1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.
4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness. —
Understand the social network not as your new water cooler, but as your new production line. — IBM CEO Ginni Rometty: Gaining Competitive Advantage in the New Era of Computing « A Smarter Planet Blog (via smarterplanet)
Joi Ito of MIT Media Lab:
Ito: There are nine or so principles to work in a world like this:
1. Resilience instead of strength, which means you want to yield and allow failure and you bounce back instead of trying to resist failure.
2. You pull instead of push. That means you pull the resources from the network as you need them, as opposed to centrally stocking them and controlling them.
3. You want to take risk instead of focusing on safety.
4. You want to focus on the system instead of objects.
5. You want to have good compasses not maps.
6. You want to work on practice instead of theory. Because sometimes you don’t why it works, but what is important is that it is working, not that you have some theory around it.
7. It disobedience instead of compliance. You don’t get a Nobel Prize for doing what you are told. Too much of school is about obedience, we should really be celebrating disobedience.
8. It’s the crowd instead of experts.
9. It’s a focus on learning instead of education.
We’re still working on it, but that is where our thinking is headed.
3 Takeaways from Rand Paul's #StandwithRand #Filibuster About Drone Strikes -
- It shows what one man can do to call attention to a hugely important issue that nonetheless is largley ignored by the mainstream media and the political establishment.
- It shows the power of transpartisan thought and action.
- It ties a direct line between the abuses of power and the growth of the state.
(via MTV and Swipe Telecom launch the Volt in India, a 6-inch smartphone with pre-installed TV player - The Next Web)
(via Logitech’s Easy-Switch Bluetooth Keyboard lets you quickly flip between your iPad, iPhone and Mac - The Next Web)
A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations - introducing Functional Stupidity -
Almost every day I meet people who wonders why their organizations doesn’t work as well as they should when it comes to productivity, quality performance or innovation. Not seldom the lack of creative people is perceived to be the problem. Sometimes it is the lack of knowledge or not having the enough intelligent or talented employees.
But is that analysis really correct?
Maybe it is the other way round? If we think about it, employees have never been as informed and educated as they are today. Neither are they more stupid, at least if we believe in the Flynn effect, which states that IQ is gradually and substantially rising over time.
Furthermore we seems to believe that just because the employees are more X, where X can be e g educated, skilled, knowledgeable talented, creative or maybe intelligent, the organization will also be more X. Or at least a raised X will have some positive effect on the organization.
But what if it was exactly the opposite and the organizational capabilities would benefit from people who where less X?
Mats Alvesson and André Spicer suggests that we at least should have a more nuanced view of how we think knowledge and smartness relates to organizational performance in their recently published a paper by the name “A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations” in Journal of Management Studies.
Functional stupidity is organizationally-supported lack of reﬂexivity, substantive reasoning, and justiﬁcation. It entails a refusal to use intellectual resources outside a narrow and ‘safe’ terrain. It can provide a sense of certainty that allows organizations to function smoothly. This can save the organization and its members from the frictions provoked by doubt and reﬂection. Functional stupidity contributes to maintaining and strengthening organizational order. It can also motivate people, help them to cultivate their careers, and subordinate them to socially acceptable forms of management and leadership. Such positive outcomes can further reinforce functional stupidity. However, functional stupidity can also have negative consequences such as trapping individuals and organizations into problematic patterns of thinking, which engender the conditions for individual and organizational dissonance. These negative outcomes may prompt individual and collective reﬂexivity in a way that can undermine functional stupidity.
For a more easy overview and comment on the issue read article in Financial Times.