Archiv der Kategorie: Meaning design

In this area it is all about meaning design ===> http://www.meaningdesign.com

Thoughts are free

In the dark ages, people talked to each other and thereby exchanged their thoughts. The listeners passed on what they had heard – perhaps with their evaluation of what was said. As more people join forces and specialized in what they did best, content experts also evolved. They build creation myths, cultures, economic systems, and subsequently societies with a common self-image. The increasing availability of books led to different and sometimes contradictory world views. Nowadays, anybody with access to the Internet can exchange ideas with anyone else – as long as they find each other. Who would ever have expected that such increasing availability of content could become a problem?

We are now in the midst of the clash of civilizations that Samuel Huntington described in the nineties. Today, it’s all about who is in control of the truth. As in the boiling frog syndrome, the discussions between different points of view are heating up more and more. For pacification, the competing parties should be aware of the following aspects.

  • We share OUR thoughts
    Our brain predominantly controls our body functions and, quasi by the way, generates our consciousness. Before becoming conscious, the truths are hidden in latency. A Eureka draws our attention and the thoughts become our reality. Does the sea murmurs or do the trees rustle as long as there are no observers? Can the sea murmuring if we do not know the term murmur? Does it rustle if the trees are creaking?
    Already with the choice of our words, we are moving away from the neutral position of the uninvolved observer. Whether we simply mean something or believe that we are familiar with it or entirely convinced that we know, it makes no difference to other people. In all cases, our thought is in the world. This is especially true for abstract concepts, which can only be grasped mentally. The communicated expressions can only be vaguely distinguished into knowledge, belief, or opinion. Nevertheless, we share OUR thinking – also now.
  • The arrogance of the bubbles
    New content is added based on our existing ideas. Without the already latently available new things in our mental models, there are no points of contact and there will not be such a thing as “Oh, I see”. The often criticized filter and information bubbles contribute significantly to the preparation of new insights. The echo chamber effect that evolves by swelling the same data to a confirmatory reverberation creates a resonating space in our mind that, over time, aligns our attention to what is known and that is eventually accepted as true. These bubbles range from conspiracy theories to scientific disciplines. We welcome more easily what is acknowledged, value it more, and suppress what is alien. Eventually, dissenters are defamed to further support their views – as an ignoramus, false believers, and cranks. If demagogues then exploit these mechanisms, we are in the midst of the politics of opportunistic promises. When followers of a particular opinion arrogantly denigrate and exclude those who think differently, then it becomes hard to have a discourse – beware of dogmatists, demagogues, and agitators of all kinds.
  • For a permeability of the bubbles
    To prevent the boundaries of the bubbles from becoming firmed up, we need mutually permeable borders that allow other perspectives. In the past, insights echoed in the closer environment – in the family, at work, in the village, or the region. Mass media and social networks allow like-minded people around the world to connect. Within the bubble, so many confirmations are found that a realization now quickly becomes a global “truth” that reinforces the sentiment of being right.
    So that the conflicts arising from this self-centeredness can be avoided beforehand or subsequently resolved, we need a permeability of the bubble’s boundaries. For this purpose, first and foremost, the findings of others should not be accused as unqualified, superstitious, or unproven statements. Permeability increases through direct exchange of viewpoints across the boundaries of mental models – more neutral, cross-bubble opportunities for discussion than the use of echo amplifiers (e.g., fake news, denigration; scaremongering); more confrontation with contradictions than confirmatory backslapping; more inclusion than exclusion of dissenters. The collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989 is an excellent example that impermeable borders are not viable – openness is an essential prerequisite for the next level of viability.
  • Thinking n.0
    With the dissolution of geographical and temporal distances, when everything is just a click away, we need an appropriate way of dealing with the echo chambers and the simultaneously unmanageable availability of mental models – a Thinking n.0.
    – Different and contradictory worlds of thought are at the same eye level.
    – “Peaceful” discourses based on a straightforward problem/goal definition, separation of person and topic, consideration of message aspects, and a corresponding code of conduct (e.g., conclusive process, no killer phrases, active listening, summarizing, and appreciating statements) are essential.
    – The mindset should be aware of its cognitive biases and other thinking traps.
    – Improved computer and information skills are needed – e.g., appropriate use of available channels (such as email, forums, chats, etc.), data handling adapted to needs (e.g., in formulating, searching, evaluating, processing, and sharing), enhancement of one’s attention through mindfulness training, as well as a deliberately open and respectful exchange of ideas.
    So far, the lack of regulation of the Internet has led to trial and error and the current VUCA world. As a result, we are going down with waving flags in the flood of information. Old and young need instructions in thinking n.0.

Bottom line: It is becoming more and more noticeable that right and wrong can no longer be distinguished. It is because everything is in motion, as Heraclitus put it (Panta rhei – Everything flows). The separation of statements into knowledge, belief, and opinion no longer fit. Knowledge is based on the belief in specific facts, and belief involves knowledge of something, and opinion is difficult to imagine without knowledge and belief. The bubble formation comes mainly from our inability to deal with the amount of data. The permeability of the bubbles is the prerequisite for “peaceful” interaction. To make this possible, we need to learn Thinking n.0, which sees everything imaginable as equal, provides the opportunity for fruitful discourse, makes us aware of our biases, and gives us the skills needed to deal with the info flood. Technical solutions increase the noise by adding even more difficult-to-understand data. The tendency to defame dissenters by calling them unqualified, superstitious, and speculative no longer fits the current situation. All insights arise within the framework of particular thought models and are influenced by political, economic, social, technological, legal, and ecological circumstances. And they only apply to the defined context, which makes it difficult to discuss. We develop further and find solutions as long as we can express and discuss opinions freely. It must be valid: Thoughts are free.

The effect of a boundary

Boundaries circle around areas with natural or man-made barriers such as rivers, mountains, turnpikes, fences, or walls. In addition, abstract borders are found in our minds – between ourselves and others, between disciplines, cultures, and miscellaneous ideas. These limits create identity by differentiating commonalities of one group, e.g., language or worldview, from others. Shared values and mutual connectedness convey trust and security. At the same time, the boundaries delineate responsibilities. Within the edged area, tasks, authorities, and responsibilities are clearly described. Eventually, the edges, or rather the assumed delimitations, lie in the eye of the beholder. Everyone set their sphere of influence. To have a consensual boundary, all involved must reveal their understanding and set a common framework.

Whether a boundary is viewed from the in- or outside and is known or accepted, or agreed, it affects in various ways. An area is delimited, enclosed, and ostracized by impassable, uni- and bidirectionally permeable edges.

  • Delimiting
    Nature separates with the shore the land from the sea, with the river the banks on this side from the other side, and with the mountain one valley from the other. Once humans draw the boundaries, they need a comprehensive description to be interpreted equally by everyone. Sciences are differentiated from one another by diverse jargon. Different intentions, activities, and outcomes distinguish fields of work. The more arbitrary boundaries are drawn, the vaguer interpretations of what does or does not belong to a field are. The distinct area creates clarity.
  • Enclosing
    Setting boundaries establish areas that belong together. Everything and everyone within the area is held together by what they have in common. Here, people speak a coherent language that implies a shared way of thinking, agreed rules are valid, and the inhabitants feel at home. Thus the scope is given, and everything outside this enclosure is the outside world – without distinguishing into additionally delimited areas. Countries, religions, or cultures set broad frameworks to have a lot of elbow space, which means that these enclosures are not perceived as a restriction.
  • Ostracizing
    As soon as an edge is drawn, one has an enclosed area that simultaneously excludes an outside world. This environment consists predominantly of indistinguishable areas perceived as alien, i.e., not belonging to one. The exclusion of the environment strengthens internal cohesion and protects against foreign influences and dangers. Not only nationalism and racism but also silo thinking and area egoisms in companies use fears and generalizations to ostracize the alien and strengthen one’s own identity.
  • Impassable
    North Sentinel Island is a forbidden island, completely isolated from the outside world. A missionary who entered the island was killed as an unwanted. Impassable borders lead to conflicts and a lack of understanding. If there is no exchange with the environment, myths and fake news arise. Japan and China were shut off for centuries from the rest of the world, which led to stagnation that was eventually resolved under pressure from outside. However, this continues to affect the special treatment of foreigners – when responsible professions in Japan (e.g., leading a nursing team) are still not allowed to be exerted by the third generation of immigrants. Globalization has dissolved economic and cultural boundaries. To ostracize, new barriers are raised – administrative and legal regulations and values and behavioral norms are supposed to protect one’s system by creating new, impassable barriers.
  • Unidirectionally permeable
    To strengthen one’s occupation, there is a strong interest in selling the own deliverables to the outside world – without, however, allowing the goods of the environment into the own market. In this way, one’s economy grows at the expense of others. Additionally, national languages and habits create insurmountable hurdles. For example, Japanese and Chinese managers can use their English skills to obtain information abroad. At the same time, most foreigners have little chance of using Japanese or Chinese sources because it is hard to understand the issues even with a lot of learning efforts. Unilaterally permeable borders inhibit Win-Win agreements.
  • Bidirectionally permeable
    Globalization became possible only after borders became permeable in both directions. The mutual access from and to the inside and the outside does not mean that, in addition, agreements and common rules have to be made, and common rules have to be set up. Through agreements, areas are created that are separated from the remaining environment. Here, as with all other distinctions, the common identity must be made. At present, the pendulum is swinging back to nation-statehood, as the effects have been exploited and the global race for resources and market share is now creating drawbacks for some regions – for instance, when the U.S. strives for cheaply manufactured goods on other continents, leaving its labor force empty-handed.

Bottom line: Boundaries determine the scope of laws and rules, value systems, languages, jurisdictions, spheres of influence, etc. Some barriers result from natural circumstances, such as rivers and mountains. Others are artificially established, such as boundaries of nations, belief and value systems, and corporate functions. They all have in common that they delimit, enclose and ostracize, and be impassable, unidirectionally, or mutually permeable. Above all, the artificial boundaries need clear stipulations of where they are, what belongs to them, and what does not. Just as societies can be divided into individuals, families, districts, municipalities, regions, countries, and continents, boundaries can be found in every imaginable size. In everyday life, it is advantageous to understand and use these operating principles of a boundary.