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?

So, 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!

In a conversation the other day, I was asked about what’s needed, and what’s missing, in making the L&D revolution come to life.   I’ve previously opined about the changes I think are necessary, but I realized that for folks making the change, there are hurdles. It occurred to me that there are some points of inflection that could make a difference.

As I had previously suggested, it’s idiosyncratic. I haven’t seen a systematic move towards a more enlightened L&D. You see one inspired individual either hired in, or promoted to have the opportunity. And it can be in any industry, anywhere. It’s one person who gets  it. Sadly; as I fervently believe that we should be moving beyond ‘the course’ with some alacrity.

And, I do still believe that there are two necessary and linked steps. The first is for the L&D unit to practice what it preaches. It has to be optimal in operation and continually innovating. And evidence suggests that it’s not doing the former nor the latter. The other is to start measuring impact, not efficiency. Measurement should make clear that the approach isn’t effective, and drive the move.

But it occurs to me that the inspiration isn’t enough. For that inspired individual to succeed, they need support. That, of course, was what the book was about, but that’s not enough. Why? Because it’s complex, and it’s a lot to process  and  manage. Back to my old mantra: “the human brain is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe”!   If that’s the case, thinking that simplistic steps will yield sustained change are potentially naive.

There are several points of inflection. Getting started with a strategic plan is one (how to move from here to there). Another is getting the buy-in of your team (“You want us to do what?”). Working successfully with your first biz partner. Getting buy-in (or forgiveness) from above.

When I look at learning design, innovation facilitation, and culture change I see a complex picture.  And, I think it changes for each organization depending on their context in so many factors. So I’m inclined to worry that balancing all that and sequencing the right next steps while managing ‘up’ about the intent and process, while also transitioning to working out loud…you get the picture. Aligning with how we think, work, and learn is a process with many factors.

That’s why, I admit, I had hoped that folks who bought into the book’s story would also buy into getting some support. I’ve done some, but not as much as I expected. Idiosyncratically. Ok, so I didn’t set up some big think tank with high-powered marketing and a big sales pitch. That’s not my style (I undersell myself; it’s how I was raised ;). And, I do of course note that the rallying cry may still be ahead of its time.

Look, the revolution is still needed, and don’t assume it’s simple. If you’ve bought in, get help, wherever/however. I did point to some resources for moving to remote working, I reckon they’re also helpful here. And, of course, I’m still available to help as I’ve worked with others, whether providing workshops to help your team get on board, coaching you individually, or helping to do an environmental scan and strategic planning. But I hope you are moving in this direction regardless, and just be mindful of the points of inflection.

We live in interesting times. And, of course, that means many things have changed. Some for the worse, some for the better. I thought I’d just overview some of ways I’m adapting to change, so you can keep track and take advantage.

I was scheduled to do a number of things. One that wasn’t on the list was a trip to Brazil in May, also to give a talk (at least). And, of course, Boston, Brazil,  and Belgium have all been postponed. Understandably. And, sadly, my Quinnsights column had to cease. That might seem, then, to take away all opportunities for me to educate, but in the meantime, in addition to my ongoing Litmos blog (at least for now!), other things have surfaced.

For one, I’ll be doing a course for the Allen Academy.   I’ll be talking about mobile learning, a topic I’ve had  some experience with ;). It starts soon, 6 May. I’ll be clear: it’s about ‘thinking’ mobile, which means getting your mind around much much more than ‘courses on a phone’. And it’s about design and strategy, not development. No bit spinning. After all, I’ve quipped about the importance of getting the design right.

Another is the upcoming L&D conference. I’ll be talking “Learning Science 101”, which I think is much needed and also doable. This is a new online event conjured up by some colleagues to meet a need. And, I’m happy to say, there’s a lot to like: thinking really hard about how to take advantage of online for conference-style learning, a great lineup of speakers. This starts June 22, and last 6 weeks, so already you can see it’s different.

Two other non-event things to note. My first two books,  Engaging Learning  and  Designing mLearning, were out of print. Fortunately, when that happens, publishing contracts say the rights can revert to the author if they request it. And…they did!   I’ve taken them with minimal modification (had to remove one case study from the latter; some minor tweaks), and made them available through Kindle. At a greatly reduced price!

And, of course, I’m still working in a variety of ways. Including being available to help you with moving courses or working online. And scheming up more things. I’m tentatively scheduled for another tome, and one was already underway. Somewhat under wraps still, but…

So those are the things I’m doing adapting to change. Not to worry, there’ll be more, in this volatile age. I’m trying to practice what I preach about experimentation, so there’ll likely be other new things percolating. Stay tuned!