Optical illusions like the Necker cube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube are examples of how our brains try make meaning in the face of ambiguous data. It's impossible for us to see both perspectives at the same time.
We spend most of our time attempting to make meaning out of what's going on in the world and ourselves. We make maps of the world in our heads, to help us navigate our way "out there". Rules of thumb, such as the perspective information that lets us judge distance and size, get us through the day without having to learn everything all over again. When new information doesn't fit our map, we discard it or dismiss it as wrong. The Necker cube confuses us once we are aware that there are two perspectives, because it doesn't fit in our present map.
The same illusions beset us when we look at the past and the future. Our memory and our imagination both use our present map of the world to make sense. And inevitably they are wrong.
Yesterday every commentator predicted that "America will never be the same again" - that the future had irrevocably changed because of Obama's election. I remembered hearing the same words about Great Britain and the British people after the death of Princess Diana in 1997. The truth is, Britain and Britons didn't change. After an uncharacteristic period of national hysteria, Britain went back to business as usual.
Unfortunately, once we get to it, the future tends to feel more mundane than we imagined - because humans adapt so well, using those maps of the world. Yesterday's events were momentous. I wonder how long it will take after Barack Obama's inauguration, for us to get used to the idea of a black president of the US, to assimilate it into our same old same old.
Given the weight of expectation on him, it's only a matter of time until Obama gets bracketed as just another politician - because we will fit this into our present map of the world.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Optimistic Futures
In his book "Learned Optimism", Marin Seligman describes how he and Harold Zullov, a graduate student, attempted to predict the outcome of the 1988 Presidential elections. They did this by analysing the stump speeches of, first of all, the nominees. They correctly predicted that Michael Dukakis and George Bush would win their respective party nominations, even though they were both second favourites to Gary Hart and Robert Dole.
Their method was to break down the speech and analyse it for pessimism - the way the candidates explained bad events. Pessimists tend to use permanent and pervasive explanations, with no solutions - signalling hopelessness, whereas an optimist will explain an adverse event as being temporary and specific, and offer answers. This explanatory style affects voters - as people are drawn to the "inspirational" candidate and move away from the depressed-sounding one.
Initally in 1988, they predicted that Dukakis would win , by analysing his acceptance speech, but as the campaign progressed, they realised that the speech wasn't the real Dukakis. When they looked at the televised, head to head debates, Dukakis was slipped back. They predicted a Bush victory by 9.2% - Dukakis was beaten by 8.2% in the end.
I don't know if the same exercise has been carried out during this campaign, but just reflecting on Obama's performance in the televised debates, compared to McCain, and on his much-admired oratorial style, Obama has to be favourite by a bigger margin than the polls are suggesting.
McCain's vision of the future is inevitably associated in voter's minds with the Bush/Republican past. He's 72 - he embodies the past, and even if he does win, with his previous health problems, it would be a victory to see out a full term in office. He struggles to articulate any vision - and instead has focussed on his past record. This was Gordon Brown's mantra as well. Personally it just makes me feel depressed - leadership has to be about the present and the future. Sure, you value the past, but the rear view mirror is not a navigational aid.
Obama is selling his version of an alternative and longer term future. His whole campaign is based on change, that the future is not going to be more of the same. It is optimistic, despite the gloomy economic background, and that's what people want now. It turns out that's what they've always wanted.
Their method was to break down the speech and analyse it for pessimism - the way the candidates explained bad events. Pessimists tend to use permanent and pervasive explanations, with no solutions - signalling hopelessness, whereas an optimist will explain an adverse event as being temporary and specific, and offer answers. This explanatory style affects voters - as people are drawn to the "inspirational" candidate and move away from the depressed-sounding one.
Initally in 1988, they predicted that Dukakis would win , by analysing his acceptance speech, but as the campaign progressed, they realised that the speech wasn't the real Dukakis. When they looked at the televised, head to head debates, Dukakis was slipped back. They predicted a Bush victory by 9.2% - Dukakis was beaten by 8.2% in the end.
I don't know if the same exercise has been carried out during this campaign, but just reflecting on Obama's performance in the televised debates, compared to McCain, and on his much-admired oratorial style, Obama has to be favourite by a bigger margin than the polls are suggesting.
McCain's vision of the future is inevitably associated in voter's minds with the Bush/Republican past. He's 72 - he embodies the past, and even if he does win, with his previous health problems, it would be a victory to see out a full term in office. He struggles to articulate any vision - and instead has focussed on his past record. This was Gordon Brown's mantra as well. Personally it just makes me feel depressed - leadership has to be about the present and the future. Sure, you value the past, but the rear view mirror is not a navigational aid.
Obama is selling his version of an alternative and longer term future. His whole campaign is based on change, that the future is not going to be more of the same. It is optimistic, despite the gloomy economic background, and that's what people want now. It turns out that's what they've always wanted.
Monday, 3 November 2008
The Psychology of Time
I've just finished reading "The Time Paradox" by Philip Zimbardo and John Boyd http://www.thetimeparadox.com . I came across Zimbardo's work on Time about a year ago, and I remember being astonished that there was such a thing as the psychology of time. There's a lot of work in the field which hasn't made it into the business world - where the paradigm is still that of time management.
In their book, Zimbardo and Boyd point out that the time management industry is organised by "futures" - the people who like to plan ahead and prefer structure. This explains why time management doesn't work for those who are more present or even past orientated.
That view of time as a purely linear thing, and the 19th century time and motion approach doesn't work for people who work more in the present, and prefer a less structured way of working.
In fact I'm pretty sure that this monochronic approach sows the seed of its own destruction.
What do you do with the time saved by efficiency measures? You fill it up with more activity and more busyness. Which leads to time anxiety and time starvation.....and another time management technique to "solve" the problem, and so on and so on.
I'm reminded of the "storage solutions" offered by IKEA. It's a great way to organise your stuff, but it doesn't really address the core problem of having too much stuff in the first place.
In their book, Zimbardo and Boyd point out that the time management industry is organised by "futures" - the people who like to plan ahead and prefer structure. This explains why time management doesn't work for those who are more present or even past orientated.
That view of time as a purely linear thing, and the 19th century time and motion approach doesn't work for people who work more in the present, and prefer a less structured way of working.
In fact I'm pretty sure that this monochronic approach sows the seed of its own destruction.
What do you do with the time saved by efficiency measures? You fill it up with more activity and more busyness. Which leads to time anxiety and time starvation.....and another time management technique to "solve" the problem, and so on and so on.
I'm reminded of the "storage solutions" offered by IKEA. It's a great way to organise your stuff, but it doesn't really address the core problem of having too much stuff in the first place.
Friday, 31 October 2008
It's About Time
No one seems to have enough time today. We think of it as being the disease of our age, and that there's no cure for it. Unless you count time management courses. But if those courses ever work, it's only for a while, and only for people who are well organised and future-orientated in the first place.
What about the rest of us?
This blog is an antidote to time management.
I've called it Time Intelligence, because you can't manage time, but you can manage yourself - it's like emotional intelligence except with time - that's the idea anyway.
What about the rest of us?
This blog is an antidote to time management.
I've called it Time Intelligence, because you can't manage time, but you can manage yourself - it's like emotional intelligence except with time - that's the idea anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
