From the monthly archives: October 2011

The result of a collaborative work

I was part of an extremely gratifying experience last weekend, where, during 48 hours, the participants on Porto Sustainability Jam became involved in the creation of an innovative and sustainable Playground.

No matter how small is a project, we assume the existence of a work team culture and the identification of the ecosystem culture where we could implement the product or service created.

The participants in this project were mostly persons related to design, but the architecture, audiovisual communication and psychology were also present, which from the outset triggered a willingness, in each one of us, to demonstrate the skills most relevant to the project.

During this period in which we were prepared to confront ideas, build alliances and converge to a final result, we faced, in my opinion, with three different times:

A – A first moment where the assessment of our ideas didn’t make sense, because it was a divergent process and where all contributions made sense. It was an initial time relatively short but very fruitful.

B- A second time where we try to find a way and where it was necessary to negotiate and collaborate. Here, in a long and controversial period all called “stars” had to realize that they need the help of others in order to shine in the sky.

After long periods of vicious circles, characterized by temporary distractions and precipitated returns to the starting point it was necessary to induce some discipline of agenda and pass from the “talk about” to “do it”, that is, to abandon rhetoric and converge to the path of realization.

It was during this period that the whole project underwent a radical change that gave rise to the product and services offered at the end. On how this happened I will write soon.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             C – The third and final time was indeed extraordinary. After acceptance and commitment to collaboration, everyone engaged in the development of the project.

During the last hours of life of our project, we witnessed a truly collaborative working environment, where each created and ask for support, where each motivate others and ran the critical thinking, where all were identified as a significant part of a project with value and meaning.

At the end of this “phase” it was well evidenced the progress principle (see Amabile) because ” of all the things that can boost emotions, motivation, and perceptions during a workday, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work. And the more frequently people experience that sense of progress, the more likely they are to be creatively productive in the long run.”

The most extraordinary demonstration of serious work and cooperation was, and I was surprised, how it got re-arranged all the space to deliver to whom had facilitated it to us. It was brilliant!

One of the delicate aspects in this type of work, a challenge proposed to many cities of the world, was dealing with the clock. It is not always easy to have the notion of the time that we need in every moment and eventually this can lead to loss of some improvement in one aspect or another.

Sometimes we need to make time stop and take time to do nothing! we must have time to think.

It was certainly the time invested, when we move away from where we were gathered, that gave direction to our wills and that gave rise to fun that from there was generated. It was as if we were testing the result of our work, that is, “the more we play the more we get”.

And once more the time is the people. It is us and them whenever we want to expose our most precious and elaborate content, but we can’t predict how other people are.

This is my reading of what happened:

Once the environment has become warm and allowed some daydreams by participants, withstood the interventions with impurities and moved on to another matter scheduled. (we could not leave residues of interventions or unfinished conversations).

We packed the concepts together with the samples so that allows us to enable a discussion later. To prevent the adhesion of extemporaneous comments, due to the increasing time reduction, we pointed out the steps forward.

The environment was being watched constantly because the different working phases, which are very near each other, could correspond to different uses. For example the creation of the business model could have interference in descriptive of the project.

When it reached the desired point, we acted quickly questioning the group. We add a few drops of good disposition to motivate ourselves in a natural way.

When the team began to vibrate, the fun became irreversible.

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:
 

The real value of people

In today’s data-abundant business environment, the emphasis on analytical thinking is increasing rather than decreasing.“- Melba Kurman

Despite the knowledge of an organization may not be the sums of several individual or groups’ knowledge, organizations tend to forget much of what goes beyond the data.

Have knowledge about knowledge means to possess the true understanding of the benefit of knowledge and to understand that advantage, it is important to answer some questions.

What size, relevance and quantity of knowledge is discussed in our organization?

To what extent is well perceived their distribution and value?

Organizations can use the knowledge to ensure a strategic advantage if they can generate greater value through knowledge of products, people and processes.

If an organization provides “smart” products or services, this is useful, and easy usability and that enable greater consumer income, she can achieve a competitive advantage in the face of competition.

We know that in many organizations, there are many differences to the performance level, between the different groups that perform the same process.

It also appears to be no doubt that knowledge in people is the most valuable resource that an organization can have and yet many organizations treat these “features” as physical features, or names with functions and with special abilities for certain tasks.

What organizations need is to look at people as people across its human dimension, not just as carriers of information. People are carriers of explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge, this more difficult to express and encode.

To convert the knowledge into value and therefore a more explicitly, it is necessary to create a spirit of cooperation to a common project.

The existing tacit knowledge in employees and clients of the companies can flow more easily if we provide better human interaction, so that the knowledge is diffused throughout the Organization and not just for some. This is when disseminated supported awakens the generation of new ideas and knowledge.

The most valuable knowledge that an organization has, is in the minds of your employees and their supports, especially customers.

However, the question that most innovation managers raise is:

How can I reconcile the numbers and people?

What we have to learn is to give life to the numbers, trying to find meaning in the data found, especially since internet networks today provide an amazing amount of data.

You must think of the people, their needs and discover the story behind these needs. A purely data-based approach to understanding the needs of customers tells us where customers have been and what they did, but did not say why they acted that way.

An approach only based on the contributors can give the size of a company, but does not give the actual value of that company.

With a constant concern in people, including a stimulating environment with personal development plans, motivation and adequate reward and recognition systems organizations are dynamic, and the future is a reality.

What do you think?

Tagged with:
 

“We’re notoriously poor observers of our environment.

But we have the false idea that we see things just as they are. Still, we can very easily miss stimuli that are right in front of our eyes if we’re not looking for them. Similarly, we don’t see just with our eyes. We see with our brains. The phenomenon of “change blindness” illustrates these points perfectly…

We thrive on patterns and try to make sense of our world. We do the same thing when it comes to our own behaviors.” – Margarita Tartakovsky

And even when we think we see things as they are, sometimes we do cheat.

Every day we receive data and information that we know or we hope, will be countered or denied later. Our knowledge warehouse is attended by inputs and outputs that are supposed to represent the truth.

Confirmation of truth often does not happen and it is not by ingenuity or process failures, it is because we like the facilitation and often the game of information.

Syllogism poorly prepared or fast conclusions lead to deficient information and are not just “change blindness” caused by the change of stimuli. Rather it is a “deformed behavior” with time.

What I thought I knew, was there, but does not match what I should know.

Since children who get used to manipulate information, at home, at school and often up to start an active life. In the background we cheat with compote that supposedly we do not eat, with examinations where we had not copied and with the curriculum, where supposedly we do not invented.

These is small things that make us small heroes when we count our far-flung adventures and however in doing so we are aware of these minor flaws but we are comfortable.

Not accustomed to the changes, some people begin a journey of “cheating,” sometimes reaching dimensions that exceed the dignity. I am referring to the creativity used with the numbers to justify actions or decisions.

See the case of complex system of information in financial branches where there is not “cheating” but can be good examples of “change blindness”. There may be no diversion of money (palpable matter), but the information flows through paths where the game of interests is present and the result is the dangerous game we saw.

“We came up with this idea of a fudge factor, which means that people have two goals: We have a goal to look at ourselves in the mirror and feel good about ourselves, and we have a goal to cheat and benefit from cheating. And we find that there’s a balance between these two goals. “- Dan Ariely

That is, cheating, to the level that we feel comfortable.

We are unable to pick up money, which eventually lies on top of a table, but easily eat an apple or drink a juice, which does not belong to us.

Similarly, we take a pencil or a packet of leaves, the workplace, but it took on a coin of one euro. We assume that there is a tacit consent, for the pencil or the apple, but not compared with the currency.

With the information we operate identically. Information considered important nature is saved and not transmitted without authorization. It is our comfort zone, because we won’t be punished. If this information is not relevant, then, I will have the pleasure of playing with it, almost always for the benefit of my fun.

Many of these “abilities” can be corrected when we introduce the emotional factor in play. This happens whenever our moral standards are remembered. I swear …, by the soul … make cheating decrease of intensity, because I look for myself

We can easily cheat with the information, but with emotions is not so easy.

Cheating with emotions is not easy. It is quickly detect the falsehood of a tear or exaggeration of a smile.

The information may be transmitted to all alike, but is certainly not received by all in the same way.

Do you want to comment?

 

 

Tagged with:
 

Places where creativity can emerge

When we face a situation where we need to take a decision, our mind seeks a precedent (situations experienced) without taking into account the emotions of the moments passed.

In other words, the effects caused by emotions in decision-making made previously were not considered and we are thus influenced positively or negatively in new situations that we face.

When we speak of emotions in organizations we can be talking about theories of humor, laughter therapy or even emotional intelligence.

As the interactions between people are becoming more frequent, more diversified and comprehensive organizational structures become less rigid and more dynamic.

Today, interactions extend beyond the physical boundaries of organizations through social networks and a considerable increase of events where the number of people to interact strongly grows and where emotions are bound to different cultures.

On account of that the workplace emotions are now one of the major areas of observation for improvement of management practices.

The future, we started to build already today, brings more and more emotions which have a special role in creativity and innovation of businesses.

“In early January of 1995, Jan Sandel, the executive chef at the Swedish restaurant Aquavit in New York City, unexpectedly died of a heart attack. The owner, Hakan Swahn, immediately had to find someone to head up the kitchen. He decided to place newly hired Marcus Samuelsson in charge while he searched for a permanent replacement. But Swahn was hesitant because Samuelsson was quite young. “Our organization was big and complex, and our reputation was excellent. It is not the type of operation you just hand over to a twenty-four-year-old,” he explained. In retrospect, it may have been the best decision he ever made.

At the time, Aquavit had become a well-respected Manhattan restaurant, with one star from the New York Times. But something strange started happening only weeks after Samuelsson headed up the kitchen. New dishes based on unique combinations of food from all over the world began showing up on the menu. The new items, such as oysters with mango curry sorbet, didn’t always seem to make sense, but they tickled both the imagination and the palate. They were unlike anything the guests had ever tasted before.” – Frans Johansson

Some years later, it is the internet that seems a virtual Florence, where diversity prevails, suppressed emotions and makes known new experiences, successes, failures and errors.

The sages and researchers living cloistered in their domains are today obliged to undress their wax coating and to share their joys and sorrows, but also their successes and failures, that is, knowledge and creative experiences or not.

The search for new ideas becomes more emotional when shared in interdisciplinary teams, bringing greater flow of creativity and giving more timely responses to the needs of people and organizations.

All people are enjoying with its vertical and horizontal growth, that is, their domain is consolidated by the intersection of different perspectives and they also are no longer isolated earning a generalist knowledge that until now was lacked.

The language tends to be common and the intersection of ideas creates new ways!

“When you step into an intersection of fields, disciplines, or cultures, you can combine existing concepts into a large number of extraordinary new ideas” Frans Johansson

Do you want to comment?

 

 

Tagged with:
 

When the borders of disciplines are touching

This week I participated in a workshop on Service Design facilitated by Arne van Oosterom (@ designthinkers) at Lisbon, where was present more than 40 people.

The first working proposal was to identify existing problems in this community so that we can eventually end up with an idea of valued service.

It was not early that we realized, that the way we define a problem is the most important element to achieve advances in service design and especially in a community like that!

There was a social system that it was necessary to understand.

A social system is a complex set of human relations that interact in many ways. In an organization, the social system includes all persons working for it, its partners, customers and other external bodies, as well as the relationships among all.

The behavior of a system member, has influence to a greater or lesser degree in organizational behavior and also for this reason, the limits of a social system are impossible to determine given the trade generated by all individuals or groups.

While some groups were working with questionnaires seeking to identify the values inherent to each participant, others were debated with the priority of the problems to be solved.

Apparently there was a “culture” in that ecosystem and this could be realized through the collection of information. It was not important to the rigor of moment but the familiarization with the problems that arise in the way.

We imagine that the culture of an organization is part of a larger system, which is the society where that organization or part of it, develops its activity and that all members of the organization or community suffer its influence.

The definition of the problem thus becomes essential because design thinking implies a greater breadth with an approach, with more impact and greater significance.

People depend on the culture, since this, give them stability, security, understanding and ability to respond to a particular situation, but people also react to the change because they fear insecurity.

It was therefore necessary to define the problem clearly not thinking solely in the service, but rather as a projection of a user or the consumer in various subsystems to which it belongs.

We are talking about the structure of a community and culture of this community, communication and workflows, and deployment strategies.

The definition of the problem requires a very specific architecture.

The elements of a community may fear that the system becomes unstable, may fear that your comfort is called into question and will not understand the new process nor do they know how to respond to new situations, if our solution is the result of a bad definition of the problem.

To define a problem is not only to observe and collect information about a user of the service, even if the definition of the problem is people-centric.

This is to define the problem behaviors of the various systems and of their relations.

When looking for a community here is a small challenge or a framework of reflection:

What is the current development of a community and what is its structure?

As it is lived community behavior and what types of personalities are involved?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the existing structure and how does that affect the behavior of people?

These and many other questions need to be made so when identifying the problems they may arise in the greatest possible number so from there, highlighting the most relevant, we can define the problem and working solutions.

At this little experiment that we live was relatively easy to guess how much our past has influenced the way we see the problems of others and how much is difficult to become aware of the need for empathy to identify problems.

It were hours of collaboration and interdisciplinary work which adds extra value to the experience!

Thanks Arne!

Do you want to comment?

Tagged with:
 

Limits on understanding

Why that person had made that gesture?

Why that gesture is loaded with emotion?

Why gesture and emotion are so connected to one another?

When we do questions we feel curiosity like when we feel a gap between what we know and what we don’t know. It is a trip to fill spaces and where imagination has a prominent place so that appears a satisfactory answer.

Curiosity can be defined as a need or desire for knowledge and should go many times through experimentation. Although we can recognize how valid this statement is we check that the fear, that many of the collaborators in organizations, prevents them from experience, that is, to test hypotheses resulting from the curiosity.

The satisfaction of curiosity through acquired knowledge brings pleasure, i.e. curiosity or need for knowledge is a fundamental motivation and goes hand in hand with other basic needs, such as security or food, and perhaps for this reason there are so many people complaining about the internet as a basic need.

If curiosity is not blocked, she ends up turning into intrinsic motivation which is fundamental to the growth of each one of us. Curiosity is our main ally to understand the complexity that involves many challenges facing us today.

In fact it looks like a complex world, when we discuss relations with people in an environment in constant development, but there are instruments capable of decoding this complexity and present it as simplicity to transform confusion in positive emotions.

From the moment we are born we bring with us a contradiction (among others) which translates in curiosity vs complexity.

The first, curiosity, has its glory in the early years of life and then will be losing or getting obscured by certain conservatism.

The second, the complexity, is the target of the training that we were subject during our life and for which we have not great understanding unless curiosity obliges us to this.

We have a tendency to self-preservation, to look at us as a complex thing and we do not like anything to consume energy. We are excellent specimens of sedentary and everything that is happening around us will become more complex without our desire (curiosity) to understand these developments or how things relate to each other.

Last year one of my sons needed to do a surgical intervention (as a patient) and during the pre-operational analysis I noticed that he had reactions of aversion to needles, but always with a smile on the lips.

Later, in a conversation already in his house, while accompanied on recovery, he told me the reason for this aversion (reaction before the implementation of needle, which is, reacting to the possible pain).

I could have dropped a smile or a laugh and say bla, bla, bla …, but in fact I was curious.

Why is it that created a defensive response to a simple thing?

The last time he had been in a similar situation was many years ago and he faced an antibiotic treatment that was painful.

The curiosity that he felt as a child was not matched by confusion generated by the complexity of all that surrounded him and the result was resistance.

Everything that was surrounded him in doctor’s office made no sense!

Why a doctor (he asks today), who studies so many years, participates in many congresses, has an office in a townhouse, a sports car with high engine capacity, collects so much money for each treatment, made me suffer that way and for something so simple?

Curiosity leads us to the discovery of both problems and solutions!

What do you think of this?

 

 

Tagged with:
 

Perceive the meaning of experiences

When John Kosic (@ bikespoke) said on twitter that he would like to read what I thought about the integration of Simplicity in Common Sense, I answered that I will accept the challenge, because immediately I thought that, despite the two concepts seem to me very close, something in them was contradictory.

Borrowing one of these from John Maeda:

“Simplicity is about to subtract the obvious and adding the meaningful.

This notion of simplicity is extremely useful for ourselves when we want to build something truly new and with value (importance that it has for us).

If on the one hand the simplicity is a perception that we have of an experience and does not reside in the product or service, on the other hand common sense is composed of a set of beliefs and knowledge acquired in our culture that originates an explanatory vision of the world (things) and are generally accepted without being questioned or proven.

Common sense is important to explain the cognitive processes and the way people use to make judgments, interact with others and realize the medium that surrounds them.

It is the “Psychology of the obvious” and might seem simple, but it is not!

The obvious does not cause astonishment!

We have evolved over the years with learning and our sense of perceiving different situations has also changed over the years, but not everyone has evolved equally.

If we have to read or hear something about the people who live in Asia, Africa, Europe, etc., we will find people who represent different forms of evolution. However it seems to be the “common sense” that there are simple things that are common to all of them, such as a smile, the need for food or a relationship of friendship.

Common sense is deeply rooted in simplicity and simplicity is enough to live. Nevertheless we chose complex forms of life by building up skills or capabilities to each upon the other leaving the most remote and simplest hidden and with this we do not see meaning in our experiences.

Is so, because it is so! Nor do I need to find meaning!

Common sense is diverse and complex, seemingly always so obvious and natural that sometimes we think that this is tacit knowledge.

So if we “subtract the obvious and add the meaningful” we are bringing out simplicity and this may mean that the generally accepted view about the best way to do something between a group of people and in a given situation, acquires different meaning between each of the people.

For example, within an organization, if someone experiences a particular form of participate on a task and seems to work for him and many others, then we are faced with common sense.

But if this experience does not create astonishment in people it is because the action seems obvious. In order to have an emotional experience simplicity has to deliver meaning to each of us.

Now imagine that we use common sense to solve an issue highly technological complex!

We are innovating common sense!

And because innovation means creating something new and with value, we can say that we simplify the complex.

Still within the organizational context we might compare the similarities between common sense and acceptable behavior by people of group in given circumstances. If this is a universal practice, this means that the task can be performed by a person who applies reason to identify a better way to do the same task.

Neither common sense nor simplicity!

When a person uses the rational decision process he can experience it and that is not part of common sense nor is simplicity because this assumes usability (intuitive).

To experiment means no immediate response or solution to a problem and on the contrary, when a person calls for its ability to quickly and easily know or recognize the possibilities of a given situation it is using intuition, here understood as a decision resulting from rapid associations not conscientious and holistic.

Intuition can be seen in this sense as a response to the simplicity that contained the situation.

The problem here is that when people say that something is “intuitive”, they are giving to understand that something makes sense (in a natural way) to any other person, but this may not be true when there are large differences in people’s reference frameworks.

What I think is important, when we innovate a product, a service or a process is that the result, although filled with complexity behind, is translated into simple experiences full of emotions and not a result so obvious that ceases to be innovation.

The meaning of things is not in things, but on the experiences that we live with them!

Do you want to comment?

 

Integrate models

Yesterday I attended a dinner in an event called “Entrepreneurship Journey Diogo Vasconcelos” which ran throughout the weekend.

I was asked to say something about organizational behavior trying to awaken in students some curiosity about the role of people in solving problems within organizations.

We have very curious hours with fun passed in these round tables during dinner. But what struck me yesterday is that when we seek to resolve problems all boils down to people:

What powers, what roles and what form we choose to organize.

Organizations, too small or large, that think of innovation and verify that within its walls there is not ability to responses to the challenges which they are placed, must find a way to discover solutions by combining the relevant items of exterior with the interior.

When we want to solve a problem we are led by our thinking habits and there appears to be nothing better than have other people from various disciplines around us to do so.

But this round table, where all throw ideas and seek to integrate the knowledge of the other will involve an extra effort of understanding the problem and the ways of resolving what causes a role of leadership tending to take place in an atmosphere of tension between analysis and intuition.

Yesterday there was talk about inter-generational relations and the need to understand it and I questioned some of the students about the difficulties that were in that relationship.

It seemed evident that all the work of acceptance of collaborating and sharing would have to be facilitated so that the teams appear naturally motivated. In those days they had mentors (other generations) and from other disciplines that interacted with elements of groups formed there and it was important for me to realize the extent to which the dominators were analytical aspects.

With a common language and removing the dominance of analytical thinking, the whole groups seemed to meet the challenges as opportunities.

Now imagine an organization led by an integrative thinker to motivate and to coordinate all teams trained in the balance of intuitive and analytical thoughts!

Imagine what can be, instead of what should be or is!

What seemed important to me yesterday was awakening the need to not get stuck in the past and seek a balance between what is likely to happen, within the constraints of the law of numbers and the environment, and what we think can be, that is, between the predictable and desirable.

Creativity and motivation jumped to the table and the consciousness of the constructive conflicts emerged! To be an entrepreneur is also acknowledging difficulties!

It’s easy to see that companies that are not in the habit of rewarding what can be, feel in constraints adversity rather than opportunity.

Be constantly innovating the way to innovate, means having a mindset of constantly opening new prospects and new challenges.

This openness both refers to ideas such as prototyping, development or marketing issues that were spoken during the event.

One of the issues we are debating at one of the tables was, how to make the choice of models that eventually are presented and we know that he can determine the way we organize ourselves as a company.

Let us imagine that we have ahead of us, two opposite models and that eventually are useful to resolve the problem at hand.

We must make a decision and choose between the two? Maybe not!

Our ability to face constructively the tension of opposing models, allows us to generate alternative solutions. Then instead of choosing one over the other we generate a new template that contains elements from each of the models available, but at the end the result is better than each of the parties (models).

We all know that speed the information flows and how it can be updated. Make decisions naturally implies moments of high tension, in many cases, but especially for those who want to start a business or looking to bring a new idea to the so desired consumers or users.

Leave things as they are, it is no solution, was the bet of about sixty students who were at that dinner!.

Most often these choices are cryptic and provoke a challenge in the combination of uncertainties, ambiguities, complexity, risk, instability and call the unique aspects of our experience, be it short or long (role of successful entrepreneurs and mentors who joined at the event).

But the biggest challenge is when making decisions; we are faced with the possible consequences. We are not alone and our attitude implies with other individuals, groups or organizations, and so we have to think about how to establish networks of work.

I think the best option is to work the problem as a whole. Give attention to the diversity of factors and understand the complexity of causal relations of connections of things and of people among themselves.

Do you want to comment?

 

The wisdom of others!

Yesterday in Portugal it was a different day, and as happens in other days and in other countries, we talk aboutconstraints (or will it be creativity?) and innovation. However many people speaks with the authority of a Sage.

As I used to say in my teenage years:

“In the ten that were there only nine were sages.”

The wisdom is lost in lack of memory or stubbornness when committing the same mistakes and take unnecessary risks.

Today we are witnessing cycles of elation and dismay with a serenity that has nothing to do with wisdom; instead it represents a certain lack of conscience. The reigns of euphoria correspond literally to strategies provided by analysts who focus on data only for success.

Wisdom considers evolution and contexts to make decisions about the future. Wisdom is not only a sensible judgment of the past, it indicates the “good” way to go in the future.

Wisdom, to an individual or an organization, is something that represents the values irradiated from a connection network of an individual, group or organization. Wisdom is not a set of intentions.

Wisdom is not to study and identify best practices, but recognize the needs of people and build something to their satisfaction. Good practices, even in the proper context, repeated failures. Good ideas leverage innovation and focus on sustainable development.

Wisdom is not a gift, nor confined to some brilliant people. Wisdom is to know how to distinguish the power of the energy generated by emotions, in order to amplify the joys and satisfactions.

Wisdom is not a set of tactics well thought, in the use of an appropriate strategy to achieve an end.

Wisdom is to have time to be wise with unconcern and build something new, useful and with simplicity in use.

Wisdom is to know how to reflect and do endure the high points of what one does. Wisdom is not being able to do a little better than the others.

Wisdom is elegance, simplicity and understanding. Wisdom is not the use of force, to provoke feelings or emotions, to delineate inductors paths or to excuse unthinkable attitudes.

Wisdom is not the concern for maximum profitability and with the possibility of victory over the competition. Wisdom is to involve costs to be equilibrium, without using packing handling strategies.

Wisdom is not to seek examples around us, but give the example.

Wisdom is to be able to maintain a stance respected by the respect that we have for others, looking not be owner of truth to learn anytime and at any time.

Wisdom is not the gathering at the department of research without knowledge sharing and openness to change.

Wisdom is to knowing how to be, without ever forgetting that others are also!

Do you want to comment?

(Source inspiration: Umair Haque)

 

Tagged with:
 

Crises and creativity

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.“-Albert Einstein

The belief that the financial model, developed in today’s world, does not work has propagated and something must be done to solve the problem.

I’m not an expert on the subject but it seems to me that the problems cannot be solved by the same people who created them, under the penalty of becoming in the wonderful path of confirmation bias where all solutions found are hiding the source of the problem.

In a country like Portugal, not much different from other countries, if we listen to people living outside of major urban centers, the crisis seems to have chosen just a few (many). These (many) were trapped in the pitfalls of easy credit, where dreams become reality and the price paid now is fiction. What is required (legal) for payment of debts is a true horror film.

It was a single experience able to prove that we were wrong.

The fiction is a dimension of growing importance in the lives of many people and the reality is no longer an interesting thing and, despite everything, the absurdity is that some people tend to conform to this.

If for some global crisis problems is related to aspects of financial models to other reality refers to climate change.

“It is the stuff of science fiction films and futuristic novels, but the realities of climate change have forced the government in the low-lying Pacific archipelago of Kiribati to consider building “floating islands” for its citizens to live on as rising sea levels threaten to engulf the nation.

Nikumaroro Island, an uninhabited Pacific coral atoll in the Republic of Kiribati, is captured by Space Imaging’s IKONOS satellite

While, on the one hand we seek to resolve the real problems created by the owners (with the help of the actual financial model) by fiction (it does not seem real to create more value through currency speculation than creating value by producing products and services), on the other hand seek to solve problems that seem fiction through real solutions.

Also here who have to find the solution is not who created the problem.

But it is not so simple to know what the reality is and each new fact noted must be integrated into existing facts to make them consistent.

Under an analytical point of view, the truth of a proposition depends on the agreement with large sets of other propositions, preferably all known as true propositions. There is a proper context for the coexistence of these truths.

But the truth may still be the consistency of a set of personal beliefs regarding a subject. In this case, consistency is a way to justify what we believe. Consistency is not far from the truth that almost we can only apply to logical and mathematical systems.

Therefore, so many ways to justify the truth give to fiction, sometimes, the possibility to create beliefs, in developed and complex environments, as happens in the culture of a society which favors consumerism as a way to ensure a status and whose consequence is the development of social conflicts.

Knowledge of these conflicts between people is a result of psychological processes that allow us to make inferences about what is happening inside of other people, what are their intentions, their feelings and thoughts.

But all this information is sent by the society and arrives through processes that are relatively automatic and driven by stimuli, or processes that are more deliberate, controlled, and sensitive to the context in which we are.

And almost always we respond in a reaction to stimuli that are sent to us. We consume in an uncontrolled manner to give satisfaction to a pleasure principle and we ignore the consequences of our behavior.

This may seem too moralistic, but, being true that no amount of experimentation can prove that I am sure, we have the proof that the experience of exaggerated consumerism does not result.

More important than being creative or innovative is being able to create or innovate with sustainability, i.e. with meaning and guaranteed that the consequences of our behavior are beneficial for us and for others.

If we want to make the best people in a world without balance so we must be aware that we are all responsible in building the future.

The environment of constraints is conducive to creativity. Let us be realistic and work to find solutions.

What do you think of this?

 

Tagged with: