The Pig’s Arms Welcomes Lehan Ramsay

The soft shock

 

…there’s nothing that’s perfect,

we can’t expect everything to be perfect…

 

Introducing…

 

Andrius Kulikauskus

Bala Pillai

Clay Shirkey

Art Harbour

What is the problem?

There is a sense of crisis.

We do not know how to help,

to make positive change.

We feel powerless.

We are insulated from caring.

What is the reason (history/background) for/to this problem?

Prior to the internet,

the last technology that had any real effect

on the way people sat down and talked together

was the table.

Process has lost its importance,

it has become merely the preview to production.

In our work we find ourselves merely following instructions

toward an already decided hypothesis.

We have absorbed many ideas from the internet.

We have changed our way of relating and being.

This has begun to change our way of thinking.

This in turn is changing our way of doing.

We need to reconsider what we mean by

a group mind,

an individual mind,

a “normal” mind.

The “group-mind” has limited ability to

Make decisions.

Grant permission.

Advance outside endeavors.

A group is a fiction created and supported by a set of individuals.

Recognizing the reality of a group

is ultimately a matter of personal choice.

The group is a social interface.

It is easy to lose the sense of that.

A group can be dismissed.

If we step out of it, we realize that it is a group of individuals

who are also lost but are not aware of it.

The group is most responsive to small talk;

flirting, gossip, news of the day, flame wars.

Small talk is important, but we should be able to say more.

Groups defeat action and purpose by:

1. sex talk, scandal, pairing-off,

2. identifying and vilifying external enemies

3. nominating and worshiping an icon or set of tenets.

Group norms need to be connected to individual morality.

Groups often implode through internal crisis.

Groups always need something new to keep their meaning.

They easily collapse into fixation, stagnation, inactivity.

There is pressure to be content, otherwise you must leave.

One loses the ability to have a balanced mind.

The “mind” has become the group’s mind.

But the “group mind” is without structure, and therefore without will.

Individuals develop patterns of Inactivity.

If there is purpose,

then there is anxiety about failing that purpose.

If there is an external enemy,

then you do not have to take a stand.

If you devote yourself to the group,

then you do not have to take any individual action.

If you have a belief that is beyond criticism,

you do not have to reflect on your beliefs.

You hand over to the group your purpose, and no longer have to deal with it.

You disengage from anxiety, you stand still.

There is a “constitutional” crisis.

There is tension between

the rights and responsibilities of the individual

and the rights and responsibilities of the group.

Very young children do not form groups.

They may develop a shared frame (a game)

and then they will direct their attention toward that.

They will focus strongly on that.

But they are all invested in the action,

not in the group.

They have to be instructed to play as a group.

How do we think we can fix it?

The conditions are suited to emergent change.

We need to develop an autonomous but integrated model for action

We need Social Engineers

– a combination of architects and hackers.

Architect

top-down, general-case, theoretical,

grand vision, master plan, unlimited resources,

question-the-problem, start-from-scratch

Hacker

bottom-up, special-case, practical,

piecemeal, nonstandard, unschooled,

unexpected, solve-the-problem, value people’s time,

build-on-what exists (even on what does not officially exist)

Engineer  (architect plus hacker)

Works as both architect and hacker.

Breaks the architect’s norms,

makes use of undocumented functionality.

The challenge is to distinguish between

“laws and morals”, which are structuring and framing,

and “social norms” which are suppressing and limiting.

Challenge, rather than takeover.

Making space for others,

rather than creating personal privilege.

We need individual action.

A framework for shared attention.

Flow from individual to group.

Stepping in and out.

Conceptual meeting places.

Investigate the nature of the problem.

Diagnose the problem.

There are technical problems and social problems.

(and system problems and people problems).

Probably your problem will be all,

but figure out the mix.

Breaking the “group” pattern.

Consider other groups as possible connections to you.

Shake off personal exchanges,

make relationships that are

transparent and structural and open.

Act from your own culture,

not taking up a group dogma.

Instead of a “group” –  a framework for shared attention.

A structure is necessary to keep to a purpose,

and to defend the group from itself.

A facilitator/moderator is necessary,

to take action and impose structure,

to keep the group to its purpose.

Structure helps people to make commitments,

both within the group and beyond.

There is a mix of doing and talking.

Flow from individual to group to other group and back.

Use media to shift relationships.

Address messages to multiple groups and individuals,

making them aware of each other.

Create streams of information.

Embed messages.

Make the definitions between public and private ambiguous.

Create multiple paths into and out of the group.

Hold the group norm up against individual determinations of right and wrong.

The active individual (working as a Social Engineer).

Encourages activity

(is willing to break social norms to do so).

Comes up with idiosyncratic solutions,

often through creative use of trial and error.

Takes on challenges with an unconventional approach.

Optimally, is invisible

– working with love, honesty, grace and tact.

Is driven by the will to care.

Has a personal sense of mission to influence individuals,

to transform the society around them.

Tries to share this mission,

and “awaken” others to behave in this way.

Tries to work openly so that their examples may stimulate others to care.

Are entrepreneurs,

not of making money,

but opportunities.

Make maximum use of minimal resources.

Considers “wealth” not in money,

but in relationships.

Offers team-building services and advice to others.

Uses content as a way to engage others,

nurture community,

move energy from one group to another.

Considers ideas to be freeware.

Tries to engage others,

evoking responses that go beyond a particular concern.

Has a goal of getting people to think seriously.

Stepping In and Out

A group is a frame.

The inside and the outside need to be of equal value.

We need to be able to step in and step out of groups.

This contributes life and accountability to the group.

When we are stepped in

– we live our experience, we feel our activity,

it is our personal testimony.

When we are stepped out

– we reflect on the game,

we consider how it looks and feels to others,

how it is progressing, what it is achieving,

how it can be restructured.

When we are only stepped in

– we cannot interact with what is outside the group,

we cannot understand our group in a bigger reality.

When we are only stepped out

– we cannot connect with the group members through our activity.

We can understand how to do this by focusing on two groups

and our interactions and relationships with those groups.

What is our proposed action?

“To stop a child crying,

you don’t tell them to stop crying,

you play some music that they like.”

A framework of shared attention,

Small problem-solving actions

aimed at just improving some things

moving slowly to a better picture of the problem.

Higher levels of problem solving and consultation.

Disseminating support and information by example.

Connecting people.

Relationships

Consider “the group” to be a meeting place.

It should be open and accessible.

Try to make relationships structural and not personal,

in order to gain distance.

Be friendly, but don’t consider it always necessary to make friends.

People are not equal in consciousness;

some are aware, some are not.

In your working relationships,

value them for their effect and efforts.

The group is about action.

The goal is systematic improvement.

Action must be timely if it is to be helpful.

The group needs a leader.

A moderator/mentor is necessary.

“Getting things done” – advocating, supporting,

reaching out, being alive, sensitive, responsive.

seeing connections, being honest and critical.

If you want to perform that role,

you need to be available to people when they need you.

There is a core group,

This group “gardens” the environment

to keep it growing and healthy.

If you join the group,

you need to be committed to doing.

if not, you should join a group who is not.

If people don’t like the leader,

they form their own groups,

and you help them.

The people you are trying to help,

as well as the people observing,

are all a part of the project.

They are not separate to it.

Understand and respect that,

or leave them alone.

When starting an action,

Try to understand the history.

Look at available documentation, ephemera.

Look for themes and patterns.

Look for public vs private dialogue, small vs large themes.

Start very small and move up the tempo.

Media is for joining people up.

Sometimes the “software” ends up determining what people do and talk about.

This needs to be considered.

If the software doesn’t allow the core group to express itself,

invent new ways of doing so.

The way of gaining group consensus must be considered.

To consider that one presence should equal one vote

is to create bias toward the inert.

“The ability to log in” becomes the same

as responsible citizenship.

Anonymity doesn’t work well in a group setting.

“Who said what when” is the minimum requirement

for having a conversation.

Give users a way of remembering each other, and reputations will happen.

A simple and rememberable nickname can do this.

It can be a good idea to connect the new group member

with the person who recommends them.

If the new group member is not responsible,

the recommender must also take responsibility.

People need to be motivated to finish their work.

Having to face someone is important.

It is the emotive deterrence

of facing the repercussions of letting someone down.

Track commitments, individually and within the group.

A sense of people working in parallel.

A communication system for immediate connection.

Others can see the group’s intention and commitment.

There is a sense of transparency.

Everyone can see the working process.

People are achieving their goals openly and voluntarily.

There needs to be barriers to participation.

There must be some cost to join or participate.

Once you become known, make it harder to join.

Protect your individuals from scale.

The activity of the group is shaped by laws, terms of service, norms and expectations.

People inside of the group benefit from each other’s energy.

They consider their actions as plugs and sockets for other actions.

It is important to communicate about what is negotiable for you personally

and what is not.

A constitution needs to contain both formal and informal parts.

The formal part is substantiated in code.

The informal part is the sense of “that’s how we do things around here”.

We need to consider Rules and Regulations carefully.

We must ask ourselves “what is the rationale for the rule?”

What are the underlying conditions that this rule is supposed to better?

What are the conditions here now?

Is there an alternative to this rule that can be shown to be SUPERIOR?

Is there a reason to challenge this rule?

People will still do what they want.

Even though the program you make is yours,

people will use it in their own way.

People consider themselves to have rights through use.

You will have problems if you try to deny that use.

What are our codes (rules and regulations)?

I begin with an understanding of personal and individual responsibility.

My actions may be considered disruptive.

My actions must be genuine.

I will avoid disruptive action solely to gain personal privilege.

I do not falsely justify or encourage the manipulation of people.

I do not undertake action for action’s sake.

I apply myself to understanding rules and regulations.

I distinguish between “rules and regulations“, and “social norms and pressures“.

I obey these rules and regulations wherever possible.

I work around social norms and pressures without disruption wherever possible.

There may be strong resistance and anger.

I need a clear understanding of external pressure.

I need to learn to deal objectively when social norms are used to prevent action.

I have a strong purpose.

But I am prepared to deeply question that purpose.

I take responsibility for my actions.

and accept the consequences.

____________________________________________

Bibliography

Kulikauskus, A., Pillai, B., Dialogues between Andrius Kulikauskus and Bala Pillai,

http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2003-11/msg00134.html

Kulikauskus, A., Writings by Andrius Kulikauskus,

http://journal.hyperdrome.net/issues/issue1/kulikauskas.html

Shirkey, C., A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy.

http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html