Weekly Writing Roundup: March 2024, Week 3
Book Review for The KBFS 2020 Volume 1 | Future Thinking Since the Cambrian Period | "Can Futures-Thinking Help Reduce Polarisation?" | How's Your "Learning Metabolism"?| Commitment Paradox
At a Glance
Book Note & Review for The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies 2020 Volume 1
Future Thinking Since the Cambrian Period
"Can Futures-Thinking Help Reduce Polarisation?"
How's Your "Learning Metabolism"?
Commitment Paradox: Does making a Commitment actually make you LESS likely to do something?
Total Word Count: ~2400; Estimated Reading Time: 10 Minutes
Book Review for The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies 2020 Volume 1
I recently finished reading Volume 1 of The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies 2020 edited by Richard Slaughter and Andy Hines. It's a collection of articles that present abridged and condensed versions of seminal works (books, papers) in futures studies.
In the "Introduction to Volume 1: Foundations," editor Richard Slaughter brilliantly summarizes and highlights each article. Instead of reiterating these summaries, I will write about the ideas that are currently buzzing in my head after reading them. Thus, these book notes are also my attempt to pose questions to the community and provoke interesting discussions and idea exchanges.
Sidenote:
Even if you are too busy to read the entire book, I'd highly recommend that anyone working in the futures & foresight space read the 3-page introduction. It serves both as a great overview of the field and as a pointer to specific articles that might be most relevant to your work. The introduction to each volume alone is more than worth the price of the book.
Get the book at the Association of Professional Futurists - APF website: https://www.apf.org/product-page/description-the-knowledge-base-of-futures-studies-2020
Chapter 1: Yesterday’s Futures over Three Millennia
drawn from Gidley, J. (2017). The Future: A Very Short Introduction.
Having read the full book before, I wrote a complete book summary-style review, which you can find here https://lnkd.in/eDkN-9zJ
Chapter 2: Mapping Fifty Years of Futures Studies Scholarship (1968–2017)
an abridged version of Alex Fergnani, (2019). Mapping futures studies scholarship from 1968 to present: A bibliometric review of thematic clusters, research trends, and research gaps. Futures, 105:104–123.
- The network visualization of bibliometric maps looks amazing and fruitfully identifies many research trends and gaps. Two questions are on my mind:
- Can we automate the process to such an extent that it's done in near-real-time (on a rolling basis), allowing researchers around the world to coordinate their efforts in tackling these gaps?
- More ambitiously, with LLM AI, can we move beyond bibliographic data to analyze the actual arguments and research results of the papers?
Chapter 3: The State of Play in the Futures Field: 10 Years On
updates Slaughter, R. (2009). “The state of play in the Futures field: A metascanning overview.” Foresight, 11(5), 6–20.
- For me, this is the most impactful article in the volume. It critically, even brutally, honestly evaluates the field.
- I quote: "Futurists have, on the whole, rather ineffectually put forward their proposals for innovation and change. Mostly, they have been heard neither by opinion leaders, the powerful, nor ordinary people at all. One must admit, therefore, that the field as a whole has thus far been unable to resolve key aspects of the [global problematique]."
- As a member of the younger generation of futurists, I want to remind myself of the provocation Chris Riedy and Richard Slaughter posed: "What are we doing to promote and publicize good work, to take on civilizational challenges?"
⭐️Chapter 4: "Seeing in Multiple Horizons: Connecting Futures to Vision and Strategy"
a condensed and lightly updated version of Andrew Curry, A., and Anthony Hodgson, Ph.D. (2008). "Seeing in multiple horizons: Connecting futures to strategy," Journal of Futures Studies, 13(1), 1–20.
The Three Horizons Framework caused an "Aha" moment when I first read it. I realized a lot of disagreements about the futures by different experts can be interpreted and make sense by understanding they might be talking about different horizons.
A few ideas I'm pondering in connection with the 3 Horizons Framework: punctuated equilibrium (from evolutionary biology), phase transition (in Physics), and well illustrated in Malcolm Gladwell's bestseller, "The Tipping Point." If change happens in this more "kink" shape (rather than smooth), does this mean the "futures space in which policy and strategy conflicts are played out" will also be compressed? What are the implications and challenges for us professional futurists?
⭐️Chapter 5: "Design for the Abstract Qualities of Futures Studies"
drawn from Maggie Greyson MDes, APF, A.H.M. (2017). "Making the futures present," master’s thesis, OCAD University, https://lnkd.in/eDajBpx3.
Creating "tangible manifestations of abstract ideas" is a skill I need to work on. Maybe because of my fascination with physics and philosophy since my early years, I am often more comfortable thinking and working with abstract ideas than many people. It becomes a problem when I try to communicate effectively with others. I've bookmarked the "Template for applying design prompts to Futures Studies" and will revisit it often.
The challenge is how to create alternative, nuanced manifestations of abstract concepts like AI, Equality, Sustainability, etc.? My question to the community, especially to design futurists, is: what are some tools and techniques you use to avoid the stock-photo traps?
⭐️Chapter 6: Presencing: The Theory U Framework as Foresight Method
by Adam Cowart
A personal comment: I was surprised to see Theory U because, years ago, long before I knew foresight (in 2018, check old post), I discovered Theory U in a MOOC and was very excited about it. Reading this chapter felt like a serendipitous collision of interests from different phases of my life, reappearing like a long-lost old friend.
The Theory U Framework reminds me of the remark made by Slaughter on three types of futures work: pragmatic, progressive, and civilizational. Presencing and the higher level of awareness are arguably necessary for those civilizational works.
My question to fellow facilitators: Do you use the Theory U Framework or its assorted tools in your foresight practice?
⭐️Chapter 7: The Manoa School’s Four Futures
based on Dator, J. (2017). "Manoa’s four generic images of the futures," APF Compass, July, 2-7.
The four archetypes of future images are probably one of the most widely known in FS. The four quadrants of Growth (Business as Usual), Discipline (Constraint), Collapse, and Transform are so familiar, and we often take them for granted.
I think most people have a dominant or default way that feels most comfortable when thinking about the future (for me, the order of natural tendency: Transform > Collapse > Growth > Discipline). It's critical to practice the non-dominant images of the future. As Dator stresses:
"Whenever you think about and plan for the futures, always think about and plan for all four equally seriously and fully. Don’t privilege one over the others.”
The second observation of the Four Futures archetypes is the power of simplification. Even though the specific futures events are combinatorially exponential and unpredictable, the result and impact of many different lines of possible future paths are often similar enough to fit into those four archetypes. This may be a good way to communicate how futurists "use the futures" to create value without claiming to make accurate predictions.
Future Thinking/Anticipation Since the Cambrian Period🤯
Last night at The Royal Institution, I attended a talk titled "The Evolution of Free Will" by Kevin J. Mitchell, Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience.
I'm amazed by the compelling and elegant reframing he offered on the evolution of vision and auditory senses, suggesting that the possibility and drive for anticipating the future—in the broadest sense—started as early as the Cambrian, hundreds of millions of years ago.
Here's the basic argument: In early life, simple worms only had two senses: touch and smell. They could sense their immediate environment (the earth in contact with their bodies), but that was all. In this sense, the worm always lived "in the here and now." However, with the evolution of vision, animals could infer the existence of things "out there," transforming spatial difference into temporal depth. For example, seeing food in a certain direction meant that moving towards it could result in eating; or seeing a predator meant that not moving away could lead to being eaten soon.
It's fascinating to consider how evolution and natural selection coincide with the ability to integrate temporal depth—past, present, and future. From this angle, it's not just survival of the fittest, but the survival of the 'foresightest' (apologies if I just made up this word).
This post doesn't do justice to all the fascinating ideas covered in the talk. I plan to read the book that served as the main source for this talk, 'Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will,' and write a full article. If you're intrigued by these ideas too, please get in touch with me. I'm happy to discuss and potentially co-author the article.
"Can Futures-Thinking Help Reduce Polarisation?"
The Workshop facilitated by Servane Mouazan ICF PCC at The RSA (The royal society for arts, manufactures and commerce) today.
The workshop started with the Thinker-Thinker Partner Pairs, inspired by the Thinking Environment(Time To Think by Nancy Kline). The Thinker thinks out loud while the thinking partner listens with no interruption and full attention.
I find this little role-playing exercise both challenging and rewarding. In normal dialogue, I often feel the pressure to think about what to say next while the other person is talking, and not pay full attention; or, in difficult conversations, I find myself deflecting away and trying to switch topics to avoid conflicts. The setup (thinking environment) creates space for safer and more honest communication. I'll share this tool with a few close friends and see if we could use it in real life for topics that we disagree on and therefore avoid in normal dialogue.
The next part of the workshop used the future thinking tool "100 Ways Anything Could Be Different". Simply put, it's a thought experiment where participants come up with things that are true today, and imagine a future where the opposite is true instead.
In the context of conflicts and polarisation, I was surprised by one insight from the workshop: Often, we think people disagreeing with each other is an inherently bad thing; but in a future where "everyone agrees with each other", I find that even scarier. It's a perfect example of what makes me love the work of futures and foresight: by imagining alternative futures, it confronts us to question our assumptions about the world.
Finally, it was a pleasure to meet fellows working and thinking about futures and foresight: Fabian Wallace-Stephens, Wilson Wong, Dr. Apolline Roger, Nick Collin, tom schuller
How's Your "Learning Metabolism"?🤔
We all know metabolism is essential for bodily function and health, but maybe it's also a useful metaphor for learning?
Without citing a dry textbook definition, Stanford Professor Andrew Huberman, in his podcast Huberman Lab, describes metabolism as the conversion of energy from food and the use of energy in the cells of the body for growth, repair of tissues, and day-to-day maintenance of function.
Applying the analogy, we might say Learning Metabolism is involved in converting information into knowledge, even wisdom; and it also involves the use of knowledge in developing, updating existing knowledge (opinions, beliefs, and worldview, etc.), and maintenance of Mental-Cognitive function.
Here are a few threads that the "Learning Metabolism" metaphor illuminates:
⭐️ Information Diet
Just as poor nutrition (both in deficiency and excess) leads to physical metabolic problems; maybe our "information diet" also plays a large role in influencing the "Learning Metabolism". Is enough thought nutrition provided? Or is it in excess and overwhelming?
⭐️ Consumption ≠ Conversion
Just because one eats enough calories and protein, doesn't mean they will grow muscle. It's obvious, even trivial for the physical body, but as learners, (at least myself) often have a tendency to be too impatient, cramming too much information either through binge reading or watching video courses, but at the detriment of long-term retention, deep understanding, capacity building.
⭐️OODA Loop
Stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act, a decision-making tool originally developed by Colonel John Boyd. The faster one can run through the loop, the more advantage. Maybe this is one way to gauge "Learning Metabolism".
⭐️Unlearning & Belief Updating
Metabolism is key to repairing damage and maintaining function in our physical body; in the complex and fast-changing world, our knowledge, beliefs, and opinions also need to be constantly maintained and updated. What used to work might not work today, what is true today might not be so tomorrow. Only by consistently thinking our knowledge, identity, even self is in a metabolic process, can we be vigilant and rational.
⭐️Mental Resilience
Emotional shock and stress events. Maybe from a psychological lens, "Learning Metabolism" also means how fast you can learn and adapt to the new reality and remain resilient? For example, in the case of the five stages of grief– denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, how fast you can metabolize the traumatic events and get back on your feet?
⭐️Final Point
This post explores the metaphor of "Learning Metabolism", but I just found out, our brain actually consumes 75% of metabolic energy. So the connection is not only metaphorical, but in the physical sense.
🙌Acknowledgment: Deep gratitude for Richard Hames for the inspiration of this post; also thank Andrew Huberman for his podcast on the physiological process of metabolism. https://lnkd.in/eqFdtaKv
Commitment Paradox: Does making a Commitment actually make you LESS likely to do something?
Is It Just Me, or Do You Also Experience It? A Poll and a Working Hypothesis👇
Conventional wisdom on productivity suggests that commitment and explicit goals makes people more motivated and likely to stick with the things they want to do. However, I notice the opposite is often true for myself: as soon as I commit to doing something (that I actually want to do), my motivation plummets, resistance swells, and I procrastinate until the deadline.
My current hypothesis: External Commitment "Crowds Out" Intrinsic Motivation. As soon as I make the commitment, subconsciously, it changes from "something I'm willing and excited to do" to "something I have to do and get over with."
Contrarily, for activities and habits that I have maintained for years, such as reading books and daily journaling, I never set any goal or commitment; I just naturally do them day in and day out.
Is it just my quirk, or is this something more common? Fill out the poll or share your experience in the comments.