Category: Mental Models

Saturday, 11.04pm

Sheffield, U.K.

My only ritual is to just sit down and write, write every day. – Augusten Burroughs

There’s an exercise called the perfect day exercise.

Write down what you would like your perfect day to be, assuming you have no restrictions – you’re wealthy and unattached and have nothing stopping you from doing exactly what you want to do.

Start in the morning, from the moment you get up.

What you do, what you have for breakfast, how you spend your day, with whom, doing what.

Work through the entire day until you get to bedtime.

Then look at what you say you want to do with your life – what you want to achieve.

Say you want to be a writer.

How much of our perfect day is about writing?

If you want to help others.

How much of your day is spend doing outreach or social work or care?

The perfect day exercise tells you what you would do even if you didn’t have to do it.

It’s a glimpse into what you really want to spend time doing.

If you’re not doing the thing that you want to do it’s probably not because you don’t want to.

It’s because there are blocks in the way – systemic ones, structural ones.

If it’s hard to get started, hard to find the time, hard to find the resources you need – then before you can do anything you need to get those blocks out of the way.

Streamline, cut, remove – do everything you can to make it easy to do what you want to do.

It is, as you’ve discovered, the most important thing for you to do.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Friday, 9.56pm

Sheffield, U.K.

There’s a big tendency to gravitate toward a closed and proprietary approach too easily. – Jimmy Wales

Every once in a while I’ll see someone come out with a thing they’ve made.

That’s great.

Then they name the thing and tell us what it is.

And that always makes me wince a little – because it’s a slippery slope from there.

Giving something a name is often a sign that you OWN it.

Once upon a time, when people owned others, one of the ways they enforced their claim was by giving their property new names.

It’s a way of jostling for position, for using sharp elbows and strategic stomping to get a place on the floor.

And it’s a really tempting thing to do.

For example, I’ve lost count of the documents where I’ve seen the words “our proprietary method”.

Very few methods are truly proprietary.

Usually, they’re some half-arsed combination of stuff published in journals a while back that have been borrowed and changed a little to create a new “framework”, or “methodology”.

In the field that I’m interested in – visual thinking – this leads to a particular problem.

You have methods that everyone knows – like brainstorming and mind maps – with the latter in particular associated with Tony Buzan.

There are ones that fewer people have heard about – like cognitive maps or thinking maps – search Novak for the first one and Hyerle for the second.

What I see with methods that are created by practitioners is that they start of with something simple, usually inspired by something that has descended from a research practice.

Writing, after all, is a codified form of drawing, so we trace our methods back a few millenia – or a few hundreds of millenia if you include cave art.

So if you take something simple – like using words and pictures to make sense of a situation – and give it many names what happens next?

The meaning that underpins each name needs to be distinguished from other names – which often leads to complicating the simple thing that made sense in the first place so that it looks different enough.

Practically, it’s like taking an invention and then tacking on a few others things so it looks like something new enough to warrant a patent.

I don’t want to call out specific methods – a paper I’m working on will do this more thoroughly – but I have made a thing and called it something – and I’m hoping my reasoning is different.

In OR, Peter Checkland suggested that what we should do is try and understand situations so that we can figure out what action to take to improve them.

A way to do this is to draw pictures of the situation – represent it diagrammatically to help with the discussion and debate.

He called this thing a rich picture. A picture that helped you get a rich understanding.

Now, I created what I thought were rich pictures but I did a lot more writing and a lot less drawing so what it ended up looking like were notes rather than pictures.

It’s different enough that calling it the same thing confuses the issue, so I’m calling this thing a rich note. So what you’ll do if you do something the way I do it is take rich notes.

See – I named a thing and now I own it.

But here’s the difference – and what I hope will come out in the paper.

The reason why I’m using a new name is that existing names don’t describe what this thing is.

And that’s the only good reason, I think, to create a new name – to be more precise about something that exists and is different to other things.

It comes down to intention.

It’s brilliant that people create things.

It’s less brilliant that people try and create the illusion that they’ve created something so that they can try and sell it to you.

Or when they change the name because they want to claim ownership over it.

And it’s not always easy to tell the difference.

That’s why names matter.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Thursday, 9.02pm

Sheffield, U.K.

The art of teaching is the art of assisting discovery. – Mark Van Doren

I like charity shops – the ones that have books anyway.

In a world where algorithms feed you more and more of what they think you should see going into a charity shop and browsing through the book collection adds a delicious randomness to your life.

The other day I picked up a book called “The secret teacher”.

It is chock full of lessons – and ones that I recognize from years of working in businesses – the “aha” recognition that comes from seeing a familiar pattern.

Take, for example, the pressure we put on ourselves with presentations.

A new teacher will spend a huge amount of time trying to create an engaging and well-designed lesson, full of variety and wit and activities.

More often than not, the session won’t work and the teacher will feel like a failure.

The more experienced teachers know that they can rely on their slides, 18 point OpenSans won’t let them down.

The more complicated something is the more likely it is to fail.

The more complicated something is the less likely it is to be used or adopted or even considered.

I remember a documentary about the leading street food chef in … I think Korea.

She made chicken curry and rice – one dish at her stall – again and again and again.

She said that she had trust in her wok and trust in charcoal – and that was all she needed.

The less you need the harder it is to stop you, and the more likely it is that you can push through and reach those that need what you have to offer.

Here’s something that works when you’re trying to pitch something to someone else.

Try and teach your material to someone.

Not “present” it. Not perform. Just relax, and try to teach someone about this thing you do.

You’ll realize, probably in the first thirty seconds, that you don’t understand it as well as you thought you did.

But in that realization comes a gift – you’re going to learn more this way than you will any other way.

Here’s how I think this can be adapted to an online environment.

Create a simple set of slides – no fancy fonts, the key points, throw away the logos. Get the sentences down.

Use teaching software rather than presentation software to go through your slides.

Something like Openboard.

If you can use the built in tools to annotate and underline and add richness, all the better.

It’s going to take a lot of pressure off your next presentation if you try this.

But you probably won’t.

Not if you’re at a corporate, or any kind of place that tries to standardise or control how you do things.

So maybe this is more interesting if you’re a small independent firm, or a non-profit.

Or just if you want to have fun, and learn more about a particular topic by teaching it to someone else.

See you on YouTube then.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Wednesday, 9.08pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Obstacles don’t have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don’t turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. – Michael Jordan

Today has been an interesting day – technologically speaking.

I’ve been seeing a gradual tightening of system restrictions by the big OS providers as they try and get more control over their users.

Microsoft has been doing this with its cloud suite.

Apple is exerting its control over the app store.

Google is probably doing something. Hopefully not entirely evil.

The problem is that they are closing ranks, worried about the advent of AI and what it means for their businesses and therefore building walls around their systems and the ways in which they interact with each other.

This is sold as cybersecurity and protection but it also starts to limit the freedoms users have.

In particular the freedom to share and learn.

When you have walls around systems then two things happen.

The people inside the walls can’t learn from what’s out there.

And people outside the walls find it harder to interact with those inside.

So, for example, I’m hearing from people who say they’re only allowed to use the approved AI within their organisations – they can’t interact with others.

Good, sensible security?

Or a fog of inertia that dampens a person’s desire to learn and grow and innovate?

Now. Here’s the thing.

Trying to get programs working across platform doesn’t seem worth the effort anymore.

Gnumeric, for example is a great program that doesn’t do Windows builds any more.

It’s so easy to install GNU/Linux these days that you can get access to amazing software for free.

But very few people seem to do this.

In his essay In the beginning was the command line Neal Stevenson likens Mac OS to a luxury car, Windows to a station wagon, and GNU/Linux to a tank.

A tank that’s free, that’s being given away, that needs no fuel – but people keep going for the expensive options because they don’t want to learn how to operate a tank and want the security of having someone else look after it for them.

I’m digressing from my point here slightly.

The point is this.

When something goes wrong, when there’s an obstacle in your way, you can do many things to sort it out.

My way is to go around it.

It is possible to run a service these days powered entirely by a free / libre / open sources (FLOSS) environment.

Code generated by AI will make the availability of systems and platforms even more widespread and accessible.

And as something made by a machine cannot be copyrighted the laws that control who owns what will start to be tested.

I think the big incumbents are seeing this world and getting very worried.

If you cannot compete with the software out there the obvious thing to do is lock up your users using the age old techniques of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

As individuals, that means your restrictions within firms may very well increase.

You’re probably feeling that already – worried about what you say, what you do, what you use.

For some, it may make sense to look at having a backup, being able to carry on with what you like to do when the restrictions get tougher.

It’s going to be different for everyone but the one thing I’d recommend is to take some more interest in your own computing machinery and infrastructure.

Because without a computer can you really do anything these days?

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Tuesday, 7.51pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Sometimes you make the right decision, sometimes you make the decision right. – Phil McGraw

What makes us choose one thing over another? One product or service over another product or service? Are there patterns to our decisions and what might those look like?

Here are some thoughts from a survey article on the subject [1].

As early as 1960 Bauer suggested that what matters is the “perceived risk” of the decision [2].

Much of the work in between the 60s and 90s seems to have focused on logical or quantitative decision approaches.

I’ve recently been catching up on Star Wars.

This is the kind of approach Spock might take – rational, unemotional.

What matters are probabilities and decimal points.

This approach to decision making suggests that one should gather all the facts, have a clear objective and make an optimal choice.

We see this kind of approach in situations from procurement to recruitment, consisting of a two stage process of first short listing and then making a final choice [3].

The difficulty is that it’s not always possible to gather all the information needed to make a decision.

Sometimes it’s an emotional decision, we rely on instinct and connection.

Or we use heuristics – shortcuts and rules of thumb that help us choose between one and the other.

There are two kinds of heuristics at play [4].

Stored heuristics are ones that we pull out when we know quite a bit about the product or service and the choice is pretty trivial.

On Ebay, for example, you probably have enough experience to work out that something that’s too cheap sold by a seller with little history and a dodgy address should be avoided.

Constructive heuristics are used in areas where you have little experience and the choices are hard ones.

This second area is the one that seems to resonate with the field of problem structuring methods (PSMs).

Yesterday’s post, by the way, that talked about trust in decision making echoes McGuire’s concept of the “lazy organism” where humans ask someone they trust for advice [5].

Where we are now is understanding that real world decision making is a little more nuanced than that.

There’s the individual (or group of individuals) involved and their environment.

The way they perceive their environment frames the way in which they think about and eventually make decisions.

We have to understand the impact they have on their situation and the impact their situation has on them to be able to suggest courses of action that they can agree with and approve.

This is not an easy thing to do.

Workshops and facilitation methods try and do this but there’s a difference – facilitators are neutral parties that try to help participants come to a decision while sometimes what’s needed is an engaged participant that can get involved and contribute to the discussion and process of decision making.

Different methods work in different situations and the starting point is to get better at knowing what to use and when.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

References

1. Babutsidze, Z., 2012. How do consumers make choices? A survey of evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(4), pp.752-762.
2. Bauer, R.A. (1960) Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. In: Hancock, R.S., Ed., Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Proceedings of the 43rd. Conference of the American Marketing Association, 389-398.
3. Lussier, D.A. and Olshavsky, R.W., 1979. Task complexity and contingent processing in brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), pp.154-165.
4. Bettman, J.R., 1971. The structure of consumer choice processes. Journal of marketing research, 8(4), pp.465-471.
5. McGuire, W. J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol.3). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969

Monday, 8.49pm

Sheffield, U.K.

To mistrust science and deny the validity of scientific method is to resign your job as a human. You’d better go look for work as a plant or wild animal. – P. J. O’Rourke

Sometimes I feel like all I do is talk around what’s happening to what we do with the introduction of generative AI.

This probably bores some people.

But it’s important to test these new technologies and understand their limitations and applications.

Hypes are nothing new, after all.

In the last twenty years I remember being excited by biological computing, genetic algorithms, cloud computing and a bunch of other fads, before now playing with Gen AI, as the cool kids call it.

And I’m finding that my evolving relationship with it is hitting a few hurdles.

First, there’s an issue with cognitive capacity – how much our brains can take in.

For example, the other day I wanted to modify some code to make it more flexible.

The output from the AI worked perfectly and that was good – because it took something that I knew how to do but which would have taken me ten minutes or so and did it in less than a minute.

Time saved. Great.

Today I was trying to understand a particular statistical approach.

I tried putting the question into the AI and ran the answer but I couldn’t really work out whether it had understood what I had asked and if the answer it was giving was right.

The problem is I didn’t know enough to know if the AI was doing something correctly.

This is probably worth repeating.

In order to have confidence in what the AI tells you, you need to know enough about it already to be able to judge the quality of the information.

What you know matters.

You can’t just put something into the system, take the answer, publish the result and expect it to be correct.

The limitation is your ability to understand what’s going on.

Now, when I don’t understand something I read about it, watch videos, try and find a quick solution.

If still don’t get it it’s time to do what Pirsig writes about in “Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance” and that’s to crank up the scientific method.

To do this you get a notebook – I often prefer a clipboard and paper – and you start writing things down.

You read, take notes, try and understand what you can do.

Which takes me back to another book I read two decades ago – “The Personal Software Process” by Watts Humphrey.

He writes there about the value of printing out code to do a review before running it – you can pick out many bugs when you see it in that different format.

The point is that we are constrained by our ability to comprehend what’s going on.

We need time to appreciate and consider and digest what is presented to us.

If you’re using AI to help you do something for a client, for example, it doesn’t matter if you can do it in five seconds when you previously took 5 days.

The bottleneck is your customer’s ability to understand what you’re presenting to them.

The real shortcut is something different – ask yourself when a client would simply accept the output of an AI generated system when you present it to them.

One word.

Trust.

Not in the AI. Trust in you.

That’s when the client will take your word that the output is good.

Which then makes you the next bottleneck – do you really understand what’s going on?

Or if you have teams working for you that use AI, do you trust them to do what’s needed to understand the output?

I think that in a world where anything can be generated humans will rely more and more on each other – and trust will become vital – even more so than it is now.

Does this make the case for a blockchain? Is that what AI will take us towards? Is AI the problem to which blockchain is finally a solution?

Or is trust something that will become the most human thing to grow?

You only work with people you like, admire and trust.

We’ll see how things work out.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Sunday, 8.10pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Myths give us our sense of personal identity, answering the question, ‘Who am I?’ – Rollo May

I had a few hours to myself today and spent them browsing through the bookshelves at a few charity shops.

There’s something about books that almost spiritual for me. They call to me in a way.

But what can possibly be there in a book that makes me, or anyone else, choose to pick it up?

I think it has something to do with words and connections.

A few weeks ago we were at the Leake Street Arches looking at the amazing art on long stretches of graffiti wall.

Unsurprisingly, a book on graffiti art jumped out at me.

In it I learned that graffiti began as a way that people wrote their names – it’s born out of playing with letters and words.

Some words spark an instant connection.

Over the last week or so I’ve been thinking about the role of professional social media, in particular LinkedIn.

My feed is full of a few specific types of posts.

There are the analyst researchers – a stream of reports, observations and commentary on things that are happening in the areas in which I am professionally interested.

There are the healthy fruits and vegetables of the social media world.

A Like is a way to bookmark these for when I have time to look at them.

Then there are the influencers, carefully crafted posts designed to hook you in and consume content from the creator.

There’s a snacking, high calorie low value feeling to these.

If I didn’t read them, nothing would really change, I suspect.

And then there are the points of view, the advisors and experts that tell you what you should do and why their one way is the best.

Which, as I have grown more experienced, turns out never to be as simple or straightforward as they might have you believe.

For example, take the idea that you have to be focused on a single thing – you need to develop your identity around one or very few core propositions that make it possible for people to decide whether they’re interested in you or not.

The word identity and this particular concern is what made me decide to pick up Chuck Palahniuk’s book “fugitives and refugees”.

He starts with a conversation in which he is told that “everyone has at least three identities”.

Which one of those are you supposed to choose and present to others?

I guess you can choose the one that you think will appeal to the most people, or the one that will appeal to the few people that will spend money on what you have to sell, or the one that you’re truly proud of and would like to be associated with.

Ah, it’s already getting tricky.

I’m a little worried that the professionalisation and speedup of everything is going to make it harder to find the really valuable lessons in life.

If you have to black out a 6 metre by 3 metre strip of wall and choose one word that truly captures the essence of what you’re thinking about or feeling or struggling with right now, then you’re going to take your time to get it right.

A good place to start is perhaps by finding words for this identity we have or want to have.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Saturday, 10.39pm

Sheffield, U.K.

Every human has four endowments – self awareness, conscience, independent will and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom… The power to choose, to respond, to change. – Stephen Covey

We have less choice in many situations than we think.

We live in systems that make it almost impossible to select choices that are not optimal within the framework of the system.

Take the word “system” itself, for example.

For many people, the word system might bring up an image of a computer system, a stereo system – some kind of arrangement of technology.

Others might think of a larger coordinated construction – like a transport system, the energy system or the judicial system.

A few researchers may argue that a system is something that exists in the mind – it’s a construct rather than something real – you can’t point to a system anywhere in the wild. It’s just a mental shortcut that helps us think.

Decisions you can make are therefore constrained by the framework in which you find yourself.

It’s easier to be a vegetarian in some countries than others.

I believe some of my family survived on just eating apples while travelling in Europe once a few decades ago.

At the time, some of the Europeans they met seemed to think that fish was ok to eat on a vegetarian diet.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that it’s hard to go against the prevailing dominant ideology of the place and time in which you find yourself.

It’s easier to go along with what seems to be winning and what looks like it will go on forever.

In 2007 it looked like housing markets were a sure fire bet.

In 2008 they crashed.

By 2022 it looked like interest rates would stay low for the rest of time.

They did not.

The question for us now, as we head in to a tumultuous few years, is looking at the events that look inevitable and asking what we would do in two cases.

What if those events come true?

And what if they don’t?

The answers to the second scenario may be the more important ones.

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Friday, 9.43pm

Sheffield, U.K.

I get ideas about what’s essential when packing my suitcase. – Diane von Furstenberg

We’re watching a travel series and I am always taken aback by just how much people seem to want to carry around with them.

The problem with things is that they load you down.

A few clothes, a book to read, something to write in, money, and you’re good to go for weeks, if not months.

It’s like we knew secrets growing up in a country without all that much.

One of the things you packed (after immodium) was a small bar of washing soap and a brush.

You could always wash your clothes in the sink and hang them up to dry.

That said, in certain places it’s the extra layers that weigh you down.

The coats, and the boots and the waterproofs and all that stuff.

Along with the tent and the neck support and the fancy aluminum water bottle.

I suppose these days having technology is also essential and that takes up space.

Although really it’s probably possible to have everything you need on a USB drive.

I recently learned about offline browsers like Kiwix.

It’s designed to provide offline access to knowledge in places where the internet isn’t that good.

You can download all of Wikipedia – it’s around 60 gigs.

That’s … the size of the £6 MicroSD card I bought recently.

All that in a package around 1cm square.

Talking of Kiwix, it’s also pointed me to resources like Wikiversity, where you can create collaborative open learning materials.

I’m not really making a point about minimalism or choosing what you love or anything like that.

It’s really more about being aware of how much stuff weighs you down.

And these days that stuff is not just physical stuff – it’s emotional, mental and digital.

I’m not sure what the answer is for most people – our brains aren’t equipped to cope with abundance – we hoard things fearing that scarcity is just around the corner.

Except now it isn’t – its a problem of too much too cheap.

It’s hardly surprising that we’re messing up the world.

On that happy note…

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh

Thursday, 9.56pm

Sheffield, U.K

Automation is no longer just a problem for those working in manufacturing. Physical labor was replaced by robots; mental labor is going to be replaced by AI and software. – Andrew Yang

I’ve been using Chat GPT almost every day for around six months now, perhaps longer, and I’m not sure I could go back to working without access to something like that now.

So why is that?

I’ve recently had a paper accepted for publication.

While writing it, I had to learn a number of new techniques and understand how to get and interpret statistical results.

What were the options for doing this in the past?

Well, there are books and tutorials and those are great starting points.

And there are experts, people who can help you.

But the expert I reached out to wanted me to take a course rather than helping me get the job done.

Which is fine – for them – but not really what I needed.

I found that instead I could have a conversation with Chat GPT and work towards learning and understanding what was required.

This is similar to the rubber duck technique.

If you want to test your understanding of something get a yellow rubber duck that you use in the bath and start talking to it – explain what you’re trying to do.

Now imagine if that duck talked back to you.

That’s what Chat GPT does.

You can ask it questions. You can try out its suggestions. You can get its take on the results that come out of the programs you run.

It’s like having a collaborator, a smart research assistant or colleague that’s able to give you a point of view.

That doesn’t mean you can abdicate your responsibility to understand the results or take its generated output as correct.

But it’s something that’s a lot more than nothing – you have a starting point.

For example, I’m stuck on some code right now where the Chat GPT answer isn’t working – the response to an error code is the same as the previous response.

But it also helped me quickly rework some working code to make it more flexible.

It’s helping me write copy faster that I can then edit and rework.

It’s not writing this though, in case you were wondering.

The reality is that technology will always change how we do things.

What is less likely to change is why we do something.

As humans, as living creatures, the natural state of being for us is not work, but play.

Taking the labour out of work makes it more like play.

Is that not a good thing?

Cheers,

Karthik Suresh