Thanks @bfchirpy for this little gem. How many of us have engaged in one or another of these activities over the years, without thinking of the long-term damage we were causing to the health of an organization we probably joined voluntarily?
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Just posted over on the Knowledge Games blog about Empathy mapping. Enjoy!
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Reason is a dangerous, two-edged sword. It can be seen as Newtonian thinking in a quantum world; a cause-and-effect approach in a world that's more complex than that. In relation to that concept I'd like to make two points, one about humanity and the other about reason.
First, humanity:
The idea that we are somehow logical, rational or reasonable creatures is a broadly accepted one, yet under close examination it appears completely ridiculous. Yes we are capable of using reason as a tool, but more often than not we ignore what reason tells us and tend to favor other biases, especially cognitive biases. We forget that we are not designed for reason so much as propagation and survival. Take a look at classical game theory, which presupposes that people will act in their own rational self-interest. Turns out that predictions you make based on this assumption go radically wrong. We make decisions based on other factors such as fear, doubt, paranoia, desire, greed, even altruism. Any sales or marketing person can tell you as much from personal experience. The best products don't win: Coke failed the taste test and Microsoft isn't the best operating system. This is not a bad thing -- our non-rational decision-making processes tend to work very well and protect us from harm in a lot of cases. It's just that there are deep blind spots that may actually drive us to extinction, which I think is what concerns many of us.
Now, reason:
Reason is the best tool that we know of for overcoming our blind spots. I use the word tool for a reason here: A tool is something that's designed for a specific purpose and has certain ideas (about its use) built into it. A hammer sees everything as a nail, a saw wants to cut, etc. Reason, and the empirical method, can be seen as a set of tools based on a theory about the world: that everything is, or potentially can be, understood in rational terms. Yes, the current state of the tool is primitive when it comes to understanding complex relationships and ecosystems, but we are making progress. The quantum world, to make an example, was not discovered by mystics, it was discovered by physicists using empirical techniques. Complexity theory is making great strides toward understanding how nonlinear systems and complex interactions work. Brain science is advancing rapidly these days and helping us make similar strides toward understanding the fallibilities of our senses and cognitive functions. So let's not give up on reason.
At the same time let's be sure to understand its limitations. Philosopher of Science Paul Feyerabend advocated a separation of science and state to parallel the separation of church and state. Science, he thought, has enough power, pride and hubris to rival any social structure, religion or philosophy that opposes it. I might not go so far but I do think we need to remember that reason and empiricism are tools, and like any tools, they have their limitations. Reason cannot tell the carpenter what to build or what not to build, or why. Science and technology may influence destiny but they cannot tell us who we are or where we need to go. They cannot shape a vision or offer moral guidance. Reason can't keep a family together or avoid conflict within a community.
This gets to my main thesis here, which is that reason must be understood in context. I happen to like simple rules such as
First do no harm.
Seek to first to understand, then to be understood.
Leave no trace.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and its corrollary: only if they want that!
Etc.
Reason is super-effective but also alien to many people who are following the powerful survival-cues of their biological brains, and one thing that seems to be true over time is that the simple memes like those above appeal to the intuitive common sense of the common mind. To be clear: I'm not arguing against reason but for better marketing of it!
Can we package the idea of a rational world in simple terms? Can we employ the simplicity of Haiku for example?
The great philosophical and religious leaders were able to convey their messages in short simple stories and sayings. Why not reason?
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
I recently got an email from a teacher who wanted to know how she could help her students develop better presentations. I've been meaning to write down my method for awhile now and rather than write one email I thought I'd put it into a blog post.
When I develop presentations I like to use index cards to sort through ideas. Sometimes I use a bottom-up approach, sorting and sifting through myriad ideas until the best ones float to the top. Other times I use a top-down approach, starting with the audience and their interests, and building a structure underneath that. More often it’s a combination of the two approaches – I start top-down, with an audience and what I think will interest them. Then I start to develop ideas, but those ideas lead to other ideas and soon I have too many thoughts, after which I need to do some bottom-up sifting to let the best ideas emerge.
The image above is the sorting exercise I went through to develop a workshop I gave in Toronto in 2006. The approach borrows heavily from the card sorting method used in software design.
TOP-DOWN APPROACH
This is best when you know who you’re presenting to and what they want to know. If you don’t know where to start this is probably the best way to begin.
1. Start by thinking about your target audience and what they are interested in. It helps to imagine a real person that you know that fits the profile.
2. Now, brainstorm a list of questions that you think they might be likely to ask you about the topic in question. Write down one question per index card.
3. Now, try to sort the questions into a sequence that makes sense. Probably this means the most basic questions (such as “What is it?”) at the beginning, and the more action-oriented questions (Such as “how can I apply it?”) toward the end. Now you can look at the questions and see if they form a meaningful sequence that, say, introduces a topic, develops it, and reaches a conclusion. At this point you should have a sequence of cards running from left to right.
4. Now, under each question card, you can start to develop your “answer” cards – slides that will answer the question.
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
This is best when you have a lot of ideas to sort through but don’t know how to weave them together yet. If you know what you want to talk about you might want to start here.
1. Write down as many ideas on a topic as you can – all the elements that might be useful as part of a presentation. Write down one thought or idea per index card. I often like to sketch on the card as well, thinking about how I might illustrate the concept.
2. Sort the cards into piles that represent ideas that “feel like they belong together.”
3. Name each pile and create a “title card” for each group. Each title card now represents a group of related ideas that might form a section of your presentation.
4. Now, try to arrange the title cards into a meaningful sequence – put the cards into a row. This forms the basis of the narrative thread.
5. Under each title card, you can now create a “column” of index cards with the ideas that form the main points for each section.
6. Now, identify gaps in the story, eliminate redundancies and irrelevant information, and go from there.
As I said, usually I work with a hybrid of the two approaches. It’s much like a conversation, where one person’s thoughts influence the next person’s ideas. Moving back and forth between what the audience wants to hear (the “top”) and what I want to say (the “bottom”) helps me develop a synthesis that integrates my most valuable knowledge with what people are really interested in hearing.
I’m very interested in hearing your thoughts on this approach, and I’d love to hear about your experiences using this or similar approaches in your work. So be a mensch and leave a comment!
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
It sounds counterintuitive, but when you bitch about work you are only feeding the problems you talk about.
Bitching about work is like scratching an itch -- it may make you feel better in the short run, but in the long term you are only making it worse.
When you bitch about work you keep your issues and concerns in the dark, as far as your organization is concerned. You also feed negative feelings, divisiveness and cliquishness in your workplace, which makes the office unpleasant and generally brings everybody down.
By raising your issues appropriately, in a public forum, you bring them to light, which allows them to be discussed and addressed. Even if you don't agree with the outcome, at least you have been heard and your opinion is known.
There are two ways to solve a work situation you don't like: Change the situation or find another job. By bitching in private you're not doing anything to change the situation, and in addition you're making the workplace less fun for everybody.
By making your concerns public you have a chance to address them, and even if you don't get what you want, you can make the decision to live with it or move to another job.
The third alternative, staying in a job you hate, is like staying in an abusive relationship. It only reinforces negative behavior all around.
Your relationship with your co-workers is like any other social relationship. It's not likely to ever be perfect, but focusing on the positive will generate more positive feelings and results, while focusing on the negative will only make things worse.
So next time you have the urge to scratch that itch, don't tell yourself it's okay because you're "only venting." Ask yourself if it's worth the damage you'll cause.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
People often ask me how to visualize information. They ask things like “How can I visualize my industry ecosystem?” or “How can I visualize how my product works.” My first instinct is to try and back them up a bit. This is because they are already defining their project in terms of an answer or solution, and before you can deliver an answer you need to know the question. Getting the question right is the most important component in information design, and it’s the most common point where information design goes wrong.
This is because information is always relative. Always. Before you can undertake any kind of visualization exercise, you need to know what question you want to answer, and for whom. A look at the history of information will confirm this point.
Science is a process by which we attempt to compare our perceptions with something we call “reality” but in fact reality is something we can never really know for sure. Like the flickering shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave, reality is something we can only see dimly, because it’s distorted by our perceptions and beliefs. Every observation and fact has a margin of error, which is directly related to the observer’s background, beliefs, culture and limitations. It is written in the Talmud, “We see things not as they are, but as we are.”1
By beginning with an audience and a question you give yourself a focusing device. Like a flashlight, the audience and question will illuminate the information that’s relevant to your goal, while leaving the rest in the dark. Good information design is as much about what you leave out as what you put in.
What to put in: Information that’s relevant to your target audience, and that answers a real question that they have. What to leave out: Everything else. The best rule of thumb is “When in doubt, leave it out.”
So if you want to create a visual in order to explain something, ask yourself the following questions first:
“Who am I explaining it to?”
“What do I want them to do?”
At XPLANE we call this the WHODO, and it’s a required input to any project we undertake. Once you understand the WHO (your audience) you will have a sense of their level of existing knowledge of the subject.
For example if you are explaining scientific or technical information to engineers or scientists you can assume a high level of sophistication and readiness. Based on the cultural expectations in science and engineering fields, you can also assume a high level of skepticism and a need for evidence and proof.
Explaining the same information to a group of executives, or salespeople, would be a completely different exercise. You can expect that they will have a different set of questions and probably will be more focused on practical applications and will get impatient with scientific or technical explanations.
Thus, the same information will need to be presented very differently based on the audience that you are talking to.
Understanding the audience is only part of the equation. The other half of the WHODO is DO. Before you can undertake any explanatory task you need to know what outcome you expect. Describing this as a change in understanding is not enough. Understanding is difficult to observe. People often will say they understand something just to get you out of their hair.
People will also believe that they understand something when they don’t really understand it. Have you ever left a meeting where everyone seemed to be in agreement, yet their later actions made it clear that they didn’t agree after all? It’s common to see nodding heads in a room when people don’t agree – they think they agree but in reality they don’t. This is because when an explanation is sufficiently vague, people are free to believe what they want to believe. Politicians often use this rhetorical principle to great effect. Words like “freedom, justice and fairness” mean different things to different people. Vague explanations are common in business, and they can give the illusion of agreement. But they don’t get results.
Here’s the key: When people understand things differently, they do things differently. What they say is less revelatory than what they do. So if you want to build a rock-solid explanation, focus on what you want people to do. If they understand what you are saying, what changes in behavior would you expect to see?
Once you have defined your WHODO, next you need to anticipate the questions they will ask. This again will depend on your audience and the information they will need to make a decision. Part of this is also cultural. Scientists will want to see scientific evidence. They will want technical explanations and probably a lot of detailed analysis. Busy executives may want different kinds of proof, such as what customers are buying and what competitors are doing. They will also be less generous with their time and expect you to get quickly to the point.
But you don’t have to go in cold. If you understand the mind of your audience, you will be able to generate a list of questions that they are likely to ask.
Once you have defined your WHODO and generated a list of questions, you can start thinking about how to visualize the information. Will they need a broad overview or detailed charts and specifications? Will they need to see the value to the customer, or the technical operational details?
In the fields of information science and knowledge management there is a model known as the Data Information Knowledge Wisdom Hierarchy, or DIKW for short. This has become a standard for defining the terms and how they relate to each other.2 Here’s how defines the hierarchy:
Data has no particular significance beyond representation. It consists of symbols that stand for objects, events or their properties. Data is a collection of facts3 – also called “know-nothing”4 to reinforce the point that data, by itself is dumb; it has no meaning.
Information is data that has been organized so that it is useful, usually because of relational connections – also called “know-what.” Information answers questions like who, what, where, when and how many.
Knowledge is information that has been integrated into the mind, memory and body, such that it can be applied to doing and making things, also called “know-how.” Knowledge is usually acquired through experience, or through stories about other people’s experiences.
Wisdom is the ability to perceive value, make judgments, and evaluate long-term consequences. Russell Ackoff describes the difference between knowledge and wisdom as the difference between doing things right and doing the right thing. Wisdom requires values, and values are perhaps the most relative thing of all.
So I propose the beginnings of a theory of information relativity:
1. All information is relative, and it’s always relative: relative to the observer and the observer’s point of view; relative to the culture and its values; relative to the situation; relative to what has come before, and to what will come next.
2. The value of information is always relative because it is directly related to it’s usefulness, which depends on the user, the context and the situation.
3. Information design must therefore be driven by the context within which it will be experienced. Information design must serve the needs of real human beings doing real things. Information wants to be used.
At its heart, information design is about change. It’s about increasing the amount of useful information in the world. Good information design should result in changes to understanding – increases in knowledge and wisdom – which can be directly measured by observable changes in human behavior.
Notes:
1. Also attributed to John Milton, H.M. Tomlinson, Anais Nin and others.
2. Harlan Cleveland first wrote about the DIKW hierarchy in a December, 1982 article “Information as Resource” in The Futurist, citing inspiration from the following lines written by T.S. Eliot:
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
~T.S. Eliot, The Rock, 1934
3. Even the things we think of as facts are relative to the observer and a particular point of view. The problem of facts is as old as science itself and is still unresolved. See “Free the Facts” by Dave Gray, 2009.
4. Milan Zeleny, “Management Support Systems: Toward Integrated Knowledge Management,” Human Systems Management 7, no 1, 1987.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Yuri Engelhardt's notes, taken when he was working on The Language of Graphics. Click here for a closer look.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Marks and Meaning is designed to encourage readers to interact with the book in various ways, and I have been thrilled to see the various ways people have chosen to do that. Ed Vielmetti has peppered his copy with sticky notes. The image above is from his copy of version zero.
For more images like this check out the Marks and Meaning photo pool.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
I'm very excited to announce that three of my favorite visual thinkers -- Sunni Brown, Mike Rohde and Austin Kleon -- will be delivering a workshop on visual note-taking on Tuesday, May 12.
The image above are some visual notes that Austin Kleon took during one of the conference calls as we planned the workshop. This is a chance to learn from some people who are truly masters at what they do. Your notes and whiteboard scrawls will never be the same!
More about the workshop:
Ever since Leonardo put pen to paper, visual note-taking has been a route to improve the quality of your thinking, make information more memorable, and make your ideas easier to share with others. Read more.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Some of you may have noticed that I have been knocking on a lot of doors lately, asking people to participate in the future of VizThink in one way or another.
One of the questions I have heard pretty frequently is "What are Vizthink's guiding principles?" and "What is the vision/mission for VizThink?'
To try to answer these questions we have created a draft document with the help of some of our members. I have posted the current draft on the VizThink forums, here.
There is no charge to participate in the forums, although you must register to post.
Thanks in advance for your feedback -- and please, share your thoughts!
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from me.
