Fenomenologie Hermeneutiek Kennissociologie Logisch positivisme Algemeen Popper SciëntismeEen mooi boek en ik ben het erg eens met de fenomenologische betekenisgevende ('sensemaking') benadering die Madsbjerg bepleit en die vastgeroeste werkwijzen zo succesvol weet te doorbreken. Maar het is wat mij betreft tegelijkertijd opvallend dat er geen normatieve oordelen zijn. Niet over de speculatieve financiële praktijken van George Soros. Niet over de autoindustrie van Ford. En zo verder. Iemand die het kapitalisme een goed ding vind, blijkbaar.
Christian MADSBJERG"Today we are so focused on STEM-based knowledge — theories from science, technology, engineering and math, and the abstractions of “big data” — that alternative frameworks for explaining reality have been rendered close to obsolete. This pendulum shift is doing great damage to our businesses, governments, and institutions. As each of these three scenarios illustrates, society devalues our human inferences and judgments at a great cost. Our fixation with STEM erodes our sensitivity to the nonlinear shifts that occur in all human behavior and dulls our natural ability to extract meaning from qualitative information. We stop seeing numbers and models as a representation of the world and we start seeing them as the truth — the only truth. We are in grave danger of completely eroding our sense of the human world in favor of these false abstractions." [mijn nadruk] (8)
"If we want to truly make sense of our challenges, we must return to a process that feels old-fashioned and out of date in today’s anesthetizing world of algorithmic promise. It’s something that has been sorely lacking in all of our organizations and across all aspects of our civic discourse. It’s called critical thinking. And, as a process, it has never felt so revolutionary nor so cutting edge." [mijn nadruk] (10)
"Our standing in the world has fallen so far that we have developed a mantra to excuse ourselves from our inadequacies. “I’m only human,” we shrug to coworkers in the break room or at happy hour drinks. This idiom contains a singular truth about the way our culture conceives of our humanity: to be human is to be full of flaws." [mijn nadruk] (10)
"Humans are notorious for behaving irregularly, frustrating the efforts of algorithms ... "(11)
"Since the 1960s, the number of degrees awarded in the humanities has shrunk by half. Funding for humanities research has declined precipitously. In 2011, it amounted to less than half of a percent of the funds for science and engineering research and development. Within the social sciences, quantitative studies like social network analysis and psychometrics dominate, while qualitative fields like sociology and anthropology are seen as passé."(13)
[Die cijfers voor de USA. Niet gek dan dat zo veel mensen daar niet in staat zijn om te relativeren, context te zien, etc. en dogmatisch worden.]
"The humanities — disciplines that explore culture, such as literature, history, philosophy, art, psychology, and anthropology — no longer meet “society’s needs.” A humanities-based understanding of different people and their worlds is now officially useless. After all, compared to the endless information accessible through big data, what value is there in human-led cultural inquiry? What value is there in actually reading a few great books when algorithms can “read” them all and give us an objective analysis of their content? What value is there in plays, paintings, historical studies, dances, political treatises, and pottery, in cultural knowledge that cannot be stripped of its specificity and context and transformed into vast sluices of information?
I write this book with one urgent message to impart: there most certainly is value." [mijn nadruk] (14)
"Too many of the top cadre of leadership I have met are isolated in their worldview. They have lost touch with the humanity of their customers and their constituents and, as a result, they mistake numerical representations and models for real life." [mijn nadruk] (15)
"Their fixation with hard data often masks stunning deficiencies, and many such lower-level managers will hit a glass ceiling in today’s business world. They are reductionists without the sensitivity to recognize the most exciting and essential patterns. These are managers who did everything “right”: they hacked the system and aced all the tests; they went to the best schools and got all the good grades; they spent their entire education training their minds to reduce the problems and then to solve them. And today, as a result, they simply don’t have the intellectual sophistication required to move into the upper echelons of leadership." [mijn nadruk] (16)
"What we can take away from this data is that most STEM training will get students a good income at the starting gate and a decent career. But powerful earners — the people running the show, breaking through the glass ceilings, and changing the world — tend to have liberal arts degrees.(...) After nearly twenty years of counseling the very top executives and management around the world, I can tell you that the most successful leaders are curious, broadly educated people who can read both a novel and a spreadsheet."(18)
[Dat is verrassend, inderdaad.]
"When we stop thinking, it’s not just our intellects that are at stake. It’s our businesses, our educations, our governments, and our life savings."(20)
"This rigorous cultural engagement is the foundation of the practice I call sensemaking. Academics have used the term sensemaking to describe different concepts over the years, but I use it here, throughout this book, simply to describe an ancient practice of cultural inquiry, a process based on a set of values we are in great danger of forgetting. With sensemaking, we use human intelligence to develop a sensitivity toward meaningful differences—what matters to other people as well as to ourselves." [mijn nadruk] (25)
Concretisering aan de hand van de autofabriek Ford met CEO Mark Fields.
"Most important to remember: if we want to say something meaningful about another culture, we have to let go — just a little bit — of the biases and assumptions that form the scaffolding of our own culture. When we commit to losing a part of ourselves, we gain something profoundly new in exchange. We gain insight. I call the practice of cultivating these types of insights sensemaking.
Sensemaking is a method of practical wisdom grounded in the humanities. We can think of sensemaking as the exact opposite of algorithmic thinking: it is entirely situated in the concrete, while algorithmic thinking exists in a no-man’s-land of information stripped of its specificity. Algorithmic thinking can go wide — processing trillions of terabytes of data per second — but only sensemaking can go deep." [mijn nadruk] (32-33)
"Philosophy can help us understand this better. Although it is often considered esoteric, philosophy is our greatest intellectual tool for analyzing deeply held cultural assumptions."(36)
[En dan met Heidegger aan komen zetten? En "considered by many to be the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century"? Hm. Niet door mij. Er zijn ook vooroordelen die we moeten koesteren. :-)]
"Our reality — everything that we perceive as meaningful — is highly contextual and historical. And most of the time we are incapable of thinking beyond that context."(37)
[Zeker, maar we hebben Heidegger niet nodig voor dat inzicht dat er al veel eerder was dan hij.]
"The concept of “culture — not individuals” serves as an essential corrective to the widely held belief that human behavior is based on individual choices, preferences, and logical structures." [mijn nadruk] (42)
"Taking inspiration from Geertz’s phrase, I like to call sensemaking data “thick data” because it expresses what is meaningful about a culture. Thick data captures not just facts but the context of those facts."(44)
"Just think for a moment about all the stuff you know."(44)
[Prachtige voorbeelden. Het is precies hoe ik de dingen zie en ervaar. Ik zeg dat al tientallen jaren, met zinnen als 'Is het niet ontzettend knap dat mensen de straat kunnen oversteken zonder overreden te worden' over wat mensen in eentiende seconde kunnen waarnemen en interpreteren.]
"We make sense of the world and get around in it using this knowledge. It is what AI researchers continually attempt to copy and inevitably get wrong. This is the knowledge that makes up thick data."(45)
"Where do we go to get more thick data? We must start by studying humanity in the full complexity and beauty of the lived world. This is the basis of a philosophical method we will discover called “phenomenology,” or the study of human experiences. With phenomenology, we are observing human behavior as it exists in social contexts, not in abstract numbers. It’s the difference between watching a pack of lions hunt on the actual savannah and seeing them get fed from a bowl in the zoo." [mijn nadruk] (48)
[Dat is wat fenomenologie geworden is bij sommige auteurs. Schutz, leefwereld-denkers.]
"Abductive reasoning is messy. It is extremely difficult for most of us to remain in this state of doubt for an indeterminate amount of time. But doubt is the only state of being that will open us up to new understanding. This is the real story of creativity."(55)
"We learn to navigate through the rich reality of our world, developing a finely honed perspective on where we are and where we are headed. If algorithmic thinking offers us the illusion of objectivity — or a view from nowhere — then sensemaking allows us determine where we are. And, most important, sensemaking puts us in touch with where we are headed."(59)
"We cannot talk about the urgency of sensemaking without first making a stop to more fully dismantle the assumptions upheld in a Silicon Valley state of mind."(59)
"So what is valued in this state of mind? Let’s critique some of the main assumptions at play in this ideology so we can better understand the way it is changing our notions of an intellectual life. In a “Silicon Valley” state of mind, sensemaking has never been more lacking or more urgently needed." [mijn nadruk] (63)
"There is a lot of talk about “disruption” in Silicon Valley. Successful entrepreneurs upend traditional ways of doing things; they “disrupt” a market, rather than simply selling a product.(...)Disrupting an industry, in Silicon Valley parlance, suggests a clean break between “before” and “after.”"(63-64)
"This way of thinking stands in sharp contrast to the intellectual tradition of the humanities, which does not suggest clean breaks in knowledge, and does not regard past experience as outmoded or outdated. Instead, it focuses on the ways in which dominant powers and attitudes shape contemporary culture, and the possibility of recovery of knowledge and understanding that have been obscured (either intentionally or not) by the passage of time or the distance of space." [mijn nadruk] (64)
"Silicon Valley wants a radical break with accumulated knowledge. Because this “disruption” reflects a widely held belief that innovation requires a fearless willingness to change and a break with the past, is it almost exclusively associated with youth. Silicon Valley celebrates inexperience because it makes it easier to take risks."(65)
"One way this attitude manifests itself is in an obsession with quantification, which for the youth of Silicon Valley is a stand-in for the knowledge of wisdom and experience. Quantification takes many forms, among them the “quantified self” movement, where adherents use devices to track and quantify aspects of their behavior. It also reflects a broad trend in American society toward quantification: in health care in education, in government, in our personal lives. This is now familiar to us through the term big data." [mijn nadruk] (66)
"Big data concerns itself with correlation, not causation. It can establish a statistically significant relationship, but it cannot explain why it is so.(...) Big data offers information without explanations for it."(66)
"Big data wants to remove human bias from the equation, embracing deductive thinking and jettisoning inductive modes of inquiry. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves and you don’t need theory. But, as we discovered in the case of Google Flu Trends, deeper analysis is required for correlations to have implications, and to establish causality. Big data cannot simply shake off its reliance on traditional research methods; its meaning still comes out of its interpretation. Try as Silicon Valley might, big data will never be neutral."(68)
"Big data may tell us something about people, but it can tell us precious little about individual persons. How much truth about a situation can Silicon Valley tell us, for example, if it doesn’t acknowledge that human behavior is always embedded in a context?"(70)
"One popular concept in Silicon Valley is “frictionless” technology. It’s the standard for innovation in the Valley. Technology can be deemed frictionless when it operates smoothly and intuitively, without requiring any human input in the form of thoughts or emotions."(71)
"The dangers of “frictionless technology” lie not in what it can or cannot do for us, but in how it shapes our thinking. Why seek out new information, why learn something different, or push the boundaries of debate or previously accepted ideas, when data can serve up exactly what reflects already-established outlooks and preferences? This is what journalists, commentators, and political analysts have dubbed the “post-truth era.” In a Silicon Valley state of mind, we care less about actively seeking out the truth than we do about engaging in discourse and experiences that make us feel affirmed and acknowledged." [mijn nadruk] (73)
"Sensemaking is a corrective to all of these misguided assumptions of Silicon Valley. Even with the magnificent computational power now at our disposal, there is no alternative to sitting with problems, stewing in them, and struggling through them with the help of careful, patient human observation."(74)
"But more recently, over the last century, philosophers in continental Europe have broken away from this analytical understanding of our realities. The different thinkers who make up the phenomenological tradition were more interested in a contextual understanding of humanity. We are human because of the way we exist within different social contexts. This philosophy argued that it was our ability to understand and care about our shared worlds that actually makes us human, rather than the ability to sit, like Descartes, and “think about” life as though seeing it through a window." [mijn nadruk] (79)
"The phenomenologists did not aim to dismantle the scientific method as a tool for understanding physics or science — rather, they claimed that these methods simply weren’t sufficient for making sense of people."(80)
Het Ford-verhaal en het Pollentier-verhaal maken duidelijk hoe belangrijk context is. Voorbeelden van meesterschap.
"In all of these examples, mastery is characterized by an intuitive flow — an involvement in a world — rather than a self-aware, computational process."(114)
[Een mooi verhaal, dit, en erg geloofwaardig.]
Over Soros speculaties rondom de invoering van de euro.
"George Soros and his team were able to make killer calls not because they relied solely on a back pain but because they artfully synthesized all four types of knowledge [objectieve, subjectieve, gedeelde en zintuiglijke kennis - GdG]. Most important for sensemaking, they did not prioritize any one as more valid than another."(134)
"Economics, as a discipline, is a perfect example of an activity that benefits most from all four types of knowledge — data thick and thin. Why, then, do so many insist that it should reside solely in the realm of objective knowledge?"(139)
"For Dreyfus, and for other philosophers working in the phenomenological tradition, our greatest skills and innovations are not the result of conscious thought. Though this seems obvious when we discuss acquiring a new language, it is actually in radical contradiction to the prevailing norms in many corporations, institutions, and even education systems that explicitly and tacitly assert that our greatest skills are exhibited when we are sitting alone thinking abstract thoughts."(148)
"At this point in our journey, some of you may be impatient to learn the answer to a burning fundamental question: What does sensemaking look like in its everyday application? And, the corollary question: How can I develop a personal sensemaking practice? Where does it all begin?"(158)
Weer allerlei verwijzingen naar de fenomenologie, context, betekenisgeving, etc. met voorbeelden als een pensioenverzekeringsmaatschappij, een supermarktketen. Verderop gaat het over empathie op verschillende niveaus en wat daarbij kan helpen zoals semiotiek, mentale modellen, taalfilosofie, etc.
Over Eliot. Over Ford.
"He only grew more determined to make a car that would open up mobility — and consumption — for all. Ford saw that in this new America, moving up and out would be a fundamental part of life — and the car would be instrumental in this."(206)
"Both men were able to attune to the mood of modernity. One pessimistic and the other fiercely optimistic, Eliot and Ford revealed entirely new and theretofore unimaginable possibilities for their worlds. Their shared genius was in staying open to insights, and it is exemplary of the creativity that is at the heart of the sensemaking process. Let’s take some time to look more carefully at how this occurs. With phenomenology as our guide, we can ask: How do humans actually experience creativity?"(208)
Creativiteit heeft niets te maken met het gewilde 'design thinking' in de huidige cultuur, maar ontstaat op basis van receptieve momenten waarin inzichten, beelden en zo samenkomen:
"Famed psychologist Wolfgang Köhler once described the “three Bs” of creativity: the bus, the bath, and the bed. All three are places where creativity reveals itself, because they are environments where we are typically in a receptive state of being." [mijn nadruk] (210)
"Of course it’s not just IDEO. The tyranny of “willed” creativity that comes from design thinking is all around us and it now forms a prevalent part of the business culture’s conversation around innovation. Robert Sutton, the author of Weird Ideas That Work, tells his readers: “In the creative process, ignorance is bliss.”"(222)
"Recently, I had the opportunity to spend the day with one of these “childlike” creatives: “Martin.” I wish I could say that I had never met a “Martin” before but, unfortunately, in my world they show up in almost any conversation that involves creative thinking. Martins are people who eschew the painstakingly hard work of observing reality for easy buzzwords and empty status plays. Martins prey on fear: when everyone in the room is anxious about their careers, about their industries, and about the general state of “disruptive innovation,” Martins waltz in and play shaman."(223)
[Madsbjerg is hier opvallend negatief. Het zal niet meevallen bedrijfsbesturen duidelijk te maken dat de geschilderde aanpak zo fundamenteel anders is dan de benadering vanuit M's bedrijf ReD Associates zoals in dit boek geschilderd. Daarom is hij zo scherp, denk ik, die IDEO-benadering is uiteindelijk gewoon oppervlakkig naar zijn oordeel en hij wil er niet mee geassocieerd worden.]
"What do creative geniuses like writer George Saunders mean when they say “open”? This receptive state requires remaining unattached to preconceptions, expectations, and biases."(241)
"Needless to say, it is incredibly difficult for us as humans to stay receptive. Our minds long to weave patterns, to create order from chaos, and to return to some sense of certainty. But the longer we can sit productively in this place of “not knowing,” the more we make ourselves available to insight."(242)
"Celestial navigation provides an apt metaphor for leadership in today’s organizations and companies. Instead of simply reacting to one type of data, it is the role of the leader to make sense of all data: to interpret the facts available from multiple sources — technical and human — and to develop a strategy accordingly. In this chapter, I want to introduce you to several sensemakers who have cultivated mastery in this interpretive art. The skills they possess could never be captured in any kind of quantitative evaluation."(260)
"Great philosophers like Martin Heidegger, Albert Borgmann, and Hubert Dreyfus argue that the kind of skill exhibited in the mastery displayed by Heen, Vestager, Voss, and Corison is the navigational skill of finding a perspective. At the heart of this navigation is a phenomenon they call meaningful differences."(299)
"This drive for efficiency in long-term care resembles the trajectory we know so well from the corporate farming system and its reliance on monoculture, or the education system and its drive for metrics, accountability, and standardized testing. This is the culmination of our modern era of management science: a highly optimized system that measures patients by quantitative accounts."(305)
"The best care involves getting to know each patient within a social context and then devising a series of strategies that best suit their individual needs. This personalized caregiving may seem like an elaborate and costly strategy, but, in fact, Randall’s facility has found that it is the most efficient way to deal with Randall and his dementia.(...) And, it goes without saying, personalized caregiving aligns more fully with the vision of the caregivers. There is less burnout and stress and a greater sense of purpose for the staff when they are encouraged to get to know each patient as a person."(310)
"The exciting potential of new technology is not that it makes standardized procedures quicker but that it can help support personalized care."(312)
"When I echo Wendell Berry in asking “What are people for?,” I am not suggesting that we do away with algorithms and machine learning. This is not a nostalgic call to return to the ways of the past, nor is it an attempt to hide away on a technology-free island. When I ask, “What are people for?,” I am not asking an either/or question. Instead, I am reminding us that a culture frozen under a spell of the hard sciences is not much of a culture at all. When we revere technology and its solutions above all else, we stop seeing the agility and nuance that characterize human intelligence at its best. By putting technology above us, we stop synthesizing data from other sources. We miss out on a sustainable efficiency that comes from holistic thinking, not from optimization." [mijn nadruk] (315)
"And yet, the answer to the question is clear: “What are people for?” People are for making and interpreting meaning. And the realm of the humanities is an ideal training ground for such an endeavor. It offers us more than two thousand years of material as our playground."(316)
"Machine learning will never come close to achieving insights into them. This is because they require a perspective, and algorithms simply have no point of view."(316)
"Let us demote technology to a colleague or, better yet, a well-trained assistant or sidekick. When we claim our space as the sole interpreters of culture, we can emancipate ourselves and see technology for what it is: simply one more tool in the arsenal. It can help us to arrive at extraordinary places, but we still need to figure out what to do once we get there."(318)
"What are people for? Algorithms can do many things, but they will never actually give a damn. People are for caring."(321)