Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Episode 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y18SsPMqWv4&t=1s (1. The…

- - - - Colin: We should have the Knowledge Olympics. Like, nuclear power is still the cleanest, safest power for the plan [note: Lauren despises nuclear power]. The point is, its Olympics, so it's epic and global.
        
        Sam: It's not yet grand enough, in terms of grand impact. Second, when it comes to these practices and initiatives, everyone wants to compete, and this is inherently non-collaborative. The challenge is how disparate and different could you actually connect with others, and how quickly could you scale effectively in a particular direction, problem, team or mission or output or product? Rather than saying "Team A did better because they did 89 points and Team B did 64," why don't we challenge Team A and Team B to connect on sufficient points so that they create Team A/B. That's collective intelligence. I would look at it not just in numbers of people, but how many different points can they connect together (as in products, executable knowledge, idea). Can they take one idea from Team A, another idea from Team B, and find useful ways to combine them, and can they find multiple such connections, and can they create a team structure, a governance structure that is greater/better than either one could have come up with on their own? Because, to me, CI is: "How do you demonstrate that we are better together?" Because we hear this all the time, but we have never proven it. We never agree on what's getting better, because it is multi-dimensional. Is it the speed to solution, or the quality of the solution, or is it the number of bugs, the ecological impact, it's economic return? What are the metric? Without getting explicit about them, that's arguing.
        
        Colin: Chris Cook reminded us that if something is hard to measure, it's really hard to build a strategy around it. The strategy here is the spirit of working together. It can be slow moving. We can foster some ideas in a group like this, but what if we got sponsored? Are we ready for that, to fairly split that up? When you come into the Knowledge Olympics, you would have many different people solving different problems.
- - - - Colin: Values are looking out to the edges from the middle, but values have to be named if they are to be appreciated and to be muted. and possibly muted somewhat. If we can all say we want better well long as you're not in anihilist we're getting
        closer. I think it's more towards the adapter I'm looking. [We want to avoid righteousness.]
        
        Alexar: May I propose a solution for this? There is one key word that we can focus on maximizing, that I think that will sort out everything else naturally: fun. What I have found, the best results in terms of values and coherence, is always when a group has the ability to have fun with each other.
        
        Colin: how do we capture it, focus on it, and fund it?
        
        Alexar: There is something in engineering when you pick initial values, and if you pick them relatively well, then eventually you converge to a set of acceptable answers. So, if you bring together a group of people who are going to work it out, and maximize on the fun you are going to have, as you iterate, the values will be aligned.
        
        Sam: well, fun also sounds like a value [Colin: yeah yeah yeah], so if we assume it is going to be a unifying factor, that's taking away the conversation and assuming one of the solutions already, which is okay, if the group agrees and decides to live with it during a particular sprint.
        
        Amanda: Well, today I was reading about trauma and dissociation, and about holding the space for someone to get the pieces together, and that's when we end up in trauma. The reason why we meet, is not always to have fun. And the reason why we work, and why we have to earn money, has to do with it.
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Phalan: it's a moral dilemma. More and more, with cognitive assistants, imagine if you get a Calendly voice in your head saying, "do I really want to have this conversation with Josh today?" The intent of our voices, the ethics, the spirit, the drive, the power that's guiding our agency...what happens when the lines are blurred where we cease to understand how much the systems that we are immersed in has power over those voices. This is happening right now. The sytems that we are in give a hierarchy to our intent and to how we deal with each other, that governs our hearts and keeps us from realizing our full empathetic potential. It keeps us from understanding each other, and how tech permeates through everything we do. Amanda's value conversation must precipitate everything that we do.
        
        Amanda: If you realize how painful that is, then having a "secular" conversation without the values, without a model, it's just painful. They are not neutral! Startups are not neutral. Double diamond, when it is stripped from the values, it's not neutral, because it's taking other voices out, actually
        
        [Phalan and Amanda send each other signals of deep understanding and union.]
        
        Phalan: Amanda, your voice was the strong one in my head all week
        
        At this point, David jumps into our conversation for the first time.
        
        David: There was a lovely series, a podcast theatre thing, called Life After, from an AI company that started a software called Voice Tree, which was spooky and deep, and what that play was about was the company mined all the social media accounts, created an artificial persona for you. If one of your loved ones died, you could continue a conversation with him or her [Lauren: this was the subject of a Black Mirror episode on Netflix, Season 2 "Be Right Back"].
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Leina: So sorry! You gave me a chance to talk!
        
        Lauren: She was being suspiciously quiet.
        
        David: I have a suggestion for you. With all your background and constant energy, we need to hook up a voice transcription software, that process legal documents, that goes from you talking out to policy straight away.
        
        Josh: your website looks good, just optimize your images.
- - - - During everyone's conversation, we can type in things to the message board, and it downloads the messages that are sent with their time stamp. Can we use that in our discussions to facilitate our own discussions? Can we use that to indicate something? Like where the conversation was great, where it diverged, where we went out of the flow. If you can think for a good use for that, let me know.
        
        David: Mind mapping, embedding video, etc. we can meet afterwards and we can start logging the conversations and co-designing how it works. We should have a conversation about this.
        
        Phalan: with the caveat that what is discussed could be brought to the group as an offering.
        
        David: You always have an open group, and they tend to be frustrating, because they are too big, and too general, so people want to have these nerdy subgroups, and then the main group gets paranoid, rightly, that all the main decisions are being made by the subgroup. This is the governance architecture, and we have to get it right.