Why is perception so hard?

I recently read very interesting book, about neurosciences and thinking differently.

Basically, relates brain being energy efficient, meaning taking shortest path where possible. This means that if you look something, brains try to explain that based on your experiences what you see - the most natural reasoning. So you dont see what eyes see, but what brains explain them.
However, here comes interesting point, which is that every persons experiences are different, thus also the interpretation.

This can get interesting when seeing something new - brains try to explain it in a way they know.
The Fast Company has an excellent article describing this:

Explain the Internet for a 19th century street urchin

In order to break this there needs to be something knowingly unconventional to make brains break experiencr explaining and trying to learn what is whar you are looking for. This explains why also brainstorming at office does not work, and why you get ideas middle of night, or some place else than work.

This also means that having work requiring high tempo requires both skill and experience - on that specific area. And that misunderstandings on meetings are due that we are different, terms, background - sometimes even goals.

Thought originally writing longer article but this is sufficient now.

Social networks - a cognitive dissonance

Typically the term social network is connected to sites such as Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, blogs etc - whereas correct term could be digital social networks or social network areas, as they mostly are platform where social actions are exhibited. These platforms, venues differ from cognitive approaches from which communication methods are used to express on those.

I usually start telling how social networks evolved from early 70s to me - where my social network consisted people i can see; family, some others, like that funny person who lived in neighbourhood. And from there also to classmates. Also i got hints about larger network via black&white television we had at the time.

After i started to play baseball my social network extended over the borders of my suburb and town, and got to see other towns and teams we played against. This however meant mostly seeing likeminded people as playing the same sports, attended same camps etc.

Then something changed - social network extended to people i can only hear; we got a telephone, and not only that extended the social network country-wide but also internationally. Fast forward couple years and i had a computer (1982), and after couple years got a modem (300 baud) and account on computer systems which extended my social network to medium i can only read other people (no Turing tests involved). This got my social network into a digital aspect. Also included IRC etc later - with big difference on today's Facebook is that medium was trusted; one got account or access only by recommendations and this aspect has still followed into worklife where those readable bit writers are now CEOs, VPs, EVPs, entreprenours, military etc, and this is interesting aspect as network is important medium on decision making, businesses etc.

When i got drivers license my social network in analog world expanded even further - and i was even controlling it where it went, within the limitations offered by roads.

So in essence social networks can be divided on digital and analog. On medium where i can only read, see or hear the network or its participants, this also non-dependant of location. Nevertheless; if conversation happened online by writing; and you were not there to hear it - did it happen? (need to read it)

Engaging people

Engaging people.

In top of some relationship like things, the above is common leadership - method.

What does it actually mean?

For manager: others do what i vision
For leader : i am having dialogue with others what should be done. This way they feel more committed, and also this fosters unity, potential new solutions.

As the quote says:

If you want to build a ship, dont' drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders.

Instead, teach them to yearn for the wast and endless sea.

- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Influencing people.

what would batman do?


Influencing people...

Note the descriptions might or might not be fictious, i am using myself as an example - but it does not say if these have happened to me or not. Also the names have been changed where there is slight correspondence to analog world.

I am telling two different events, which show something on first part of this topic posting. Influencing is much more - takes from trend, history, character, behaviour etc and is not just observable fully on the event i am describing - situational leadership is the key. Which is reason i am continuing these.

Event 1.
Is winter, we are just about to head to present our project to big head honcho - there's some nervousness in the air (you think it is air you are breathing?). Person A approaches me wanting me to take lead on this, me replying it is not ok due that he has acted as main lead whole time, so he should keep focus on his stuff, sudden changes confuses the listener. Next i am suggested that we should make a "warplan" - which immediately sets alarm. Explanations below.

1.1 going through
The term "warplan" does not belong person A normal vocabulary - thus in this situation we are not a team/collagues anymore but i am tried to be manipulated. My interest has been long time military strategies,. So attempt to use words which are my interest is trying to engage me - problem is that this does rather the opposite due ; since we are not anymore a team but a group of people. Team goes towards common goal as colleagues. Group is individual person with or without common goal. Moreover attempt to manipulate is wrong and creates just bad.

What this should be learned upon;
for boss/manager : try to be interested on your subordinate stuff also in between similar stuff, with non-normal vocabulary you are not interested - you are trying to manipulate. nominate best person on lead from the beginning.
for subordinate : qualitative specs of your boss. Also sometimes you might observe on this that this is something he/she really wants to happen. Play accordingly.

Perception

At the times..

Writing this now after short delay from the earlier post. some may think short is not the case but time is subjective how it is thought. Some think one needs to have something happening all the time - for some they wait longer and observe the journey reaching the target - which might have changed during the trip.

This can be also relate to worklife, and how you set "cornerstones" to follow there. Quote below can be thought of crucial within traditional corporate life supporting self-promoting, defending turfs, and thinking career has been success if getting higher titles - some wrongly thinking title brings power, but power can be divided also into power and effecting power. Meaning position of title owner might be affected someone having influence.

The actual quote - from John Boyd, which he told for some of his subordinates when there was choice seen in the air:

Tiger, one day you will come to a fork in the road and you’re going to have to make a decision about which direction you want to go. He raised his hand and pointed. “If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments.” Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed in another direction. “Or you can go that way and you can do something- something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won’t have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That’s when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?

As traditional corporate life support being member of club (not black and white way though) rather than doing something good, it is constant self-promoting on having list of topics, which is quantitative approach, whereas more cost-effective and futureproof is qualitative. Sadly enough, quantative seems to be preferred usually.

This also brings "accepted way" of doing things. What if you would put your work in perspective of; studying n years for certain area, and then coming to work - to do stuff like it was done n+y years ago? Is the constant study just to survive doing old stuff? or being able to question what has been done, in order to make actual evolution? Or is the "renewal" only changing job to something else where things work similarly?

On the above, some professions also stick that if you don't have actual field experience for some years, one is not qualified to teach anymore the subject - what it would mean in practice? Of course we should learn from history, but also look into future - history being standing in the shoulders of giants to look further ahead than just inventing wheel again, and understanding Alan Watt's definition for time as past is made from the present, similarly like future is made from present.

Oh well, the whole post prolly is just a preface for the quote from Marilyn Ferguson, without specific meaning:

"If we continue to believe as we have always believed, we will continue to act as we have always acted. If we continue to act as we have always acted, we will continue to get what we have always gotten."