Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Archives for 2020

Thinking about reframing

by 2 Comments

I found something interesting, and wanted to share, but…I realize this is supposed to be about my learnings about  learning. So, I’m framing it as thinking about reframing ;). Seriously, it’s about extant models and opportunities to rethink.

So, to begin with, I’ve been somewhat frustrated with the traditional model of capitalism. No, not as a plea for communism or something, but because it doesn’t align with our brains. When I champion that we should align with how we think, work, and learn, that’s true at the individual, team, organizational, and societal levels.

The problem is, capitalism assumes that we’re optimizing buyers. That is, we will search out and buy the best products, so there’ll be consistent pressure for quality, and this drives improvement. A lovely theory. With only one small flaw…

We’re not optimizing buyers. Herb Simon was part winner of a Nobel prize (kinda before he went on to be a leader in the cognitive science field) on the fact that we’re satisficing buyers, not optimizing. That is, we’ll buy ‘good enough’. I’ve used the fish shop story to document this. We know how to make light, crispy, non-greasy fish’n’chips. So, the capitalist model would posit that every shop should have beautiful fish. Er, no. You’re just as (more?) likely to find greasy sodden fish. Because we’re not likely to drive one borough/neighborhood/town over to get perfect when what’s close is ‘good enough’.

You can get backup from behavioral economics or the work of Daniel Kahneman about how we aren’t logical beings. The point being, we don’t behave in rational ways. For instance, we’re vulnerable to marketing that affects our perceptions. And economics is linked to politics about whether all the real costs are included. Thus, the fundamental foundation of capitalism is flawed.

As an aside, it’s also predicated on unlimited growth. That is, we’ll continually advance in our ability to meet needs. Yet we live on a finite planet…and yes, I know that there are also technological advances. It’s just that I reckon there are limits to growth.

A serious problem is that the alternatives are also flawed. Capitalism proposes that it passes back by the creator of the superior end product purchasing the components and that cascades backwards. However, to change it, e.g. to track based upon the value of a person’s contribution to the greater good, we’d need bookkeeping to track it.

What I hit a wall against was working within the assumptions. And yet, maybe there’s another way, that is thinking about reframing the problem. Just as I previously talked about replacing happiness with contentment, maybe we can rethink economics. If we think about it differently, can we come up with a different model.

Something pointed me to doughnut economics. And it’s not a full solution, but it does have some interesting properties. The reason it’s called the doughnut model is that there’s a hole in the center, then the body, and then the external limits. The hole consists of the basic capabilities humans need: clean water, reliable and healthy food, etc. This, to me, is kind of the ‘aligning with us’. Then the outside are the practical limits: finite planet, limits on water, energy, air, etc. Between these two are where humans can (and should) live.

It’s a different way of looking at things. I’m not an economist by any means (I find it aversive ;), but I do like looking at society in ways that might make it better. And this model, as far as I know, doesn’t have a clear path to replace our current economic system (e.g. prices on goods). But it’s way of rethinking what matters that’s somehow closer to how we really exist.

The take-home for learning, of course, is being willing to step back and reframe what we think we know. Different perspectives enable different insights. It’s part of the creative process to diverge before you converge. So here’s hoping we can find ways to be thinking about reframing. What ways do you use to think afresh?

Collective mind losing redux

by Leave a Comment

I reported about a conversation on LinkedIn badly defending learning styles. And, the subsequent post came out. Sad to say, it doesn‘t do anything better, and instead is yet another bad example of reasoning. It‘s a ‘collective mind losing‘ redux!

So it starts out saying that those of us who decry learning styles maintain that they don‘t exist. That‘s not exactly what I said, at any rate. Here‘s what I said (and recited in yesterday‘s post):

Sure, learners differ, no one who’s taught can say otherwise. But, identifying how they differ, reliably? Er, no. And that we should adapt to learning styles? Again, not what research says.

Most frustrating, the arguments goes back to the claim that it‘s about different opinions. That‘s a complete mischaracterization. That‘s just not helpful in having a debate.

And there are claims to have research that says otherwise. But then they don’t materialize. He has opinions. They’re not the same ;).

Then, he goes on to claim that the response won‘t be a literature review, a theory discussion, or written as a journal post. OK, so instead an incoherent screed that tilts between blaming the attackers and then citing anecdotal stories? Um, again, that‘s an odd choice to defend against scientific studies.

There are two data points. One is a learning styles advocate who basically recanted. Yet this seems to be taken as support for learning styles??!? The other is a quote by Coffield et al that misconstrues the overall study. In short, no evidence at all.

Oddly, midway through the post, the article starts saying those of us who expect a good rebuttal won‘t like the argument. So the argument is  now going to start? And again the claim that this is about opinion. Again, opinion is fine about things that are aesthetic choices with no consequences. Here, it‘s about orgs trying to spend money sensibly and assist their employees in a scrutable way. I wouldn‘t want my doctor or plumber using bad science, nor do I want my L&D team doing the same.

Finally, what is cited, are two people (one named, one unnamed but purportedly a learning company exec). Who, apparently, believe learners have preferences. Yet we‘re not claiming otherwise. What is demonstrable is that preferences have essentially no benefit in learning. That point isn’t addressed.

And then there‘s this claim, which is fundamentally wrong: “If you can identify the learner‘s style, you can tailor content to meet that need.” First, you can‘t reliably identify a learner‘s style, there isn‘t a viable instrument. Second, there‘s no benefit to tailoring content to that need. Coffield, et al, and Pashler, et all, and now further studies have reliably, repeatedly, documented this. Check out the Guild’s research report, for instance.

And again a mischaracterization of the opposing viewpoint. It‘s certainly possible that we will, one day, reliably identify learning styles, and even find ways to adapt to it. But right now we don‘t, and claiming to the contrary is equivalent to selling ‘snake oil‘ (see Will Thalheimer‘s brilliant introduction to my myths book). You‘ll waste money and possibly damage learning and learner. Most importantly, we have a viable alternative: design for the learning outcome! There are good reasons to include multiple media, but they have nothing to do with learning style.

The final ‘nail in the coffin‘ against learning styles? Argument by analogy: SATs, gorillas, Einstein, and inventions that were doubted before proven true. With support like this, learning styles shouldn’t be so hard to kill…

What’s important is to see through this sort of argument. On one side, you have claims that it’s about opinions, and there’re several cited to support it. On the other hand, there’re clear pointers to research that’s looked deeply into and across this issue. We  must be better than this!

And if my complaints seem disorganized, that‘s because they follow the ‘flow‘ of the original article. The whole argument is specious!   There‘re mischaracterizations of the alternate argument, a lack of supporting evidence despite claims to the contrary, and sloppy thinking. It‘s on a par with flat earth, anti-vax, and other non-scientific beliefs. For goodness sake, please pay attention to the science, not illogical deniers.

Losing our collective minds?

by 3 Comments

microscopeSo, after that mess on Twitter, I next see on LinkedIn a recognized personage who proceeds to claim that learning styles are legit, and promises a post (see tomorrow’s review). And, the basis for this claim is fundamentally wrong. So I’m beginning to fear that we’re losing our collective minds!   Let me be clear about the claim, the problem, and a healthy approach.

The claim started like this:

I know there is a huge camp of folks who say no one has learning styles and they provide all types of links of others who concur. Then there are folks who say they do exist, and change of a period of time (as you age). And you may have more than one.

I admit I am in the latter group, because I have seen it first-hand as a Director of Training, and when I taught at the HS and University levels.

And, this is a problem, because it misrepresents what’s going on. My response was:

Sure, learners differ, no one who’s taught can say otherwise. But, identifying how they differ, reliably? Er, no. And that we should adapt to learning styles? Again, not what research says. And, to be clear about the ‘huge camp’ (why would that be?), we don’t post links to others who concur, we post links to the science that shows that the instruments to measure styles aren’t psychometrically valid and that the evidence shows no benefit to adapting to learning styles. A waste of time and money.

When called out, the response was similar:

You have perspective, I respectfully disagree.

What this response did was suggest that it’s about opinion. Which is not just irritating, but it’s  dangerously wrong. I’ve argued before about why myths matter. And, here, specifically, learning styles can cause you to waste money, but more importantly it may have people prematurely limit themselves. To their detriment.

But it’s also the refusal to acknowledge that it’s science, not opinion. Saying, basically, that the folks against learning styles support each other is very different, and wrong. We don’t point to each other, we point to the research!

It gets worse. The commentary on the post went sideways. Despite some apt questions about the legitimacy, there were counter opinions. One comment brought in neuro-linguistic programming! (Debunked, by the way.) It’d be funny if it weren’t so scary!

And, then, the followup, I have ‘perspective’. Sorry, but it’s not about your opinion versus mine. That may work for fashion, art, cinema. Not what we do in medicine, hazardous material, construction, flight, and the like. Even traffic! We follow what’s been demonstrated to save lives (or we should). When we get into the absurd situation of saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the weight of scientific evidence, we’re on a slippery slope to losing our collective minds.

Look, you can prefer vanilla to chocolate. You can like pineapple on your pizza. Or even put ketchup on your hotdog. (Quelle horreur!) I can differ. No one’s hurt. But if you yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, or advise consuming disinfectant as a virus cure, or using nuclear waste as a skin lotion, you’re violating what’s known. And it’s wrong, if not outright illegal.

Please, be skeptical. Even of what I say! (The scientific method does have its flaws, but it’s better than everything else.) But please value controlled studies over anecdotes. There are lots of ways we can be misled by the latter. We don’t want to be losing our collective minds, we should be leveraging them. Please help!

ITA Jay Cross Award 2020

by Leave a Comment

The Internet Time Alliance Award, in memory of Jay Cross, is presented to a workplace learning professional who has contributed in positive ways to the field of Informal Learning and is reflective of Jay‘s lifetime of work.
Recipients champion workplace and social learning practices inside their organization and/or on the wider stage. They share their work in public and often challenge conventional wisdom. The Award is given to professionals who continuously welcome challenges at the cutting edge of their expertise and are convincing and effective advocates of a humanistic approach to workplace learning and performance.
We announce the award on 5 July, Jay‘s birthday.
Following his death in November 2015, the partners of the Internet Time Alliance (Jane Hart, Harold Jarche, Charles Jennings, and Clark Quinn) resolved to continue Jay‘s work. Jay Cross was a deep thinker and a man of many talents, never resting on his past accomplishments, and this award is one way to keep pushing our professional fields and industries to find new and better ways to learn and work.
The Internet Time Alliance Jay Cross Memorial Award for 2020 is presented to Andrew Jacobs.
Andrew is determined that learning and development should be an integral part of business activity. He is currently employed in a challenging position inside the UK government. But Andrew continues to blog at ‘Lost & Desperate’ [  https://lostanddesperate.com/  ] In 2013 his blog  was one the 50 most socially-shared learning and development blogs. In spite of his work demands, Andrew continues to share through his blog and on Twitter. He also speaks at industry events and shares what he has learned. In his previous work, Andrew became an expert at improving workplace learning with almost no budget.
Much in the spirit of Jay Cross, Andrew is constantly questioning the status quo. In his own words —
“If LnD help them learn, they won‘t need learning.
 
If they don‘t need learning, LnD aren‘t required.
 
Therefore, to be required, LnD shouldn‘t help them learn.
 
Why do LnD still market a once and done approach to learning?
 
Can‘t sell? Learn this.
 
Can‘t comply? Learn this.
 
Can‘t coach? Learn this.
 
Can‘t manage? Learn this.
 
Can‘t lead? Learn this.”
It is with great pleasure that we present the fifth annual Internet Time Alliance Jay Cross Memorial Award to Andrew Jacobs. Andrew will be presented with the award later this year in the city of London.

An L&D Challenge?

by 1 Comment

A colleague and friend posted about masks, and I weighed in. He suggested that it’s really a learning issue. I’m not sure I agree, but I thought it might be interesting to explore. So here’s an L&D challenge to consider.

First, masks make sense, scientifically. They reduce the chance that someone might contaminate someone else. Given, specifically with COVID-19, that there’s a significant period of airborne contagion before the infected person is symptomatic, wearing a mask is a simple preventative measure.

Now, there are some complicating factors in our current case. My friend suggested mixed messages in the media are a confounding factor. Some leaders, for instance are not wearing them. And, other responsible individuals have provided unclear information about their value.

And, wearing masks has become politicized. Some are seeing not wearing masks as a sign of rebellion or resistance to a perception of government intrusion. For some reason, wearing masks upon request is seen as different than wearing, for instance, foot coverings in food establishments. From a scientific perspective, this is inappropriate.

Now, I recently took Ashley Sinclair’s marketing for L&D course at the Learning & Development Conference (#LDC2020, learningdevelopmentconference.com). In it, she reminds me that we buy on emotion. That is, we make our decisions emotionally, and then justify the choice with logic. So, the choice isn’t necessarily a rational one.

So this creates an L&D challenge, if we want to consider it as a design problem. What can and should we do? If we had the opportunity, how would we do it? What could we do to help make mask wearing more acceptable?

We could try education, with statistics, or horror stories. There’re are statistical arguments about the likelihood of infection of each party if one, the other, or both wear masks. Or we can tell tales about the horrible effects the virus has on the human body.

We could try sarcasm. I’ve been struck with the Queen lyric revisions (“no mask on your face, big disgrace, spreading your germs all over the place”), for instance. But that’s not necessarily going to work (even if it is fun). Sarcasm can be inappropriate in the face of entrenched viewpoints.

Or we can try guilt, about carrying risks to family members or friends. If you get it, even if the effects are mild or unnoticeable, you could still infect someone you’re quaranteaming with. Raising awareness about the potential consequences can change people’s behavior.

Finally, we can appeal to better nature. Like being someone who takes the grocery cart back to the collection area, or using your turn signals, it’s just polite. It’s considerate of others, and that’s what makes a society work.

By the way, I wear a mask to the store (it’s required where I live, to be fair). I also wear a (microfiber) bandanna when I walk around the neighborhood that I pull up whenever I’m passing someone, even though we’re almost always more than 6 feet apart. I don’t do it for me, I do it for others. Because while I’m not high-risk, I could get infected and not know it for a few days, and I’d hate to be responsible for someone else getting it from me. Not that I’m keen to find out how I’d react to the virus, either.

So, how do we do it? How do we get people to stop viewing it as an imposition, but as a social obligation that benefits everyone? This is what I mean by an L&D challenge: this is the type of thing we should be able to solve. Now, I know it’s not in our control, so this is a thought exercise, but one that’s not easy. And that’s what we also face in our real situations. So, what would you do?

(Oh, and wear a mask when you’re out in public, please. You don’t know who you might be helping.)

 

Myths, publishers, and confusion

by 5 Comments

Myths book coverOn twitter the other day, I was asked how I could on one hand rail against myths, and on the other work with orgs who either sell or promote DiSC and MBTI. The problem, it appears, was a perception that I’m deeply involved with orgs that perpetuate the problem. I thought I’d try to clarify all this, and make sense of myths, publishers and confusion.

The dialog started as a reaction to an article I pointed to on twitter. This article made what I thought was a pretty good case against tools like MBTI and DiSC. And that matters. The arguments raised in the article were legitimate, and even didn’t go far enough. For instance, MBTI is based on Jungian archetypes, which Jung just made up!   So, one question raised is why ask practitioners to change, why aren’t we challenging the businesses?

For one response, I don’t call out the practitioners. I sympathize!   In the myths book, I deliberately addressed the appeal before pointing out it’s wrong (and, importantly, point to better alternatives). Instead, I rail against the tools. That, to me, is where the problem lies, and implicitly indicts the vendors. Now, the org that now owns DiSC was my first publisher. However, they bought it after I was locked into a contract with them. And when I heard, I complained about the choice to them. But they didn’t consult me on it ;).   And yes, they published my first 3.5 books. I dissociated from them on other reasons, but I’m no longer engaged.

Was there any relationship between DiSC and what I wrote? I was able to complain about learning styles in my fourth book with them. It’s a huge company, with many different divisions. There’s no provision to not say things that are contrary to their business interests. They publish and sell what they can sell. They can publish what’s right, and sell stuff that’s not. That’s their confusion, I reckon, not mine.

I’m now publishing with another org, who had, in the past, had learning styles in their competency model. When I found out, I asked and was told it was not in the latest version of the model. They also do make money selling exhibit space to folks with these tools. Note that the folks I work with may not agree, but also have to work in their part of the org and have little contact with the other entity (that makes much money). Yet, to their credit, they asked me to write the myths book. In fact, after I gave a myths talk to launch the the book, an anonymous audience member complained that they shouldn’t have speakers that disparage vendor products. And, they’ve continued to have me write and speak. Again, I suggest that’s their issue, not mine. I’m not responsible for that relationship between myths, publishers, and confusion.

And, yes, there are voices that cry out  for the tools. For instance a TD article claimed that such tools are popular. (Under the guise of saying they’re effective.) Which is problematic. Asking folks for their assessments of tools they’ve invested in introduces a clear source of bias. We know that people’s judgments of effectiveness may not match reality. So it’s a problem. But not one I’m in a position to change (though I quietly try).   It does muddy the water. Which, to me, speaks even more to talk about how to review science and what science already says.

I try to be a consistent voice for science in our practice. My publisher gave me a forum to speak that to an audience that needs to hear the message. There are others who echo that voice (see Mythbusters here). I’d welcome having the opportunity to address those who are making the decisions to buy these tools. I don’t have reliable access (I welcome any assistance ;). Instead, now they can give the book to those leaders to bolster the resistance.

So, are my publisher activities part of the business end, or the education end? Do you really concern yourselves with my previous relationship or current publisher? I note that it’s pretty much a hands-off relationship: “if you propose a valuable offering, we’ll publish it.”

I‘m saying “here‘s what Quinnovation has to say” and the orgs are endorsing it. Not the other way around. Is that accurate? Do you see that as a conflict? I’m perfectly willing to be wrong, and if so I welcome ideas how to be more clear about what and how it’s wrong.

I think I’m fighting a good fight, for the right reasons, and pretty much in the right way. But it’s not my perspective that matters. So I ask you, am I off the mark here? Am I helping or hurting the issues in myths, publishers, and confusion?

More Marketing Myths

by 1 Comment

The other day a tweet caught my eye that used a myth to get you to click a link. Worse, clicking the link led to another myth. These are folks I think are generally good, and it seems that their actual offering made sense, but the approach does not. It’s just more marketing myths, drawing upon common misconstruals, and that’s not a good thing. I think it’s worth calling out.

It’s like the claim that we’ve dropped to the ‘attention span of a goldfish’ to argue for shorter ads, learning, etc. That, of course, was a misinterpretation of data, with only a couple of implausibilities. First,  how  do you measure the attention span of a goldfish? More importantly, how would we evolutionarily change our cognitive architecture in the span of a few years? Er, no. Attention’s complex, and the argument is spurious. (Ever disappear into a novel/game/book and surface several hours later wondering where the time went? Yeah, that.)

In this case, they were supporting a proposition that makes sense. Instead of just having a research report, they’re suggesting a summary video. Yep, having a dynamic visual presentation of data is a supportable argument. As Jill Larkin & Herb Simon argued in their Cognitive Science  article,  Why A Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, it’s about mapping conceptual relationships to spatial relationships to allow our strong spatial processing to assist.

What was wrong was that the lead-in in the tweet was saying “65% of the population are visual learners.” Er, no. That’s the learning styles myth. First, there aren’t reliable instruments. Further, people change depending on what’s to be learned, why, where, when, and more.   We learn visually, and auditorily, and kinesthetically, and… Suggesting that we know how many people are a type of learner is basically wrong.

They went on to say “..enhances knowledge delivery by catering to how people want to learn.” There’s research to say that’s not a good basis, either. The relationship between people’s preferences and what’s effective is pretty close to zero.

It gets worse. When I clicked on the link, it took me to this claim: “Studies show that people remember…10% of what they hear, 20% of what they read, 80% of what they see and do”. Nope. That’s the Dale’s Cone myth, and that’s been shown to be made up. You should indeed remember more of what you do, but reading is seeing, and depending on context, hearing might be best, and…This is even worse, conflating seeing and doing. Dale never added numbers, and the numbers just aren’t plausible anyways, being too perfect.

So, really, three myths for the price of two. It’s more marketing myths in service of selling you things. The most important part is that you don’t need to do this! There are perfectly good, comprehensible ways to push this message without relying on myths. Please, be wary, be leery, be a skeptical consumer. Caveat emptor!

Wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…?

by Leave a Comment

The L&D conference, starting today, has a wide variety of things going on. I’m actually impressed, because in addition to the asynchronous and synchronous sessions I knew about, there are a number of other things going on. Including things I’m in. So, do you wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…? Here’s when and how.

In addition to the presenters who have prepared asynchronous learning experiences, and the live presentations by the same and others, there are other things going on. There are panels on, for instance, on diversity & inclusion, state of learning, learning technology, women in learning, as just a few. There are also debates on games, evaluation, to e- or not to e-, at least. Lots of interesting topics. But wait, there’s more!

There are also networking sessions, a quiz show, roundtable breakouts, breakfast/cocktail (depending on timezone) networking, … There are also some interviews with prominent folks, both specifically for the conference and some legacy ones courtesy of Guy Wallace (HPT guru). And there’s either or both of more I don’t know about, and more to come.

A special mention for the CrowdThinking project, in collaboration with IBSTPI. My colleague, Fernando Senior, will be leading an event to understand the current and anticipated requirements for L&D roles. And there’s a survey you’re requested to fill out regardless of whether you’re attending the conference. Please help!

As for me, first, my asynchronous session is on Learning Science 101. I’ve created some short videos that talk about, and illustrate, a number of things our cognitive architecture has to account for. And, hint hint, it presages something hopefully to be announced soon.

My synchronous sessions (two different times; they’re making a serious effort to reach out globally) are 3PM ET (noon PT) Wed July 1, and 11AM ET (8AM PT) on July 8. Here, I’ll be talking about what I think is a huge missed opportunity and addressable (tho’ not simple) element of our learning design. I’ll also be part of the panel on learning science (The State of Learning) 8AM PT July 9 and 11 AM PT July 17. And, a reprise of the great debate on evaluating learning or impact (4PM PT 25 June).

And, importantly, I’ll be holding some office hours where we can truly talk about learning science, meaningfulness, and more! So will the other presenters. (They’re still to be set; I’ll update here when I know!)

Of course, there is a host of other really great speakers. Have a look at this lineup! Also, guests for a variety of things will include people like Charles Jennings & Jos Arets, Paul Kirschner, and many many more. Most of the live sessions have two times, so there’s a good chance you can catch them sometime. And there’s no overlap (so far ;), but things going on every day.

If, by the way, you are thinking about attending the  conference, but have some struggles with cost, get in  touch  with me. I may have a way to help out ;).   I hope to see you there, whether you want to be talking meaningful learning, or for any of the other myriad reasons.

As you can probably infer, I’m interested in this. It’s not surprising, but most online events have mimicked face-to-face events. Webinars, basically. Here there’s more going on. I don’t expect all of it to work (though it all sounds good), but I love that they’re experimenting to find ways to go beyond. We’ll all learn from this initiative. Hope to see you there if you wanna talk meaning, learning science, and more…

 

Getting Wiser

by Leave a Comment

I’ve been interested in wisdom as a stretch goal. That is, if what I (and, ideally, we) do is help people become smarter, could we go further? Could we help people get wiser? Let’s be clear, I am not claiming that I am wise. Rather, thinking about what wisdom is and trying to be wise would be more accurate ;). It’s led me to look at wisdom quietly, as a background task. And, two recent articles provide a little insight about getting wiser.

The University of Chicago established the Center for Practical Wisdom, which I think is a neat idea. And I receive their newsletter. And in this latest edition were two articles which resonated. They tackle different subjects, and they’re not perfect, but there were take-home messages in each.

In the first, they talk about how wisdom can be useful in trying times like these. This quote is worthwhile:

Could the gift of COVID-19 be that we are traumatized enough that we are finally willing to make long-lasting systemic and personal changes in race relations, inequality, and other ways we deal with one another and ourselves?

And there is a list of characteristics of wise people (my abridged list):

  • do not hyper-focus on the negative and all that is wrong
  • are pragmatic and work constructively for positive change
  • are measured
  • are open and receptive
  • are kind

Not a bad list, I reckon. In general. I like a closing line as well: “Evolution is mutuality.” Can we make changes?

The other talks a bit more philosophically about different approaches to life. My key quote here is:

No matter where I went on planet earth, all of the cultures I interacted with revered contentment as one of the highest states to cultivate in life.

That is, except the ‘west’. It’s claimed that we (er, the western world in general) focus on happiness, and there may be an alternative. That alternative is to aim to be ‘content’. In other words, instead of the ‘more’ strategy (acquiring more = happiness), the alternative is the ‘enough’ strategy. What’s enough to be content?

Not all’s perfect. The first recommended step is mindfulness, which is controversial. But the second, about identifying your contingencies (e.g. “when I know I can retire, then I’ll be happy”) seems relevant. Those sorts of goals can be harmful if they’ve got you on a continual treadmill doomed to dissatisfaction. The last step is to accept all emotions, and being safe to have emotions, without being controlled by them, helps.

I’m not anointing these as the end-all wisdom. Nope, they’re just part of the continual fodder that I process on my path to doing better. Yet, I do think we can be better as a society if we recognize that our approaches have alternatives and we consciously consider them. How we bake them into learning I’m still not sure, but for me it’s all part of getting wiser.

On Diversity and Safety

by Leave a Comment

I normally don‘t speak on this blog outside of my focus on learning. That’s for other platforms. However, I can’t help notice; deaths, protests, abuse. And while I wrestle with what to say, I can’t in good conscious say nothing. And there is a connection: diversity and safety.

I tout the evidence that diversity and safety are critical to the best outcomes, and that‘s true beyond the workplace. It‘s true for society as a whole. And yet, it’s been clear that people of color don’t see the same safety that others do and can’t contribute equally. That. Is. Wrong. And the evidence is becoming all the more visible. It’s past time to address this.

On principle, everyone should be entitled to equal rights. Not only was it the premise upon which my home country was founded, it makes sense on philosophical and scientific grounds. So I’m on the side of fixing things. Black Lives Matter.   That’s what we need to address. Systemically. Thoroughly. When there’s an equal playing field, when we value diversity and safety for all, our world will be better for it.

One other thing consistent with my area of expertise is that learning is part of the solution. Here are links to three things I came across and found relevant to the situation at hand:

Emmanuel Acho’s first Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man

Sir Robert Peel’s Principles of Policing

The 8 “can’t wait” research-based policies to reduce deaths