes, mayo 04, 2012
Porqué Necesitas Invertir 90 Minutos para Conocer el Plan B Antes de Votar
En vez de un presidente agricultor de la Primera Revolución Industrial o un presidente no sistémico de la Segunda Revolución Industrial, necesitamos un presidente sistémico de la Tercera Revolución Industrial. Muchos dominicanos que anticipaban lo peor sin saber porqué, querían votar por el Dr. Ninguno.
Pero aunque la Junta Central Electoral no te deja votar por el Dr. Ninguno, es muy importante que inviertas casi 90 minutos en el video del Plan B (pulsa Play para verlo). Al hacerlo, entenderás que Haití está en el día 29 y sabrás, por ejemplo, como una crisis sistémica alimentaria global destruiría a Haití y por nuestra debilidad es muy probable que arrase también con nosotros.
La pregunta del millón de pesos es ¿cómo les avisamos a los ciudadanos que estaban dispuestos a votar por Dr. Ninguno que tienen una alternativa? Para ofrecer su respuesta lea en acento.com el artículo Vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema eficaz. Dicho artículo es el resultado de intercambios adicionales en Linkedin, de recibir un valioso comentario por email y de un “tweet” muy sorpresivo que introdujo al Dr. Ninguno.
Watch Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization on PBS. See more from Journey to Planet Earth.
miércoles, mayo 02, 2012
¿Cómo les avisamos a los ciudadanos que estaban dispuestos a votar por Dr. Ninguno que tienen una alternativa?
Para ofrecer su respuesta lea en acento.com el artículo "Vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema eficaz." Dicho artculo es el resultado de intercambios adicionales en Linkedin, de recibir un valioso comentario por email y de un “tweet” muy sorpresivo que introdujo al Dr. Ninguno.
jueves, abril 26, 2012
Dominican@: vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema político eficaz
Resumen: Sugiero que para votar de forma inteligente, no nos quedemos en elegir, por ejemplo, el menos malo de entre todos los candidatos. El artículo explica los argumentos para que pensemos cuidadosamente cuál sería el mejor candidato para que los dominicanos podamos cambiar el sistema político en medio de la Tercera Revolución Industrial. En vez de una decisión simplista, enlacemos con esa otra decisión que mejor se adecua a la compleja situación que tenemos por delante.
Actualización del 2 de abril, 2012: La pregunta del millón de pesos es ¿cómo les avisamos de esta alternativa a los ciudadanos que estaban dispuestos a votar por Dr. Ninguno? Para ofrecer su respuesta lea en acento.com el artículo "Vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema eficaz." Dicho artculo es el resultado de intercambios adicionales en Linkedin, de recibir un valioso comentario por email y de un “tweet” muy sorpresivo que introdujo al Dr. Ninguno.
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico
Miembro de la Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Miembro Vitalicio Senior del Instituto de Ingenieros Eléctricos y Electrónicos
26 de abril, 2012
Cuando los arquitectos de sistemas ven que la solución a un problema es muy difícil, aumentan el alcance del problema y muchas veces el problema se simplifica. La mayoría de los dominicanos sabemos que la elección por sí sola de ningún candidato va a resolver nuestros problemas. Es por eso que sugiero que votemos con un alcance electoral más amplio.
Por lo que nos han estado vendiendo con las encuestas, supongo que la mayoría se hace la misma pregunta, que se planteó en el Grupo de Linkedin The Dominican Connection (algo así como La Conexión Dominicana), "¿Qué candidato cree usted que sería más capaz de arreglar la economía dominicana como presidente, Hipólito Mejía y Danilo Medina?"
Al leer muchos comentarios interesantes en esa discusión, decidí escribir parte de lo que ha venido pasando por mi mente en este proceso electoral. Creo que la discusión sugiere una simple decisión a la pregunta misma, como un debate que podría terminar obviamente, a los males menores de dos o más opciones como la más popular. También creo que una decisión simple de los votantes no se corresponde con la compleja situación que se está viviendo en el país y en el mundo.
Pero, ¿estaremos preparados para cambiar la discusión de un debate a un diálogo generativo? La diferencia entre el debate y el diálogo generativo es que en el primero se trata de aprender del pasado, mientras que en el segundo se trata de aprender del futuro emergente. Este segundo enfoque no es tan ampliamente extendido y practicado como el primero. En este caso los votantes se enfrentarán con al menos dos decisiones enlazadas.
Voy a tratar de ilustrar la diferencia. Muchos de los movimientos independientes de la década de 1800, que siguió el ejemplo de la revolución francesa y la americana, tuvieron la oportunidad de debatir y aprender del pasado. Para aprender del futuro emergente, lo que necesitamos, por ejemplo, es entender que esos países estaban pasando de la dependencia hacia la independencia.
Desde que la globalización surgió, hemos estado en un largo proceso de cambio desde la independencia a la interdependencia. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las constituciones están siendo impulsadas por la independencia en un mundo interdependiente. Por ejemplo, la Constitución Dominicana de 2010 todavía se basa en la separación de poderes.
Como el proceso actual se mueve desde la independencia a la interdependencia, sin embargo, no hay buenos ejemplos a seguir. De hecho, uno de los países desarrollados, como Grecia, Italia, España, Portugal, podría dar el ejemplo a seguir. Es ahora que ellos están luchando, mientras que otros, como Haití y República Dominicana, hemos estado luchando la mayor parte del tiempo con la revolución anterior. Estos últimos usaron el debate para aprender sobre el pasado, pero algo que funciono bien en otro entorno político, no ha funcionado aquí todavía. Una vez pasada las elecciones, es muy probable que sea mucho mejor saltar etapa en algunos aspectos del nuevo sistema político, como ha pasado, por ejemplo, de las redes telefónicas alámbricas a las inalambricas.
Afirmo, que el final de la depresión y la aparición de un nuevo orden político, económico y social ya está por llegar. Con él, un nuevo sistema político está a punto de emerger, como sucedió en Francia y los Estados Unidos. Mi tesis es apoyada por muchos años de trabajo sistémico como parte del esfuerzo en lo que llamo el Grupo Millennium Hipaniola, en que sugiero "una propuesta para contribuir a la transformación de la República Dominicana y Haití en países desarrollados durante este siglo.".
El punto de inflexión puede verse en la revista The Economist, que esta semana tiene un reportaje con varios artículos que explica que ya estamos viviendo en La Tercera Revolución Industrial. También afirmo que en mis prácticas identifiqué que las instituciones multilaterales deben ser objeto de grandes cambios (tal vez hasta ser reemplazadas) para poder detener el status quo de la Segunda Revolución Industrial, que ellas protegen.
El concepto de interdependencia está íntimamente asociado con el punto de vista de sistema. Desde un punto de vista no sistémico, la corrupción es fácilmente trasladada a funcionarios corruptos. Sin embargo, bajo un enfoque sistémico somos capaces de escribir de la corrupción sistémica, como algo mucho peor que lo que ocurre al nivel individual de los funcionarios corruptos. En este sentido, hay que preguntarse si, o no, los gobiernos de los países, y también los organismos multilaterales, participan en los males actuales producidos de forma interdependiente por la corrupción sistémica, como podría ser inducido por el sistema de cabildeo para impedir el progreso. Eso es ampliar el alcance para poder ver el conjunto.
Esta es mi conjetura sobre el sistema político que surgirá en el mundo: un sistema político eficaz es aquel en que los subsistemas ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial son interdependientes y se refuerzan mutuamente para ofrecer el mayor bienestar social. Supongo que debe ser la base para lo que creo es una cuestión mucho mejor a votar en las próximas elecciones.
El cambio de objetivo va desde la simple decisión de elegir a un Presidente hacia otra que apunta a una decisión enlazada que haga espacio suficiente para introducir un sistema político eficaz.
Actualización del 2 de abril, 2012: La pregunta del millón de pesos es ¿cómo les avisamos de esta alternativa a los ciudadanos que estaban dispuestos a votar por Dr. Ninguno? Para ofrecer su respuesta lea en acento.com el artículo "Vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema eficaz." Dicho artculo es el resultado de intercambios adicionales en Linkedin, de recibir un valioso comentario por email y de un “tweet” muy sorpresivo que introdujo al Dr. Ninguno.
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico
Miembro de la Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Miembro Vitalicio Senior del Instituto de Ingenieros Eléctricos y Electrónicos
26 de abril, 2012
Cuando los arquitectos de sistemas ven que la solución a un problema es muy difícil, aumentan el alcance del problema y muchas veces el problema se simplifica. La mayoría de los dominicanos sabemos que la elección por sí sola de ningún candidato va a resolver nuestros problemas. Es por eso que sugiero que votemos con un alcance electoral más amplio.
Por lo que nos han estado vendiendo con las encuestas, supongo que la mayoría se hace la misma pregunta, que se planteó en el Grupo de Linkedin The Dominican Connection (algo así como La Conexión Dominicana), "¿Qué candidato cree usted que sería más capaz de arreglar la economía dominicana como presidente, Hipólito Mejía y Danilo Medina?"
Al leer muchos comentarios interesantes en esa discusión, decidí escribir parte de lo que ha venido pasando por mi mente en este proceso electoral. Creo que la discusión sugiere una simple decisión a la pregunta misma, como un debate que podría terminar obviamente, a los males menores de dos o más opciones como la más popular. También creo que una decisión simple de los votantes no se corresponde con la compleja situación que se está viviendo en el país y en el mundo.
Pero, ¿estaremos preparados para cambiar la discusión de un debate a un diálogo generativo? La diferencia entre el debate y el diálogo generativo es que en el primero se trata de aprender del pasado, mientras que en el segundo se trata de aprender del futuro emergente. Este segundo enfoque no es tan ampliamente extendido y practicado como el primero. En este caso los votantes se enfrentarán con al menos dos decisiones enlazadas.
Voy a tratar de ilustrar la diferencia. Muchos de los movimientos independientes de la década de 1800, que siguió el ejemplo de la revolución francesa y la americana, tuvieron la oportunidad de debatir y aprender del pasado. Para aprender del futuro emergente, lo que necesitamos, por ejemplo, es entender que esos países estaban pasando de la dependencia hacia la independencia.
Desde que la globalización surgió, hemos estado en un largo proceso de cambio desde la independencia a la interdependencia. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las constituciones están siendo impulsadas por la independencia en un mundo interdependiente. Por ejemplo, la Constitución Dominicana de 2010 todavía se basa en la separación de poderes.
Como el proceso actual se mueve desde la independencia a la interdependencia, sin embargo, no hay buenos ejemplos a seguir. De hecho, uno de los países desarrollados, como Grecia, Italia, España, Portugal, podría dar el ejemplo a seguir. Es ahora que ellos están luchando, mientras que otros, como Haití y República Dominicana, hemos estado luchando la mayor parte del tiempo con la revolución anterior. Estos últimos usaron el debate para aprender sobre el pasado, pero algo que funciono bien en otro entorno político, no ha funcionado aquí todavía. Una vez pasada las elecciones, es muy probable que sea mucho mejor saltar etapa en algunos aspectos del nuevo sistema político, como ha pasado, por ejemplo, de las redes telefónicas alámbricas a las inalambricas.
Afirmo, que el final de la depresión y la aparición de un nuevo orden político, económico y social ya está por llegar. Con él, un nuevo sistema político está a punto de emerger, como sucedió en Francia y los Estados Unidos. Mi tesis es apoyada por muchos años de trabajo sistémico como parte del esfuerzo en lo que llamo el Grupo Millennium Hipaniola, en que sugiero "una propuesta para contribuir a la transformación de la República Dominicana y Haití en países desarrollados durante este siglo.".
El punto de inflexión puede verse en la revista The Economist, que esta semana tiene un reportaje con varios artículos que explica que ya estamos viviendo en La Tercera Revolución Industrial. También afirmo que en mis prácticas identifiqué que las instituciones multilaterales deben ser objeto de grandes cambios (tal vez hasta ser reemplazadas) para poder detener el status quo de la Segunda Revolución Industrial, que ellas protegen.
El concepto de interdependencia está íntimamente asociado con el punto de vista de sistema. Desde un punto de vista no sistémico, la corrupción es fácilmente trasladada a funcionarios corruptos. Sin embargo, bajo un enfoque sistémico somos capaces de escribir de la corrupción sistémica, como algo mucho peor que lo que ocurre al nivel individual de los funcionarios corruptos. En este sentido, hay que preguntarse si, o no, los gobiernos de los países, y también los organismos multilaterales, participan en los males actuales producidos de forma interdependiente por la corrupción sistémica, como podría ser inducido por el sistema de cabildeo para impedir el progreso. Eso es ampliar el alcance para poder ver el conjunto.
Esta es mi conjetura sobre el sistema político que surgirá en el mundo: un sistema político eficaz es aquel en que los subsistemas ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial son interdependientes y se refuerzan mutuamente para ofrecer el mayor bienestar social. Supongo que debe ser la base para lo que creo es una cuestión mucho mejor a votar en las próximas elecciones.
El cambio de objetivo va desde la simple decisión de elegir a un Presidente hacia otra que apunta a una decisión enlazada que haga espacio suficiente para introducir un sistema político eficaz.
martes, abril 24, 2012
La Educación Para la Prosperidad Requiere Hacer Camino al Andar
Segunda actualización. En la relación #China-#RepDom, ¿harán los Caminantes #GlobalDebout un Camino con Corazón para Garatas y Precarios? Para empezar, sugiero que es imprescindible leer esta nota en su totalidad para reconocer como los Garatas siguen un Camino sin Corazón que hace que los Precarios vayan como el cangrejo en su precriedad, sin reconocer la gran importancia de promover a los pocos Caminantes pueden dejar de hacer Caminos sin Corazón, para hacer Caminos con Corazón al andar.
Aquí actualizo a grandes rasgos el guion que se basó inicialmente en la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, para informar que ha llegado el momento de transformar la educación, dando seguimiento a lo que ya sabemos sobre el sector eléctrico y la globalización. Es así como podemos dejar en el pasado las tácticas obsoletas de corto plazo sin hacer camino al andar. para saltar a una estrategia de largo plazo hacia un Camino con Corazón.
Puedo decirles que cuando logré preparar la estrategia para el sector eléctrico hice la conjetura de que no se trataba solo de una gran oleada tecnológica de la civilización industrial, sino la primera gran oleada de lo que acuñe como la civilización sistémica. En ese sentido, como la civilización sistémica hace necesario el cambio de una estrategia nacional a una global, el antecedente en Twitter de esta actualización es la narrativa ¿Podrá el 3er debate electoral de #Mexico saltar con el #MCGA del #TLCAN y de #DRCAFTA al #NOCAU? que viene del Blog de Medium que es donde vengo convirtiendo lo que hacemos la tuitosfera.
Momentáneamente dejo ese blog para actualizar esta nota, al integrar varias notas de este, mi viejo Blog GMH, no solo para justificar los cambios de dos de las tres clases de personas, sino principalmente para dar a conocer el siguiente intercambio de tuits, que se explican por sí mismos, acompañados de imágenes legibles sin tener que saltar a Twitter para leerlas.
Aunque Standing no incluye a los pobres en su definición, con el fin de mantener solo tres clases, que para nuestros fines corresponden a las grandes masas de población en un sola clase, que se beneficiarán al recibir una propuesta en la segunda etapa que no están esperando, pero les encantará, como resultado del esfuerzo de un grupo selecto de Caminantes #GlobalDebout de todo el mundo en la primera etapa. La relación de la República Dominicana con China podría ser en etos momentos la primera oportundad.
Finalmente, aunque el cambio de Turista por Garatas trae una idea local, en un mundo donde Turista es una expresión global, creo que se le da a los turistas una connotación que no le corresponde. Sugiero que el personaje hipotético Martín Garata. qque le gusstan los mangos bajitos, puede servir mejor la función, que aparece en los versos de Juan Antonio Alix, en la nota Si Queremos Controlar los Mangos Bajitos, Tenemos que Trepar la Mata Hasta los Cogollitos.
Primera actualización. ¿Podrá México hacer el camino al andar en el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable (#ODS4 #SDG4) de la Educación de Calidad en la civilización sistémica? Los dominicanos debemos admitir que han pasado casi cinco años y no hemos hecho camino al andar con el Pacto Educativo que desoyó el planteamiento sugerido en el texto inicial de esta nota.
Lo que sí hemos hecho es desarrollar el camino al andar del pensamiento del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable (#ODS7 #SDG7) de la Energía Asequible y Limpia. Cobra entonces mucho sentido, el tuit siguiente que lleva una imagen con el título "El #FinDeLaImpunidad de la democracia representativa anti-sistémica es global."
Aquí actualizo a grandes rasgos el guion que se basó inicialmente en la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, para informar que ha llegado el momento de transformar la educación, dando seguimiento a lo que ya sabemos sobre el sector eléctrico y la globalización. Es así como podemos dejar en el pasado las tácticas obsoletas de corto plazo sin hacer camino al andar. para saltar a una estrategia de largo plazo hacia un Camino con Corazón.
Momentáneamente dejo ese blog para actualizar esta nota, al integrar varias notas de este, mi viejo Blog GMH, no solo para justificar los cambios de dos de las tres clases de personas, sino principalmente para dar a conocer el siguiente intercambio de tuits, que se explican por sí mismos, acompañados de imágenes legibles sin tener que saltar a Twitter para leerlas.
Para los ciudadanos de todo el mundo que pueden asociarse a #GlobalDebout (ej. #EuropeIN #15M) ej. #España #Cataluña #Mexico #Venezuela #Argentina #Colombia #Haiti #PuertoRico— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 22, 2018
¿Sería una relación en un Camino con Corazón #MCGA pionera #China-#RepDom ejemplo para #USA y #Taiwan? pic.twitter.com/YZlf96x6Ff
¿Estudiaste como Consejera #GlobalDebout para dudar que "haya espacio para un Camino con Corazón"? ¿En que fundamentas esa duda negativa? ¿No valen los intereses de las masas que quieren cambiar la moneda del dinero por la moneda de la confianza que va por el Camino con Corazón?— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 22, 2018
Otra duda emocional. Los gobiernos tienen intereses creados en el #MSC. En la 1ra etapa con el #MCGA, aconsejo unir una masa crítica #GlobalDebout de ciudadanos líderes, centrada donde la crisis sea elevada. La relación de #RepDom con #USA y #China es una excelente oportunidad. pic.twitter.com/UjIFX4FLVI— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 22, 2018
Conforme a lo indicado arriba, empiezo a integrar con la nota Zombis, turistas y caminantes del 2017, tomando en cuenta el comentario que hice horas después de publicar el texto inicial en el 2012 que dice:¡Siempre Nancy!— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 22, 2018
… quiero aplatanar a los Zombies y Turistas. ¿Qué les parece Desrumbaos, en vez de Zombies, por aquello de que no tienen rumbo, por falta de educación? ¿Qué les parece Garatas, por aquello de Martín Garata, en vez de Turistas?Como se puede ver debajo de ese comentario nadie opinó sobre “Desrumbaos.” Por eso ahora sugiero que la palabra adecuada es Precarios, asimilando la que sugirió Guy Standing en su libro “El precariado. Una nueva clase social,” publicado en 2014.
Aunque Standing no incluye a los pobres en su definición, con el fin de mantener solo tres clases, que para nuestros fines corresponden a las grandes masas de población en un sola clase, que se beneficiarán al recibir una propuesta en la segunda etapa que no están esperando, pero les encantará, como resultado del esfuerzo de un grupo selecto de Caminantes #GlobalDebout de todo el mundo en la primera etapa. La relación de la República Dominicana con China podría ser en etos momentos la primera oportundad.
Finalmente, aunque el cambio de Turista por Garatas trae una idea local, en un mundo donde Turista es una expresión global, creo que se le da a los turistas una connotación que no le corresponde. Sugiero que el personaje hipotético Martín Garata. qque le gusstan los mangos bajitos, puede servir mejor la función, que aparece en los versos de Juan Antonio Alix, en la nota Si Queremos Controlar los Mangos Bajitos, Tenemos que Trepar la Mata Hasta los Cogollitos.
Primera actualización. ¿Podrá México hacer el camino al andar en el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable (#ODS4 #SDG4) de la Educación de Calidad en la civilización sistémica? Los dominicanos debemos admitir que han pasado casi cinco años y no hemos hecho camino al andar con el Pacto Educativo que desoyó el planteamiento sugerido en el texto inicial de esta nota.
¿#Educación @ExpansionMx @ExpEconomia @ADNPolitico @cricardortega @Mr_VivaYolo p/ saltar (leapfrog) o perseguir a los países desarrollados? pic.twitter.com/qcRHKXgAIb— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 15, 2017
Dicho tuit sugiere que los Estados concentren su atención en el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable más anti-sistémico, que indudablemente es la educación en México y la Energía en República Dominicana. La oportunidad es que México puede hacer camino al andar en Educación siguiendo el camino que República Dominicana ya ha hecho en Energía. Lo que sigue refleja los avances más importantes que hemos hecho y los que no hemos hecho.
Hemos descubierto que no puede haber una revolución industrial. Por eso, las metas retadoras que se esperaban del Segundo Congreso Industrial no se han logrado, porque como anticipamos no eran razonables. Hemos descubierto también que no se trata solamente de una revolución tecnológica, con precedentes de como 50 años, sino de una revolución de la información cuyo precedente es de 500 años que sustenta la llegada de una nueva civilzación, que hemos venido llamado la civilización sistemica.
La preocupación sobre que "se queda aparentemente muy cercana al corto plazo, cuando la educación es eminentemente una tarea de largo plazo," ha sido confirmada con creces con el cambio del desarrollo del sendero industrial al sendero sistémico, donde "El Decálogo del Caminante" sugiere la necesidad de que la educación aumente significamente el porcentaje de Caminantes, a expensas de los Zombies y los Turistas.
Hemos descubierto que los Caminantes necesitan aprovechar el Gran Cambio informatico para desarrollar su actitud científica orientada a la acción que les permitirá acercarse al Tercer Grado de Claridad, que es el que minimiza las consecuencias inintencionadas en el futuro, que son las que superan la creciente incertidumbre de la Globalización Oscura que como mucho se aproxima al Segundo Grado de Claridad.
Esas consecuencias inintenciadas por parte de los Turistas (por ejemplo, los políticos), que nos han traído la debacle de Odebrecht, permite justificar la disminución de oportunidades con el cambio de los incentivos de gobierno para esos Turistas con la migración de la democracia representativa del Estado a la democracia directa del mercado sistémico que sería impulsada por los Caminantes. El cambio de dichos incentivos impactarán también a la significativa reducción de los Zombies diseñando un sistema adecuado para sustituir el presente anti-sistema de educación. Es importante destacar, que en dicho sistema el sentimiento estético y la acción ética se elevarán al mismo nivel del pensamiento lógico.
La Educación Para la Prosperidad Requiere Hacer Camino al Andar
caminante no hay camino se hace camino al andar.”
Antonio Machado
Como se describe en el reportaje de la revista The Economist, sobre La Tercera Revolución Industrial, (enlace añadido el 14 de mayo, 2012) que contiene varios artículos, el mundo que nos ha tocado vivir está en los albores de grandes oportunidades. Sin embargo, necesitamos estar conscientes de cuales son esas oportunidades lo más pronto posible.
En ese sentido, sugiero que contrastemos lo que aparece en el artículo El Segundo Congreso Industrial, en que el economista Roberto Despradel expresa que “El sector se planteó unas metas retadoras, pero alcanzables para los próximos cinco años: lograr incrementar las exportaciones de US$8,500 millones a US$20 mil millones, crear 200 mil nuevas fuentes de trabajo, aumentar el número de industrias de 7,000 a 10 mil, e incrementar de 200 a 500 las empresas que exportan más de un millón de dólares anuales.”
Mi humilde preocupación es que esas metas son fruto de un consenso en vez de lo que aparece en la larga nota Cambiemos el Modelo Económico con Una Actitud Científica Orientada a la Acción. En ese sentido, por ejemplo, la creación de 200 mil nuevas fuentes de trabajo no parece razonable de acuerdo a lo que entendí del Economíst, que lamentablemente ha salido a relucir justo después que terminara el referido congreso.
Argumento, muy respetuosamente, que el reportaje del Economist se acerca mucho más a la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, que elaboramos con la colaboración de destacadas personalidades a finales del año 2009. Dicha visión se inicia con:
De acuerdo a la Dra. Carlota Pérez, las grandes oleadas tecnológicas NO SOLO AGREGAN nuevas industrias, como las de las información y las telecomunicaciones.
TAMBIÉN PRODUCEN:
• El rejuvenecimiento de todas las industrias pre-existentes
• Un cambio significativo en la conducta social
• Un cambio radical en los patrones de inversión
• Profundos cambios institucionales
Conforme a la visión compartida del GMH podemos empezar con una estrategia orientada al mercado global, centrada en el rejuvenecimiento de la educación, la electricidad y la salud, desplegando el potencial de las tecnologías de información y telecomunicaciones a esos sectores. Con ello se pretende un cambio radical en la cultura de dichos sectores, con una recomposición institucional que facilite la inversión productiva a largo plazo local y extranjera que los transforme en nuestras principales marcas-país.
Mirando más allá de cinco años, la lucha por el 4% para la Educación puede tener un efecto muy positivo para dotar a la gente de oportunidades de superación en ese nuevo mundo. Sin embargo, sigo preocupado también, por lo que sugerí hace un año en esa larga nota que se queda aparentemente muy cercana al corto plazo, cuando la educación es eminentemente una tarea de largo plazo:
Un examen de la campaña “4% del PIB ¿Para qué?” revela lo poco ambicioso que es el movimiento “4% Para Una Educación Digna,” al basarse en creencias obsoletas que se contentan con soluciones del pasado:
• Contratar más maestras y maestros, ya que hacen falta alrededor de 58,000.
• Construir 10,000 nuevas escuelas y rehabilitar 12,000 aulas actualmente en mal estado.
• Dotar los centros educativos de agua potable, instalaciones sanitarias, bibliotecas, áreas deportivas y recreativas.
• Fortalecer la formación de docentes y el pago de salarios dignos.
• Suministrar los recursos didácticos, material gastable, mobiliario y equipos necesarios.
• Proveer un adecuado desayuno escolar.
• Incorporar a 632,000 niñas, niños y adolescentes que están fuera del sistema educativo.
Ligando la cita de Machado, que resulta obvia, con lo que digo a seguidas, creo haber encontrado una forma simple de transmitir el mensaje de que podemos hacer para dar el mejor uso a los fondos asignados a la educación. En un mundo que para ayudar a desarrollar el país y su gente creo que puede ayudar lo que sugiere en su muy oportuno libro, “Decálogo del Caminante,” el escritor y ex-ministro de trabajo de España, Manuel Pimentel.
Debo admitir que solamente escuché la entrevista que le hicieron Juanjo y Marta en el programa Para Todos la 2 del canal rtve del 23 de abril del 2012. No obstante, ese hecho no me impide desarrollar mi conjetura. Basta conocer que, de forma muy apropiada, Pimentel clasifica la población en Zombies, Turistas y Caminantes, con 60%, 35% y 5%, respectivamente. Me parece que nuestros porcentajes tienen más Zombies, más Turistas y menos Caminantes, pero sugiero más adelante que para cambiarlos vamos a necesitar mucho más que educación.
Entre varias cualidades, Pimentel dice que los Zombies son aquellas personas que no tienen metas, ni ideales. Siguen a la mayoría y se mueven por instintos muy básicos. Él dice que uno mismo nunca se ve como un Zombie, pero que estos tienen una vocación muy tenaz a serlo y que lamentablemente ese porcentaje está creciendo. En cuanto a los Turistas, el los describe simplemente como gente más inquieta que le gusta lucir y presumir. Parece que hace falta que vía la educación surja un cambio de valores.
Siendo evidentemente los protagonistas de su libro, los Caminantes tiene una noción más trascendente del camino; son capaces de verse desde fuera; plantean no solamente el cómo, sino sobre todo el para qué y el porqué. Creo que Machado podría decir que los Caminantes son los que con su andar hacen las huellas del camino al desarrollo.
Creo también que el filosofo americano Charles Sanders Peirce le agregaría que para poder realizar ese desarrollo, los Caminantes necesitan emplear simultáneamente el pensamiento lógico, el sentimiento estético y la acción ética. En sentido amplio, los Caminantes son personas con una actitud científica orientada a la acción, como se explica en la larga nota ya mencionada de la cual extraemos lo siguiente:
¿Qué envuelve una actitud científica para la acción? La vieja creencia de que “…el pasado es la base del futuro…” es obsoleta, porque supone que las lecciones para avanzar sólo vienen del pasado para afectar el presente, basándose en las lógicas de la inducción y la deducción. Pierce, el padre de la semiótica moderna, descubrió la abducción o lógica de la sorpresa que supone lecciones para avanzar que vienen del futuro para modificar el presente, por medio de una actitud científica para la acción.
Sugiero que la clasificación de Pimentel refleja muy bien la población que se necesita educar y puede ser un elemento clave para iniciar una transformación hacia el desarrollo con una actitud científica orientada a la acción. Simultáneamente, es necesario usar esa actitud para crear el ambiente propicio para lograr el mayor rendimiento de la inversión en educación, para lo cual es imprescindiblemente necesario un cambio en el sistema de gobierno.
El cambio de sistema de gobierno debe empezar por reducir significativamente los incentivos que tienen los Turistas, especialmente, por ejemplo, los políticos cuyo objetivo es lograr un puesto en la administración pública. Esa para mi es la principal fuente de la corrupción sistémica que vive el país. Todos los Turistas se nutren de una economía de consumo a la que los Caminantes que contribuyen al desarrollo en ocasiones no pueden acceder. Los estudiantes necesitan conocer y emular el ejemplo de los mejores Caminantes.
Para que una economía sea sostenible, es necesario que exista un equilibrio entre Caminantes y Turistas. Un desequilibrio explica el gran consumo de los Turistas de bienes innecesarios impulsados, entiendo que más que todo es resultado de la ignorancia o la falta de educación. El argumento que esgrimo es el de impulsar la inteligencia espiritual de la gente, para que equilibren el consumo de bienes materiales con el consumo de servicios culturales de parte de los Turistas. Yo sé que es fácil decirlo, pero muy difícil aplicarlo.
Usando la analogía que puso de moda el consultor a la competitividad sistémica Villarreal, en vez de comportarse como los Caminantes, que se ponen en formación como los gansos, muchos Turistas se comportan como cangrejos en una cubeta para halar a los caminantes hacia el fondo del recipiente. Para desarrollar el país es necesario cambiar el sistema de gobierno de forma que se reconozca el esfuerzo de los Caminantes. Si entiendo bien, un propósito de la educación no menos importante sería reducir la gran masa de Zombies que tenemos en el país, para que tengan oportunidades para desarrollarse.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)